Search results

Except the pathfinderizations, it looks a lot like the system I created for D&D 3.5. http://www.enworld.org/forum/entry.php?421-XP-less-Advancement-amp-Action-Point-Variant-(3-5)

That's pretty much what I asked in post 5 and he answers in post 6.

Fair enough. Not strictly in the context of simplifying, but whenever I make houserules, I strive for "maximum transparency" of the house rule. In other words, I try to minimize the impact the rule has on the rest of the game so as not to compromise the utility or balance of the rest of the...

Honestly (and you knew this post was coming), why play Pathfinder? Sounds like you should go out and grab Swords & Wizardry or Labyrinth Lord instead of re-inventing the wheel. If you invited me to a Pathfinder game and then presented me with your house rules, I would feel misled, as what you...

I don't think it's matter or "letting". I think it's a matter of the way the mechanic works. Spells are design so their use is more limited, but characters are much more free to add new spells as they progress. This makes the task of the DM playing "goalie" a bit more daunting. But certainly...

A cursed ring that spies on the user as in The Beastmaster.

In PF, martial characters are veritable damage machines. Further, many of the "niche stealing" effects have been removed, and many of the all-too-convenient spells that wormed around the weaknesses of casters in 3.5 are not present in PF (e.g., no spell resistance conjuration effects that are...

I'd say they got a modest power-up. More so if you are using Ultimate Combat.

I don't mean to slight you, but how many games of this have you actually played? A Zen Archer can be hell on wheels, but mixed in with 3 caster levels, I can't help but think that this character is all Barkskin and no bite. I wouldn't be too surprised if they monk takes little damage but also...

Yeah, we had a lot of fun with Bushido. It had some well meaning simulationist bits that had some unintended consequences and wasn't as high fantasy (I guess is the best term I can think of) as I had hoped. But some of it was absolutely inspired. I always loved their cumulative success...

Exactly. Tags are a suboptimal solution. If you had a check-box setup where you could just filter out specific tags, then it would be workable.

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I recently considered cross posting a querry to several forums because, well, it was a general D&D thing not specific to a certain edition, and there was no reason I had to limit my respondents. But there is enough of a paradigm shift between some editions...

We will probably finish book 6 in the next session or two (knowing my group, two). Albeit I am using Fantasy Craft, so level was sort of irrelevant to me. SPOILERS FOLLOW Book 1 worked really well for us. Book 2, the beginning (up to the hermit) and the end (from Kalabuto on) worked for me...

I'm not angry, as I do understand that the magazines might not have been money makers for them. But I do consider their passing unfortunate. Though the utility of the issues waxed and waned, in total they proved (and still prove) a great font of ideas for the game.

Never bought any books, never played (did watch a few games, that's about it). Very early on, I could tell they were actively scuttling things about the game that I find to be essential for D&D.

I play in a Pathfinder group At home I run Fantasy Craft

If he was going for a Zothique/Dying Earth sort of setting, then choosing astronomically significant timeframes might have been purposeful. These stories do picture Earth as a much changed (or dying) world. Of course it's science *fantasy*, so it might not be worth dwelling on that overmuch.

Shades of Zothique! Of course, this is a good thing. Intrigued.

3.5 as houseruled to ignore more matt-centric rules they added between 3.0 and 3.5. Really, 3.5 had figured out a lot of things about the system and started to do many things right. But 3.0's approach to size and cover worked better for me, since I am sort of one of those "mind's eye" sort of...

(Not having visited the site for a bit and just read that I had a mention, this is a delayed reaction post...) I find it a bit amusing that my words are being use to espouse simple games, because I personally don't like them, even though many of my fellow oldtimers tell me I should. I will say...