PaizoCon 2014 Announcement Round-Up

Strange... For me, the pathfinder unchained link goes to an empty paizo-site screen, that says it's a log in screen.
On the new stuff: awesome! Looking forward to more details on pathfinder unchained!

I'm very curious where they are going with Unchained...

Very cool stuff. I look forward to more information soon!

I am excited by these announcements. Although I play a rogue in PFS and happy with it (I have played RPGs since 1980), I know that the rogue is a source of concern for many. I do hope that we see play testing. (Hmm, maybe in addition to improved defenses, the rogue can get something like limited damage from non-sneak attacks that reflects the rogue looking for weaknesses in a foe and finding them.)

Similarly, while I have not played a summoner, I know that sometimes summoners take up a lot of time in combat with a horde of summoned creatures. Also, a few people have told me stories about how syntheists have completely outclassed several other characters of equal level at a table. (To me, Rule Zero is that everyone at a gaming table should have fun.)

It sounds like everyone is having a great time at PaizoCon.

Arcturus24, I am experiencing the same error.

Strange... For me, the pathfinder unchained link goes to an empty paizo-site screen, that says it's a log in screen.

On the new stuff: awesome! Looking forward to more details on pathfinder unchained!

I suspect that the Pathfinder unchained page had been written up, and is sitting at that link, but set to 'staff only', so the site prompts you to log in to ensure you're the right person.

I remember last year Vic was heroically up gone midnight after the banquet, releasing the announced products to the wild. Suspect that similar is set up this year, just nobody's done the release stage

Does anybody else think that shemhazian demon mini has a cute puppy dog look to it? I'm not sure if I should be afraid of it or try to pet it.

Unchained is...interesting. I don't know what to think of it. However, if they can improve the classes significantly I'll be happy.

The Monster Codex looks cool, like that goblin mutant.

Giantslayer eh? Curious.

What is it about Valentine's Day that brings out the interest in horror? Usually we get horror movies at the cinema and now demon-based adventures for the ACG.

Definitely looking forward to Unchained. I loved Unearthed Arcana and can't wait to see something like it in Pathfinder.

I'm sure they would have mentioned it already if they had said anything, but was there any mention of upcoming class decks being announced?

I am curious about the Pathfinder Unleashed and a Giantkiller AP sounds interesting.

I'm hoping Unchained is their "unofficial" next edition. A creative way to evolve without disrupting the existing brand. I'll be all over Unchained to see how bold and aggressive they are when they're not chained to legacy requirements.

Why do the orcs look like half-orcs?

Ooh, fun artwork from the big little book of monsters!

A mongrelfolk goblin with a dash of snake, a dash of bat and a dash of dragonfly?

Ogre antipaladin or magus? (Oh hey, they are clickable-to-embiggen! It was a bugbear!)

Drow who wear actual clothes and not bondage-wear? Cool!

Nasty whip on that first gnoll!

Another look for hobgoblins. Interesting. Sort of deriving from the Golarion goblin-look, but much more threatening-looking. I like the Asian-influence on the second one, reminiscent of the 1st edition Monster Manual with it's hobgoblin samurai.

Those are some amazing looking orcs!

Great stuff! Really looking forward to Unchained.

Why do the orcs look like half-orcs?

That's a good question. I'm curious myself.

Joana wrote:

Why do the orcs look like half-orcs?

That's a good question. I'm curious myself.

I do believe Mikaze is behind it. :)

(I don't really know)

I'm sure they would have mentioned it already if they had said anything, but was there any mention of upcoming class decks being announced?

They're already available for preorder here.

Also see the announcement of OP on the right here ---->

Would love to see an optional set of unified Perception/Stealth/Invisibility/darkness rules in Unchained.

"Class changes" in Unchained are an easy way to bullet point a book still in progress, without saying anything of greater substance at this point about **what will specifically be changed**

Fundamental alterations to the underlying action economy during combat are, far and away, one of the biggest changes to Pathfinder from 3.5 that could be made. Apart from reworking the math behind high level characters, the problems with SR and saving throws (which will probably have to await a full blown PF 2.0 revision), changes to the action economy in the game are what interests me most.

