Christ Centered Gamer

Truthseeker wrote:I'll look into Pathfinder to let you know my opinion, but my gut instinct is that I like 3.5 because I know it very well.

Yea, that's how I've always been but the more I read the Pathfinder SRD the more I'm loving it. It seems to have streamlined so much of 3.5

Pathfinder was created by fans of 3.5 who hated 4.0. They call it 3.75. It started in just the SRD form then produced books later on. I really like what they've done to it. It looks like you can do a lot more with your character and still have it balanced. You get feats every other level and on top of that, you gain so many cool abilities. The bestiary is extensive which is awesome for me not to mention they have rules for SO MANY classes. The classes seem streamlined. It's like they took 3.5 and ran through it with a fine toothed comb.

Honestly, this will be a learning curve for me too, but just from first glances, it seems like a better system.

what is my initiative? I'm quite sure my damage is a 6 sided die

Gonna vote for sticking with what we've got.

I vote to stay with what I know, D&D.

Pathfinder seems like it might be better to learn on the side, and then start a new PF game at a later date.

I've been looking at Pathfinder and it's cool and shiny. I like it a lot and it gives a lot of new toys to play with . . . buuuuut from a selfish perspective I worry my character is not adaptable. I'm using a variant rule that was devised for 3.5 and has no equivalent in Pathfinder that I can find. The rage ability for Barbarians in pathfinder has been changed a lot due to the addition of rage powers, so there's no telling what the balance would be if we tried to recreate the variant in Pathfinder. I allocated my stats with the variant in mind. I've already indulged in characterization that I never would have if my character did not have a rage ability. If we retroactively say he never had rage, then he's acting like a lunatic for no reason, which is not the character I had in mind.

Maybe if there was a good in-story reason to change my character into a standard druid I could get behind pathfinder.

ccgr wrote:what is my initiative? I'm quite sure my damage is a 6 sided die

According to this table, you do 1d8. Also, looking at your crit attack, it's 19-20/x2, which means if you roll a 19 or 20 on your attack roll (natural roll, which means before you add in your attack bonus), your damage gets doubled.

Well done.

Actually, I think critical hits work a little differently then that. When you role within the range, you do a second attack roll. If that attack roll hits the creatures armor class, then the damage gets multiplied. Otherwise it's normal damage.

Also, certain creatures, like undead, are immune to critical hits because they don't have vital organs. Getting stabbed straight in the heart doesn't do extra damage when you're already a dead body.

Truthseeker wrote:Actually, I think critical hits work a little differently then that. When you role within the range, you do a second attack roll. If that attack roll hits the creatures armor class, then the damage gets multiplied. Otherwise it's normal damage.

Yep. It got nerfed (Older editions had a 20 (or 19-20 or w/e) auto multiply). ya do need the second roll. Failure to hit with the second attack doesn't mean the attack fails, just that it's not a crit.

Ahh, thanks for the clarification.

@TS-BUT EVERYTHING IS SOOOO SHINY!!! I have to have it!!

That's cool. I just wanted to get everyone's opinion. I may start a second game in the future and run it as pathfinder. I like the idea of a steampunk world.

Though we could use the ptolus rule set and bring guns into the equasion. The ptolus player's handbook is free. The actual game setting, which is Monte Cook's actual homebrew world, is $100. The book is about 1,000 + pages and has intimate detail for so many things. This is like gaming with Monte Cook as the DM of sorts. It's pretty epic.

In any case, regarding the crit thing, it's considered "confirming" the crit. Since this is a play by post and less rolls the better, should we (as a house rule) do away with the confirmation to keep things streamlined. This means that it works both ways, if a mob crits you, you automatically take the alotted damage.

WHAT SAY YE?!

I don't mind either way; whatever you think best as DM. It's not too much work to edit your post and confirm the crit.

I'm clueless either way

fathom123 wrote:In any case, regarding the crit thing, it's considered "confirming" the crit. Since this is a play by post and less rolls the better, should we (as a house rule) do away with the confirmation to keep things streamlined. This means that it works both ways, if a mob crits you, you automatically take the alotted damage.

I say yes

I don't know . . . essentially doubling the crits our characters receive from monsters could be harsh at low levels where hits are already taking half our hp. It sounds dangerous to me, especially in a game with a lot of undead who we can't critical hit back. I just think based on the game so far this proposed rule would hurt us more than help. If we're deciding this democratically then my vote is no unless we find that we're getting really bogged down in it.

What if the GM just rolled confirmation rolls for people who forget to do so in order to keep the game moving? Otherwise, it is kind of straight forward. If you notice the natural roll (what the dice say before you add stuff) is a in the weapon's threat range (20 for most weapons, or 19-20 etc. if your weapon his that range listed), then edit your post to include another attack roll for the same weapon and label it as a critical confirmation roll.

I lean toward confirming the crit