The Quasi-perpetual Pathfinder Thread

[kenada]

It looks like they’ve made the Pathfinder RPG SRD available online.

[BobChuck]

Pathfinder is... interesting.

It corrects many of the problems with the class balance in 3.5, and cleans up things like Grapple, but keeps most of the rules. Unfortunately, this means the wonky leveling progression is preserved.

It's my brother's new favorite system, and I like it too, but it's not D&D any more than 4th is.

[Measure Zero]

You're right.  The only real D&D is 2nd edition without PO.  3rd edition was an abomination for adding all that unnecessary complication and for basically forcing battle mat usage.

[BobChuck]

3rd at least respected the history of the game, and large parts of the old settings. 4th tossed all that, and since it's technically owned by WotC Pathfinder can't reference most of it.

I think D&D is dead. I'm not sure when it died, exactly; the later end of 3.5 was completely nuts. I'm not sure what I think it means.'

In any event, Pathfinder as a game has potential. If someone chooses to run it come Fall Quarter, I'd be interested in trying.

[Measure Zero]

D&D without Mystara is not D&D.  It, and not Dark Sun or Forgotten Realms, is the setting required for true D&D.

[kenada]

3rd at least respected the history of the game, and large parts of the old settings. 4th tossed all that, and since it's technically owned by WotC Pathfinder can't reference most of it.

I'm not sure I follow how having one particular default setting or another makes a game 'true D&D'. Care to elaborate?

In any event, Pathfinder as a game has potential. If someone chooses to run it come Fall Quarter, I'd be interested in trying.

I could almost be convinced to try it out if not for the fact that I expect to be playing in and running two games already on Saturdays this fall.

I definitely wouldn't want to run Pathfinder RPG or any other 3e/3.5e compatible game. The things that Mike mentions here make 4e my preferred system to run in spite of some aspects that I dislike.

[BobChuck]

yeah. That's the problem with Pathfinder; it's inherent to how 3rd edition was designed, and Pathfinder is just another revision of the same fundamental system.

A character of Level X is twice as strong as a character of level X-2. Building encounters to challenge players is not all that difficult, but putting them together and balancing XP and Gear over a whole campaign is rough. I know; I've done it. The only way to keep up is to have an intentionally rough map of where the campaign is going and what will happen each session, and keep the exact stats and gold and such nebulous until the week before; trying to plan a month in advance is a waste of time.

Still, the classes look relatively balanced.

[Measure Zero]

A character of Level X is twice as strong as a character of level X-2.

A magic-using character, you mean.  I don't think gaining two levels doubles the power of a fighter or rogue.

[BobChuck]

That's the power curve the 3.X rules assumed and used.

You are correct that certain classes, such as Fighter, did not follow that curve, which is why they sucked so hard, and I think Pathfinder has fixed this issue. But the power curve was quite explicitly one level X = 2 level X-2. It's right there in the CR formulas.

[BobChuck]

Because we need a place to stick all the stuff that doesn't go any other place, but isn't worth making a whole thread out of.

So, it's rather annoying that Kenada and I are the only two people posting in this thread. My brother doesn't use forums... ever, really, and I suspect that Trevor is the same. So I don't really know what the solution is.

[kenada]

Trever checks them sometimes, but not daily.

[kenada]

Hey Rob, I’ve got a question regarding cover.

Let’s say we have a barbarian, a fighter, and a wizard in combat with an ogre. The battlefield looks like the following.

..W..
.FB..
.OO..
.OO..

If the wizard casts magic missile (non-defensively), does he provoke? I’m thinking that he does not.

The wizard is at range, so the ogre must use the rules for ranged cover when determining whether the wizard has cover. The ogre is large, but no matter which square you choose, the two meat shields will always block some of the lines traced from one of his corners, giving the wizard soft cover.

According to PFRPG 196, “You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.” Assuming that when they say ‘cover’, they mean any form of cover (i.e. cover, partial cover, improved cover, full cover, and soft cover), then I think our pointy hat gets to shoot the ogre unmolested.

Am I reading this right?

[BobChuck]

That would be my interpretation as well, but to get an answer with more confidence, I have posted this on the pathfinder rules forum.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/rules/reachMeleeSoftCoverAndAttacksOfOpportunity&page=1#0

[kenada]

Thanks for posting that over on the Paizo boards. I noticed that while working on my DM screen last night. There are an amazing number of rules and special cases in Pathfinder compared to 4e. It’s funny that in spite of the additional complexity, 4e combat is still slower to run than 3.5e (and presumably Pathfinder) combat.

I’m going to post my DM screen once I’ve finished it. I need to do some revision of the skill charts because the current ones are too verbose, which is keeping me from including the break item charts, lighting and visibility charts, and combat modifiers charts on the screen itself. I don’t have space for the knowledge skills chart either. WTB 5-panel DM screen.

Edit: This post suggests that even though the wizard has soft cover, it doesn’t really matter because melee attacks are unaffected by soft cover.

[BobChuck]

And the other two suggest that it does stop AoO.

It's unclear, still.

meh. your call. Odds are we'll only have one melee person anyways.

Still, I'm all for the "yes the cover stops AoOs". It helps the wizard (me) and provides extra tactical options, which is always fun.