In particular, MY biggest problem which is inherent to the design of Pathfinder/3.xx is the trade-off which favours STATIC MOVEMENT by mid to high-level characters engaged in combat. The trade off for a full round attack action in order to be able to inflict multiple attacks on a foe tends to always favour a rush to the middle and then minimal 5' step movement by melee combatants. And as the trade-off "cost" of movement during combat gets more "expensive" the higher level the combatants are, the worse the disparity becomes.

That underlying reality makes the combat element of the game BORING the longer an AP continues as it tends to rule out all the cool combat maneuvers which the game theoretically now allows. Not cool.

The problem tends to make most combats feel exactly the same. We need more variation not simply with environmental factors and theoretical combat maneuvers, but with an action economy system which does not punish those choices being used at 6th level and beyond. Low level combat should not, in practice, be more dynamic than high level combat. Nevertheless, it often is. That's counter-intuitive to me.

And this needs to be fixed. It's been 14 years -- and it's still screwed up.

That's always been my main beef with Pathfinder/3.xx and one of the few things which 4E improved upon. I'm interested to see what Paizo comes up with as options to mediate these gameplay issues.

Bring it!

I am kinda of interesting in the Pathfinder Unleashed....but one of the main things I liked about Pathfinder is the backwards compatibility of the game. While I am interested in what they will do...I think most of the options will not be used in my games.

Also I am kinda sadden by the fact they are reacting to what looks like me a vocal minority on these boards about certain classes needing to be 'fixed'. It usually lead to some very poor design decisions as it did with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.

But I am very excited about the Giant Slayer AP. I am wondering if the next one will deal with Drow, The Darklands and slaves in some way.

I am kinda of interesting in the Pathfinder Unleashed....but one of the main things I liked about Pathfinder is the backwards compatibility of the game. While I am interested in what they will do...I think most of the options will not be used in my games.

Also I am kinda sadden by the fact they are reacting to what looks like me a vocal minority on these boards about certain classes needing to be 'fixed'. It usually lead to some very poor design decisions as it did with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.

But I am very excited about the Giant Slayer AP. I am wondering if the next one will deal with Drow, The Darklands and slaves in some way.

I had a similar reaction initially, that the stamp-my-foot crowd "won". However, I trust Paizo to create interesting but not unbalanced options.

Hopefully, they'll be better developed and able to be integrated easily than much of Unearthed Arcana was (and I love that book, btw, but it's a mixed bag) or certain Ultimate Combat options were.

I'd like to see broader playtest support for more than classes for this book, honestly.

Wonder if the new classes will get playtest versions

John Kretzer wrote:

I am kinda of interesting in the Pathfinder Unleashed....but one of the main things I liked about Pathfinder is the backwards compatibility of the game. While I am interested in what they will do...I think most of the options will not be used in my games.

Also I am kinda sadden by the fact they are reacting to what looks like me a vocal minority on these boards about certain classes needing to be 'fixed'. It usually lead to some very poor design decisions as it did with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.

But I am very excited about the Giant Slayer AP. I am wondering if the next one will deal with Drow, The Darklands and slaves in some way.

I had a similar reaction initially, that the stamp-my-foot crowd "won". However, I trust Paizo to create interesting but not unbalanced options.

Luckily, you are under no obligation to use Pathfinder Unchained because its not a new edition. We don't even know if this stuff will be PFS legal.

Also I am kinda sadden by the fact they are reacting to what looks like me a vocal minority on these boards about certain classes needing to be 'fixed'. It usually lead to some very poor design decisions as it did with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.

Care to elaborate on this? Almost everything from 3.0 to 3.5 was an improvement. The only real issues were the updates to Sword and Fist in Complete Warrior, which had some of the most bizarre changes and fluff removal I've ever seen.

Though to be fair rogue has been fixed. It's called ninja now.

Luckily, you are under no obligation to use Pathfinder Unchained because its not a new edition. We don't even know if this stuff will be PFS legal.

See THIS by BPorter. It was written for Epic, but summarizes my feelings about some new content.

-- david

John Kretzer wrote:

Also I am kinda sadden by the fact they are reacting to what looks like me a vocal minority on these boards about certain classes needing to be 'fixed'. It usually lead to some very poor design decisions as it did with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.

