Forums of the Megaverse®

Well, I'd love to contribute but is it why I prefer it to other Palladium titles, or to all games in the world?

-Vek
"I suppose I could do either."

Well for me it came down to a few reasons.

First the cost. Palladium books are a more cost effective way to play pen and paper RPG's (that means cheaper). To play you only really need 1 book, the Main RPG book that is, the others just add to your game. As compared to another *popular* RPG company where you need the Rule book, GM guide, and Player guide before you even get to the other books.

Second is the rules. Palladium Fantasy has one of the easiest rule set out there. And only boosted to a second edition, all that changed was SDC and a few minor things. They didn't elaborate on different rules, confuse the gamer and put out many extra updated rules.

Third is the "Flooding". Something a few have coined as useless dribble known as the open license. This puts anybody in the drivers seat of the DRPG, writting, changing, adding, ect. Anyone in charge to add anything they want (to an extent).
PFRPG has no "flooding". Palladium has one man to say what goes in and what makes no sense. Its his "baby", this has put one complete control over the line and has worked great for over 20 years.

Fourth is simple. Because I said so. Its just better, plain and simple. If your out to play an RPG look at two things cost and love. One company puts cost and expects money in their pockets, the other puts love into the book and gets love in return. Would you choose family over strangers? No. PFRPG is my family and I will stick with 'em through thick and thin...

The rules set

The skills list

THE MAGIC AND PSI SYSTEM IS VASTLY SUPERIOR.

Parry and dodge anyone.

Monsters as PCs without having to worry about CR.

More Role play friendly versus Roll Play of the other games.

Experience system makes more sense.

I could go on and on, but that would take up too much bandwidth.

Because I can have a wizard that fights with martial prowess, a soldier that knows about science and prose, and I get more XP for thinking my way out of a fight than beating the enemy up.

Well, I really like the combat system with the defender having a chance to actually counter the opponent. Sure it's not perfect but what is? What this system does is add a sense of dynamism to the combat where things are changing and it requires a lot more decision making in a fight.

I also like the setting. It is a much lower power level than most fantasy games. The sense of realism and grit is much more prevelant in the setting than many other systems. There is still a sense of fanstasy and wonder, but it just seems much grittier and makes the character seem more like a part of the world and not so much a character in a fairy tale.

The magic and psionic system makes these powers somewhat less potent than in other games. There are spells that allow you to obliterate things but they are difficult to attain and require enormous amounts of power. However, your poor level 1 wizard isn't J.A.F.O. He/she can still swing a sword and perhaps contribute. Also, with the PPE system you can cast more than 3 spells per day, even at the lower levels. You won't do a lot of damage but there are other things you can accomplish as a caster or psionic.

-Vek
"Just Another F---ing Observer."

How about: There's More Ways To Get XP Than Just Combat.

-Rodney

Unique combat progressions for each character class!



Um, we are talking about 1st ed. Right?

Quite simply the ease of use.

combat is quick and simple.
magic is quick and simple
experince table is superior for RP

IMO PFRPG is better than the other paladiums due to multiple OCCs (we use unlimited 1st edition).

I like the classes and the background. It's also pretty easy to learn. My favorite books are the Bill Coffin books. My only dislike no supprt for PF. I don't care what anybody says the Minion War books are not PF books. Also can we please not start cheap shots against D&D in this thread. If that's not too much to ask. There really is no need for it.

Sureshot wrote:I like the classes and the background. It's also pretty easy to learn. My favorite books are the Bill Coffin books. My only dislike no supprt for PF. I don't care what anybody says the Minion War books are not PF books. Also can we please not start cheap shots against D&D in this thread. If that's not too much to ask. There really is no need for it.

Have you seen the Minion War books to say that they're not PF books? I mean, really...

And if we can't cheap shot D&D, can we make perfectly valid criticisms of things it does poorly? Like anything above 9th level if there is a half-way competent wizard in the party? Or opposed skill checks?

MrNexx wrote:Have you seen the Minion War books to say that they're not PF books? I mean, really...

MrNexx wrote:True so I will reserve judgement untill I read them. Though what do you expect. It's not like PF has seen any love from PB in the last few years.

MrNexx wrote:And if we can't cheap shot D&D, can we make perfectly valid criticisms of things it does poorly? Like anything above 9th level if there is a half-way competent wizard in the party? Or opposed skill checks?

