Search results

I feel sorry for the kings' daughters in that world.

It's just a playtest document in book form. It's not intended to be anywhere close to the equivalent of the PF1 CRB.

I disagree with you specifically regarding PF/WAR, and in general. I still miss the art of Jeff Easley, Clyde Caldwell, and Larry Elmore gracing the pages of my D&D books.

I hope they ditch the "X Casting" in the spell statblocks. It's clutter and redundant. "[A] V [A] S [A] M" would be better. You only have to define "V", "S", and "M" once in the Spellcasting chapter. Is the unmodified damage for sling bullets 1d6 + 1, or is this evidence of Dex-to-damage being...

While there may be a lot of ideas from 4E going into PF2, I don't think its enough to make a 4E fan give up that edition. PF2 lacks AEDU, which I see as the mechanic that defines 4E, the reason to play or not play that game.

Ooh, not me. I'm always hated paleovancian casting, and I immediately fell in love with the 3.0 sorcerer and have never looked back. For me, it's just the freedom to spam your attack spells when you need them instead of being stuck with knock as your only spell. Upcasting is not always just...

While the merits of allowing characters to craft their own equipment is debatable, I don't feel the notion of "spells on a stick" is debatable, at least in the context of healing. No, AD&D didn't work "perfectly well" in this regard, because healing was only accessible through potions and two of...

Man, I've played with dick DMs before, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Just claim you're like the guy from my high school games, who played a human male sword-and-board fighter in every single campaign. I agree that you should hide your audacity to plan a character ahead of time. The only...

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE! I certainly won't argue that 4E elevated the slaughter to war crime levels. I see it as being afraid to go full psionic, but I'll take it nonetheless. :)

i went even further, baking all the bonuses that would go into rolling attacks into the final number (BAB, Weapon Focus, magic weapon bonus, ability bonus, etc). I had a table with a row for each weapon, and multiple rows if I was a ranged specialist for Rapid Shot and the like.

I won't dispute your (and many others') experience regarding high-level play, although I will say that I had a blast playing a sorcerer to level 30 (yeah, the epic level rules sucked, but they were all we had!). That group had 12 (!) people, so even the low-level combat was tedious, so it's hard...

The way they used to be, because it was not a problem that needed fixing (at least with respect to consumables).

I'm not sure what you're talking about. 2E had multi-attacks, and the schedule of when they happened was accelerated if you specialized. I'm pretty sure this rule went as far back as 1E, as well.

With the exception of Concentration (the Highlander-ification part, not the get-hit-make-a-save part), I like the changes that 5E made to the spellcasting system as a whole. The paleovancian sacred cow was finally slaughtered, and if you squint the upcasting mechanic kind of looks like a step in...

How... inelegant. If wizards can heighten just by preparing in a higher level slot, sorcerers should be able to heighten by spontaneously casting from a higher level slot. By forcing them to swap the lower level version to get the higher level version, they lose the ability to cast the lower...

Groups 1 and 2 seem like the same group of players, since Pathfinder IS that "something with even more options", and I dispute the notion that 5E belongs in the 3.PF family. Group 3, in their willingness to play games other than 3.PF, to me fail to live up to the definition of "adherent". 3.PF...

Considering the vast majority of them probably switched to Pathfinder, and how Pathfinder is the main competitor to 5E for the mantle of "most popular edition of D&D right now", you're absolutely right. Maybe it did. I can't dispute that, except to say it didn't "win over" this 3E diehard. :)...

You need a feat to heighten? I have really missed a lot then. My recollection of the Wizard post made it seem like something that was part of the system (like 5E).

I was with you until this. 5E is successful, cannot deny that, but to attribute that success to 3E players giving it their blessing couldn't be less true. People who like 3E like it for the density of its rules, and the depth and breadth of its character building options. 5E's rules system is...

This is disappointing. Wizards have no such restriction on how many spells per day they can heighten, do they? First Paizo fails to kill off paleovancian casting, and then they nerf the class that is supposed to be our refuge from it. Blah.