Search results

Thought experiment: Look at how gigantic the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is. Then try imagining how big it would be with some choice bits of the GMG stuff and all of Bestiary 1 in it. Now imagine it with assassin, warlord, priest, and warlock classes added to it. Yeah, we're gonna need 3 books...

Absolutely, why not have it as an option? It is hard to think of something that would be easier for a DM to pull out if she didn't want to use it.

Attacking has *always* worked that way, so nobody questions it (and another thing that most players I know seem to love is the experience of rolling that crit themselves so I'm guessing the psychological impact of turning attacks to a 'defender rolls' situation would also be negative.) As for...

I like the psychological effect of saving throws better than passive defenses. The player rolling to shake off an effect gives an illusion of control over your fate; YOU rolled the die, not the DM. One of the most common things I hear from new 4e players who played earlier editions after...

For one thing you're still stuck looking at the wrong name if you use the Character Builder and you print your sheet out, and you actually have to pick Pelor or whoever as your god in the builder and look at that on there too. And remember the channel divinity feats are only one example of this...

Plus, let's face it, Paizo is absolutely straining at the limits of the amount of work/product they can push out already. They're always scrambling to get things done. In order to take on 5e stuff on top of what they're already doing they would have to expand their staff massively and that's a...

Sure, except people are talking back and forth past each other using 'default setting' and meaning different things all over this thread. Clarity is important.

You don't see a difference between 3e domains (generic) with some suggested sample gods, and 4e's Channel Divinity feats (specific, with no generic alternative)?

This thread continues to conflate the idea of a sample setting with a default one and it is driving me crazy! I would propose the following nomenclature to make it clear which one you *actually* want when you say you want a default setting: Sample setting - like the Known World in the Expert...

What you describe doesn't have to be a *default* setting though; it can just be a sample setting. A default setting implies stuff from the world directly injected into stuff like classes or feats or prestige class/paragon paths in the core rules, which can be annoying to deal with if you're...

There should be a sample setting (example: the Known World from the Expert Set) but not a default setting (example: 4e.)

Sure, but who wants a completely codified system for social interaction? Say something convincing, get a +2 on that Diplomacy check. The verbal equivalent of flanking. It seems a pretty simple system and if the bonus is in the area of +2 it is hardly going to be unbalancing. Someone at the...

Descriptions of every monster's appearance using actual words.

Begun, the Saga Edition Wars have.

I think it is just a genericizing of "Combat Advantage" to all situations. There's not really anything implied about competition between players IMO.

The outlier here is the paladin who survived against multiple +10 level demons, not the ogre-bait paladin. The first death in the first 3.0 game I ever ran was a paladin killed in one hit by an ogre.

This is the core of the issue here. None of us can speak with authority as to what that stuff may or may not be.

I peg it at +3 myself. The spread between failure/success gets too punishing otherwise.

Isn't it like a year early to be asking this question?

I'm perfectly able to create a character by hand. The character builder is just far more convenient. No sifting through multiple books for feats, powers, etc.