Talking about character classes and rules is one thing. Talking bad about the company and the OGL is another. D&D is not perfect neither is PB. THe whole big gaming company is "bad" routine is getting really old and tired. I wonder if I said the same thing about PF and PB if people would say it would be okay to talk bad about PB and PF. Probably not.

try dumping your D20 statted fantasy characters into Rifts or some other great (Palladium) game!

Can't do it hu?

that's why.


That and the guys at Palladium kick ass and put a ton of work into their books!
They actually appreciate their fans and try to do things the fans would find cool, not what they think is cool or what some marketing big wigs tell them to.

plus, if you've ever been to a con where the palladium guys set up shop you will know first hand that noone else can compete...they just kick so much ass!

highpriestrsw2 wrote:try dumping your D20 statted fantasy characters into Rifts or some other great (Palladium) game!

Can't do it hu?

actually i find it easy to drop a D20 char into pally...
the reverse, however, cannot be said to be true.

srgonzo wrote:7) No unnecessary dedication to game balance. Honestly, who would win in a fist fight, Stephen Hawking or Mike Tyson? SOME game systems would actually have you believe Mr. Hawking could win.

I am a horrible person. I laughed for a good 3 or 4 minutes straight at the mental image this sentance conjured.

Add in the Futurama bit with Stephen Hawking and Gary Gygax...
OMG.

<Stephen's chair is on top of a severly bludgeoned Tyson, talking smack in that robot voice>
"Get...offa...me"
"NOT SO TOUGH NOW. NOW I KNOW WHY YOU SOUND LIKE A B***H."

Kryzbyn wrote:

srgonzo wrote:7) No unnecessary dedication to game balance. Honestly, who would win in a fist fight, Stephen Hawking or Mike Tyson? SOME game systems would actually have you believe Mr. Hawking could win.

I am a horrible person. I laughed for a good 3 or 4 minutes straight at the mental image this sentance conjured.

Why? That chair he's in is pretty heavy. I wouldn't want to get run over.

What I love about PF? Geez, where to start? I've heard at the beginning is usually a nice place. So here's what I tell people when they're not sure they want to play Palladium, just to try and win them over.

"If you've ever played a roll playing game, then you're probably familiar with this scenario. Walking into a cave and finding a dragon waiting for you. The dragon procedes to stomp a mud-hole in your ass. The whole group dies just for disturbing the great Wyrms sleep! Now, just imagine being the dragon! How many games can you think of that allow that?"

'Nuff said.

palladium is simple yet complex

-Simple:I spent 1 night with experienced gamers(My first RPG experince ever) read the book for next 3 nights GMed 3 of my also noob friends and had a blast. Of course everyone was level 8 by the end of the night(we didn't quite heve the Exp thing figured out )

-Complex:One of my players (a Conjuerer,Dabolist,Summoner) Has a permanant supernaturaly strong nearly invincable fleet feeted Afreican White Tiger

insanigoth wrote:Overall, I've made most of the additions to help my own game and just added a new creature (Creeper Demon) this morning.

You should make a creature or two for The Monster Tome section at APFRPG.


Ø

The Palladium world is one of the richest, most elaborate and well thought out worlds I've ever seen. It has a rich history, and hints at things to happen in the future. The world is flexible enough to run a tough, gritty game or a high fantasy game and anything in between.

In short: it's just put together well!

I have recently started adding elements of Palladium Fantasy into my HU2 campaigns and they seem to complement each other nicely.

hello

what i like the most is diversity and the fact that OCCs and RCCs are of varying power levels. imo the exp system is also much better.
in D&D all classes and races have been balanced out so that they become nothing more than schematics where the bonuses shift a little from class to class. The races in D&D are also weird, there seems to be some hidden rule that says if you get attribute bonuses you also have to get some penalties which is silly really.
D&D 3,5 was made for 12 year old hack and slashers, you can only get exp for killing and fighting, skills like diplomacy, bluff, sense motive etc slowly replace actual roleplaying and last but not least players share all exp which is ridiculous. even a rogue or mage hiding in the background doing absolutely nothing gets his fair share - i hate it. palladium allows the gm to assign exp based on what players do which is a million times better.

thats all folks, BE

Blue Eyes wrote:hello
D&D 3,5 was made for 12 year old hack and slashers, you can only get exp for killing and fighting, skills like diplomacy, bluff, sense motive etc slowly replace actual roleplaying and last but not least players share all exp which is ridiculous. even a rogue or mage hiding in the background doing absolutely nothing gets his fair share - i hate it. palladium allows the gm to assign exp based on what players do which is a million times better.