Care to elaborate on this? Almost everything from 3.0 to 3.5 was an improvement. The only real issues were the updates to Sword and Fist in Complete Warrior, which had some of the most bizarre changes and fluff removal I've ever seen.

Though to be fair rogue has been fixed. It's called ninja now.

The Druid class is the most obvious example of this. In 3.0 the power level of the class was for the most fine. But since most people had a perception it was not worth playing in 3.5 they gave a power boost that made it too powerful.

John Kretzer wrote:

I am kinda of interesting in the Pathfinder Unleashed....but one of the main things I liked about Pathfinder is the backwards compatibility of the game. While I am interested in what they will do...I think most of the options will not be used in my games.

Also I am kinda sadden by the fact they are reacting to what looks like me a vocal minority on these boards about certain classes needing to be 'fixed'. It usually lead to some very poor design decisions as it did with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.

But I am very excited about the Giant Slayer AP. I am wondering if the next one will deal with Drow, The Darklands and slaves in some way.

I had a similar reaction initially, that the stamp-my-foot crowd "won". However, I trust Paizo to create interesting but not unbalanced options.

Hopefully, they'll be better developed and able to be integrated easily than much of Unearthed Arcana was (and I love that book, btw, but it's a mixed bag) or certain Ultimate Combat options were.

I'd like to see broader playtest support for more than classes for this book, honestly.

I ultimately agree with you and to look forward to see what they do...but I figure it should be said anyway.

What I'm most looking forward to is that new action economy! I loathe how static combat is, so if they make it more dynamic I'm sold. I love 1e's Unearthed Arcana and if this can be half as cool as that book then we'll be getting some really great stuff next spring.

The Druid class is the most obvious example of this. In 3.0 the power level of the class was for the most fine. But since most people had a perception it was not worth playing in 3.5 they gave a power boost that made it too powerful.

I'd have to disagree given how much better the animal companion was initially. The abilities on druid got shuffled around, and the only thing to receive a boost was wild shape. Wild shape was definitely a problem but it was mostly a symptom of 3rd editions problems as a whole rather than a pillar of them.

No, polymorph and beast shape were a problem in 3.5. Animal companions are good for a caster since it gives you an in built body guard, but I am not sure they are overpowering.

Well yeah they were a problem but they weren't the whole problem. They were an example not the core of it. The core problem was and still is the design philosophy where an entire class's shtick can be completely replaced by a single spell or small collection of spells.

Why is it okay for monks wizards to be able to do from level 1 what it takes monks over a dozen levels to do? Why is weapon specialization considered an important part of fighters feats when it is an awful feat completely outdone by even the simplest buff spells? Wildshape and animal companion do the same thing. They make fighters a class feature of any other class that does something else in addition.

In 3.0 ranger was so absurdly front-loaded that there was no reason to take it past level 2. 3.5 gave some incentive to play them to higher levels in the form of actual class features. 3.0 bard's performances were all based on ranks in perform meaning there was little reason to take it for more than one level. All the barbarian abilities were 3-5 levels later than than 3.5 counterparts making it feel inferior to fighter at all times, and generally not good at dealing damage due to how raw a deal power attack was. Paladins didn't get smite evil until level 2 and it was only one time per day one a single attack for their entire adventuring careers.

I have no idea what game you were playing but 3.0 was an awful AD&D imitator that only became passable with splatbooks. 3.5 cleaned up a lot of that and gave a lot of quality of life buffs to classes that desperately needed them to be relevant. Pathfinder offered a similar rebalancing, but still needs something more. We need a more radical change and abandonment of mechanics that don't work while maintaining the character customization that defines 3.P gameplay. Embracing some of the niche protection and freely given abilities of OD&D could be a start.

Those were orcs? before seeing the file name I thought they were wood giants or some sort of elf thing. Weird angle to take for orcs unless you are trying to make human-orc pairings more common.

Also...have we gotten any ANY announcements regarding new CS books or modules? There seems to be a lot less convention goer updates this year...

Hobgoblins that look like the Spider-man villain and less like pumpkin heads. This is a good change.

