Search results

I’m playing it now. I’m running a westmarches campaign in Rob Conley’s Blackmarsh setting. I’m keeping it old school, mashing in some 1e and BXisms (focusing on turns and resource management) in the dungeons and wilderness exploration. My players have a stable of three characters each. Also...

not quite. The thief by default has a base 5% chance to find/ remove traps. They can put up to 30 skill points at first level giving them a possible 35% chance (allowing for further racial/ armour modifiers). They have that chance to find the trap which takes 1d10 rounds. They can keep searching...

I’m aware of that article and read it previously. It’s an interesting read and provides food for thought. A couple of critiques is that the Macini paper linked there seems to be all Swedish, but the images in the article seem to be referring to casinos. Here you are dealing with a larger number...

Huh funny, I’ve not experienced any appreciative slow down. Guess anecdotes are funny that way. Now, were the games redone to use ascending ac from the beginning, of course I’d probably use that as default. As is, my group are (or at least were) happily using THAC0 in our speedy combats. My...

Oh of course, that’s the beauty of the older editions, tinker with them as you will. Just useful to know that others are always happy to share their “fixes”

No, I’m saying the impact of THAC0 on calculation or ability to understand is grossly overrated. Now I get that it’s a preference to use positive numbers, I get that it’s easier to explain the idea of bigger is better. But that’s all it is, a preference. THAC0 is not a bizarre algorithm that...

There are several options to deal with this. One is to just use the B/X progression chart instead. Then what does the thief do after level 14? That's down to you. Grim Reaper's masterpiece of RC errata (found here: Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia Errata and Companion Document Download Page)...

Exactly! Hunting for all the situational bonus and buffs to add on (and remembering to add them) made 3.x much slower in that regard. I’m glad we are in agreement ;)

Conversely, with a 36 level spread, they did thieves a dirty on the skill percentages. Stretching them out over a wider level spread compared to B/X. This meant your thief was useless at being a thief for longer! It was a missed opportunity to give them something interesting at higher levels I feel.

Oh right, I get your meaning now, you mean the specific GM facing content? Yeah I’d totally support the idea of moving that to the sole purview of the GMG. Or even why not both? OSE offers a “complete rules tome” with everything in one package and a “players rules tome”, just the player facing...

Whilst I don’t dispute an increased cognitive load for subtractive operations, I hardly think the number range here is significant enough to warrant an appreciable delay. I’d instead be asking why my player was so distracted in my game as to really struggle with 19- 16....

This is my point though. Throughout a lot of their posts (not just on this thread) it is the consistent begging the question around a lot of pathfinder 2, even when the original question is unrelated (such as this thread who’s original focus was on the beginner box as a product and not the place...

Alternatively, the players can just do THAC0 - (roll + mods) = AC hit. This gets rid of the extra step and doesn’t burden the DM with the maths either.

Shrug. My issue isn’t with the the fact you dislike the game. I get that it’s not for everyone. My issue is with your arguing the reasons why, using your opinion that because it doesn’t use 5e as a base marks it as a failure, making other points as factual despite being again, opinion based...

Some of the contents of this post contain misleading information. Fact check: 1) many people in fact do love pathfinder 2. Some people do not. Like always, people like different things. 2) Many people throughout the years have struggled to move people away from the current edition of d&d to try...

I’ve not played the pf2 magus play test myself. I’ll leave that to more knowledgeable folks. however, the pf1 magus was a “workable” Gish of beauty mixing combat and magic. Obviously it wasn’t full caster/ full fighter (as again that would be unworkable at a table as too powerful) but it shows...

Opinion as fact again. “Nobody wants magic balanced with physical attacks. Evidence:4e” The fact 4e sold suggests that actually, some people did. Minority or not. That’s not nobody. Again, numbers aren’t the best way to demonstrate character potential in this edition, look more to the feats...

There’s that and it’s riddled with errors that you need the BECMI box sets to fully appreciate. Some clarifications were dropped in the compilation which can make some rules hard to parse (in particular the combat section). The magic user’s table is also wrong. Luckily, a chap called Grim Reaper...

I think this is tied to the philosophy of the way the designers have built this game. I would speculate that they were concerned about the number creep and ability of classes to step into others‘ territory and ruin a sense of balance. Maths wise, the classes and builds are fairly inflexible, a...

Hold on here. I don’t think you are being very fair. No one piled on to any new players. No one has shown any hostility to any new players In this thread. What I did see here though was your repeated claims of this when others were trying to help you out. I think this is definitely one of those...