I don't know which version of D&D you have read or played but this is absolutely false. I have played and run games that are more than hack and slash and that involve roleplaying. As for the skills you mention I ask my players to roleplay their action and not leave it just to a dice roll. As for assigning XP that is an outright lie. A DM can assign whatever xp he feels necessary for the situation. Nowhere in the rules do they restrict you or force you to do it a certain way or not give you the same freedom that the PF XP system has.

I find that D&D does somethings better than PF. Both D&D and PF are not perfect. I ask that you not make false claims about D&D. Nor assume that everyone who plays it is a "12 year old hack and slashers". I find it funny whenever someone says "rpg X encourages only a certain style of play". It's not like the company who produced it sends goon squads to your home and forces you to play the game the same way over and over again.

hello, i have played AD&D and D&D version 3 and 3,5, i have also played star wars, both the old game based on d6 and the new one based on d20. I have played like 15-16 different roleplaying games and systems over time and it is my honest opinion that D&D d20 has more problems than good things, let me try to explain why.
when you read the rules of D&D d20 it says nothing about that you have to explain your action before you roll your dice, and even if you did, success would still be determined by a dice roll. so intimidating someone, bluffing, diplomacy and similar skills are determined by dice rolls and not roleplaying, that is the rules, which is ideal for 12 year old hack and slashers.
i have read the game masters guide and the description of the xp system and my conclusion is that there is no xp system! in effect there are some tables the gm can look at for guidance when the players have killed something, but in the very same section it says that the GM can devide the xp by two, if he wants his players to advance slower, multiply it by 2 if he wants players to advance faster etc. it also has a paragraph on roleplaying where it states that good roleplaying should be rewarded, but only when a player makes exceptional effert and in "in character" for a whole evening, and the xp reward is ridiculously low when compared to what u get fr killing creatures. the part about "no existing" xp system others me, the players should e able to predict with some certainty the amount of xp they would get based on their effort and actions, which is not the case with D&D d20 since the GM can do whatever he wants.
then there is the issue with all players getting a fair share of the xp they have earned for killing stuff, again annoying and unrealistic. it is my experience as a gm for 14 years that there are always some players in a group (not necessarily the same each game night) that are more energetic and active then the rest of the group, these players need to be rewarded for their effort, and an xp system that rewards all equally nomatter what their effort was is just silly. free loaders and happy dice rollers is what you get with the d20 system.
it is correct that both systems have their flaws, but depending on what you are looking for in a roleplaying game you choose the one you like the most. i did not assume that everyone that plays D&D is a 12 year old hack and slasher, that is your words and your words alone, i was saying that i believe that is what they aimed for when they created the game, which is NOT the same. i didnt say that D&D encourages a certain style of play, again this is you putting words into my mouth, im commenting on what i have read in the books nothing else.
all i am doing is pointing out what i dislike, these are not false claims, it me commenting on the rules of D&D, i didnt make them. there are things that i like, like for example the idea of feat selection, but this thread was about why i prefer palladium fantasy. there is absolutely no reason to get personal and call me a liar, that is stepping way over the line and i would appreciate an apology.

Blue eyes let's go over what you said:

Blue Eyes wrote:The races in D&D are also weird, there seems to be some hidden rule that says if you get attribute bonuses you also have to get some penalties which is silly really.

It's not really silly. D&D is a system that for good or bad is made to be balanced. For every bonis theirs going to be a negative. I don't like it myself but I know that when I play D&D. If I don't want a balanced system like D&D I play PF

Blue Eyes wrote:D&D 3,5 was made for 12 year old hack and slashers

You intention may have not been to include myself or others D&D players with this statement but you do. It's a blanket statement. I could say "Rifts players are power gamers and munchkins". they are not. Some gamers like high level Rifts games where everything goes some do not. Same thing with D&D. It's not the rules that encourage "hack and slash" gaming but certain type of gamers. Or are you going to tell me that it's only D&D that attracts that type of player

Blue Eyes wrote:
you can only get exp for killing and fighting

Your DM might not use those rules but they are there. I wish there would be a more detailed xp system like PB but saying that the game has no xp system is false. It has it just not one to your liking. You expect every other game system to be like PB and in this case like PF. D&D is D&D PF is PF. I don't play another game system and assume it's going to be like my favorite game system all the time.

