Search results

Emphasis mine. Thank you for that. A Climb check to catch yourself would be appropriate, but the DC would be a lot higher than 5-- you're talking about a DC 35 check to catch yourself "dangling by your hands".

Wow, that's embarrassing. Thank you.

No, there's no save to catch the edge by RAW. If you want to give them a "saving throw" to avoid falling into the pit, subtract 10 from their CMD and add a d20 roll. If you want to make Bull Rush less of an "instant win" tactic, advise the victim to use their AoO to initiate a grapple.

I'd like to see something similar to AD&D multiclassing (like 3.X Gestalt or 4e Hybrid) supported with a limited feat multiclassing mechanic.

It seems to me from play experience that combat takes the same amount of time in either game. The key difference is that combat in Pathfinder is slower, while combat in D&D4 is longer-- a 4e combat will require several more turns to resolve, while the Pathfinder combat will take longer for each...

Well, now, that's six of one or a half dozen of the other, isn't it? :)

It would have eased my mind a lot more if the poll hadn't been anonymous.

See, I don't think that a "Warblade" is any less iconic than a "Fighter" if you just called him a "Fighter" in the first place, which is essentially what 4e did.

And me, with all of my technical vocabulary and legalistically precise grammar? High-school dropout.

Courtesy of frankthedm: My Paladin killed a child molester (and now my DM wants to take away my powers!) Probably the worst example I can think of, but this is pretty much what all Paladin alignment threads look like to me and why I will never, ever play the class without my order's Code of...

In the sense that I want all of the core classes in the PHB to be of comparable power level? Yes, I am going for power. Game's called Dungeons & Dragons, not Spellcasters & Sidekicks.

I would go so far as to say at this point that if Wizards of the Coast published a new edition of the game that followed the design principles of the 3.X rules and made them that much more appealing to the 3.X fanbase, they still would not be capable of reclaiming the market share they lost to...

Man, I wish I could set foot in New York City for this.

I just took all of the Assassin and Shadowdancer class abilities and made them Rogue Talents in my Pathfinder House Rules. That way you could have a pure Martial Rogue or Assassin from one Rogue class, or you could choose how much Shadow you wanted to build in.

In that case, yes, I would say that is their core customer base. Or at least, that it was; I think they've developed their own fan community to the point that even an official WotC re-release of 3.X D&D wouldn't put them out of business.

There's nothing wrong with the morality in D&D. I just wish some of the people who played it would wake up and smell the napalm; there's more to the world of moral philosophy than liberal Western jurisprudence and the Comics Code Authority.

I don't think it's accurate to label someone a "4e defector" when they never switched to 4e in the first place. I would argue that the vast majority of Pathfinder's success has come from people who wished to continue playing with the 3.X rules, but Paizo's also carved out their own market niche...

About the poll: I lied.

I'd replace the Fighter and Monk with the Warblade and Unarmed Swordsage and add the Marshal and the Warlock.

High Intelligence doesn't mean that you're an intellectual or even educated, and trying to "talk Ph.D" all the time is actually going to make you less credible unless you have that kind of educational background yourself. The trick to playing a very high Intelligence character credibly is to...