Blue Eyes wrote:
skills like diplomacy, bluff, sense motive etc slowly replace actual roleplaying.

I still don't understand what your gripe about the skills is in D&D. I compared both this morning and neither discourages roleplaying. Skills are skills. You don't need to be told how to roleplay them. When my I need to make a Bluff check I act it out. Same thing with an intimidate check. Same thing when I roll the Impersonation and Intelligence skills in Rifts. So with the skills issue you are complaing for the sake of complaining.

Blue Eyes wrote:
and last but not least players share all exp which is ridiculous. even a rogue or mage hiding in the background doing absolutely nothing gets his fair share - i hate it. palladium allows the gm to assign exp based on what players do which is a million times better.

I also dislike the fact that all players share the same exp. That being said it's not that much of a flaw and you can change or alter the tables. Using your example if a rogue or mage does nothing in the background give him less xp. You make it sound like the system is forcing you to do it a certain way it does not. I don't like some aspects of the PB system. I change and alter them.

Finally

Blue Eyes wrote:
there is absolutely no reason to get personal and call me a liar, that is stepping way over the line and i would appreciate an apology.

I admit I could have phrased it better but I'm not apologizing until you apologize for calling me a hack and slash type of gamer.

if you will not make an apology, then there is no reason for us to continue our debate, end of story

BE

Blue Eyes wrote:if you will not make an apology, then there is no reason for us to continue our debate, end of story

BE

I see it's okay for you to feel insulted and demand retribution. But if you insult someone you under no obligation to do the same. Well I'm not going to waste my time either.

Press wrote:myabe it is just the group i played dnd with but i never had a chance at succeeding in skills and perception rolls they were like you need a 35 and i would be like how is that possable with a d20
in palladium you have a chance no matter how slim there is alwas a chance

It depends on the level of the campaign. You don't see such a high number to beat at low levels but higher level to Epic level campaigns you do. For example to climb a perfectly smooth flat vertical surface requires you to beat a number of 70. To defeat an illusion with auditory component requires you to beat a number of 80. It's not a flaw of the game it's just that somethings cannot be accomplished until your character increases his abilities. Which is done by going up in levels.

Darkly Dreaming Sureshot wrote:It's not really silly. D&D is a system that for good or bad is made to be balanced. For every bonis theirs going to be a negative. I don't like it myself but I know that when I play D&D. If I don't want a balanced system like D&D I play PF

Druid w/ Natural Spell.
Cleric.
Wizard.

v.

Bard.
Ranger.
Warlock.

Ahhh, balance.

MrNexx wrote:

Darkly Dreaming Sureshot wrote:It's not really silly. D&D is a system that for good or bad is made to be balanced. For every bonis theirs going to be a negative. I don't like it myself but I know that when I play D&D. If I don't want a balanced system like D&D I play PF

Druid w/ Natural Spell.
Cleric.
Wizard.

v.

Bard.
Ranger.
Warlock.

Ahhh, balance.

Natural Spell is not all that unbalanced. It just allows you to cast spells in animal form. A druid in animal form is not indestructible and can have his spells distrupted just as a regular Druid in human form can. It just a little harder.

Cleric and Wizards are not unbalanced either. Sure the Cleric has some great buff spells and the Wizards has some devasting attack spells but there not that powerful. A cleric needs time to buff and if you think any smart DM is just going to let the Cleric cast buff spell after buff spell without doing anything your wrong. Same thing with the wizard. Plus don't forget about Dispel Magic which can remove some buff spells.

Whenever the topic of D&D Clerics and Wizards being overpowered and unbalanced comes up on this forum or on the Wotc forum the person starting the topic always assumes the ideal conditions. Any class in ideal conditions can be unbalanced and too powerful.

I've played a Cleric, Druid and Wizard in D&D and their not that unbalanced.

Darkly Dreaming Sureshot wrote:Natural Spell is not all that unbalanced. It just allows you to cast spells in animal form. A druid in animal form is not indestructible and can have his spells distrupted just as a regular Druid in human form can. It just a little harder.

It allows a druid to outshine a fighter in his own sphere (through sheer force of ability scores) while still being a primary caster. It's not an impotent ability; it's one that a druid has to have a pretty good reason to NOT take, and out strips pretty much any feat selection they can make as a 6th level druid or a 1/5 something/druid.

Cleric and Wizards are not unbalanced either. Sure the Cleric has some great buff spells and the Wizards has some devasting attack spells but there not that powerful. A cleric needs time to buff and if you think any smart DM is just going to let the Cleric cast buff spell after buff spell without doing anything your wrong. Divine Power is a standard action buff spell which makes you quite similar to a fighter (granting a +6 to strength, a BAB equal to level, and an additional HP per level, bringing your average equal to that of a fighter of equal level). Sanctuary provides several rounds to buff against lower will-save opponents.

Same thing with the wizard. Plus don't forget about Dispel Magic which can remove some buff spells.

The wizard's real strength isn't in buffing (though they can do that, too); it's in devastating the opponent's ability to attack; removing them from the fight, using what others have called the "save or lose" or "save or suck" spells. The blasting ability of wizards has been reduced with the advent of several changes to how D&D works from 2nd to 3rd edition, so while they're still potent combatants, their main role has shifted.

Dispel Magic, though, is less of a consideration. Against equal level opponents, it has only a 50% chance of succeeding until 10th level

Whenever the topic of D&D Clerics and Wizards being overpowered and unbalanced comes up on this forum or on the Wotc forum the person starting the topic always assumes the ideal conditions. Any class in ideal conditions can be unbalanced and too powerful.

Define the ideal conditions for a fighter to beat a wizard of equal level.

I've played a Cleric, Druid and Wizard in D&D and their not that unbalanced.

They easily can be... not with effort, but simply by playing them as written.

MrNexx wrote:It allows a druid to outshine a fighter in his own sphere (through sheer force of ability scores) while still being a primary caster. It's not an impotent ability; it's one that a druid has to have a pretty good reason to NOT take, and out strips pretty much any feat selection they can make as a 6th level druid or a 1/5 something/druid.

It still does not make them immune to damage nor making it impossible to losing a spell if they take damage. A Druid in animal form with or without Natural Spell is still a deadly fighter. Nor are they overshadow the fighter by virtue of being easier to hit. As they cannot use metal armor only natural armors and have a lower AC as opposed to the fighter. They may have better ability scores but a fighter with the right feats can do the same imo.

MrNexx wrote:The wizard's real strength isn't in buffing (though they can do that, too); it's in devastating the opponent's ability to attack; removing them from the fight, using what others have called the "save or lose" or "save or suck" spells. The blasting ability of wizards has been reduced with the advent of several changes to how D&D works from 2nd to 3rd edition, so while they're still potent combatants, their main role has shifted.

I agree to a certain extent Wizards with the right type of spells can be deadly but they still have to get them off and many offensive spells have saves. Second don't forget the unpredictability of dice. You can cast a 15D6 fireball and out of possible 90 points of damage roll a 30. Which happened to me by the way. Last it's offset by low hit points and poor Armor Class. Their are spells to offset that but while the Wizard is casting spells to buff himself he's not casting any attack spells.

MrNexx wrote:Dispel Magic, though, is less of a consideration. Against equal level opponents, it has only a 50% chance of succeeding until 10th level

That's still pretty good odds compared to some of the success levels of some of the spells in PF that's pretty good. Your never going to have a spell effect in D&D ever reach 100% not unless it's a high level game or a DM rules top that effect. The system is not designed that way.

MrNexx wrote:Define the ideal conditions for a fighter to beat a wizard of equal level.

That's a pretty unfair fight as imo a fighter will kick the wizards behind most of the time. But my point was that the unbalanced arguments about certain character classes always assume that the class has time to cast all his spells, is not being attacked and is facing a stupid opponent. Not to much on this site but so many examples of this show up on the Wotc forums.

MrNexx wrote:They easily can be... not with effort, but simply by playing them as written.

I'm going to disagree. If you have ideal conditions yes. How many times does that happen in game.

viewtopic.php?p=1418791

This is inappropriate for this particular forum; I've continued it in Other Games.

MrNexx wrote:http://forums.palladium-megaverse.com/viewtopic.php?p=1418791

This is inappropriate for this particular forum; I've continued it in Other Games.

You are right Mr. Nexx. My apologies to Zachary the First for starting a thread within a thread.