Wasn't there an AP seminar today where they would spill more beans about the Giant Slayer AP?

...have we gotten any ANY announcements regarding new CS books or modules? There seems to be a lot less convention goer updates this year...

They didn't make any announcements about Campaign Setting books or about Player Companion books, and no modules or map packs or flip mats, either. Everything Erik posted above is what they covered in the banquet. Pretty much to the letter.

I covered the whole thing here: LINK

We took bunches of pictures (the ones of the book pages sadly were not legible - the pages were already blurry and my wife's seat and iPhone did not help). Those pictures can be found here: LINK

So, yeah, Erik nailed it. He did write the presentation, after all.

I hope they take a look at the skill system as well.
Making skills matter at higher levels.

Also...have we gotten any ANY announcements regarding new CS books...?

The Customer Service: Guide to Subscriptions has not been formally announced yet :)

The Customer Service: Guide to Subscriptions has not been formally announced yet :)

Ooh, meta-products.

Stay tuned for Monsters of Paizo Revisited, with 'Ecology of' style articles for Cave Raptors (with the Cave Raptor Whisperer feat), Paizo Golems (and construction requirements thereof), Blinky the Triops (and rules for Triops familiars) and the Great Old One, Cosmo (complete with Domains and Favored Weapon).

No, polymorph and beast shape were a problem in 3.5. Animal companions are good for a caster since it gives you an in built body guard, but I am not sure they are overpowering.

3.0 animal companions were definitely broken, since they used HD as the only limit on a companion (and had to receive stealth errata almost right away - the original HD limit on animal friendship was 2*level, but they were pretty quick in saying "Oh, that's for sedentary druids, if you're out adventuring and such they're limited to just HD=level."

The problem was that it was pretty easy for a druid's animal companion to outshine a fighter. Sure, they only had 3/4 BAB, but they could more than make up for that with ridiculous stats (and consider that by the book, adding HD to an animal would often bring it to a larger size category which came with a whole mess of buffs), and the druid could easily buff the animal further with 3.0's long-lasting buff spells.

3.5 was a lot better in this regard, because there you had a list of possible companions when starting out, and add pre-determined abilities to them as you level up. You can also take better base animals at higher levels, but they will then get fewer by-level upgrades (a 10th level druid could either have a wolf with +6 HD, +6 natural armor, +3 Str and Dex, 4 bonus tricks, evasion, devotion, and multi-attack; or a near-vanilla dire lion with just an additional trick).

Pathfinder finally did away with relying on the MM/Bestiary altogether when it came to animal companions, and had them use stats from the core book.

Wonder how unchained will be handled in PFS. New options? Mandatory changes? All "optional rules" so nothing PFS legal?

A mongrelfolk goblin with a dash of snake, a dash of bat and a dash of dragonfly?

Or maybe a goblin beastmorph alchemist?

Wonder how unchained will be handled in PFS. New options? Mandatory changes? All "optional rules" so nothing PFS legal?

The Unchained Rogue could just be done up as an Alternate Class, like the Ninja (which some already regard as a 'fixed' Rogue anyway!), allowing someone to play either version.

Similarly, any Rogue Archetype that swaps out class features that the Unchained Rogue retains probably should be usable straight out of the box.

[…]

Also I am kinda sadden by the fact they are reacting to what looks like me a vocal minority on these boards about certain classes needing to be 'fixed'. It usually lead to some very poor design decisions as it did with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition. […]

Interesting, so over night the Devs went from being wise and trusted to being duped fools lured into something that "usually lead to some very poor design decisions".

John Kretzer wrote:

The Druid class is the most obvious example of this. In 3.0 the power level of the class was for the most fine. But since most people had a perception it was not worth playing in 3.5 they gave a power boost that made it too powerful.

I'd have to disagree given how much better the animal companion was initially. The abilities on druid got shuffled around, and the only thing to receive a boost was wild shape. Wild shape was definitely a problem but it was mostly a symptom of 3rd editions problems as a whole rather than a pillar of them.

Playing a druid from 3 to 3.5 I have to say Wildshape received a major boost(in allowing druids to self buff because now they could target themselves with all of those animal buff spells) as did their spell list.

Was most of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 good...yes...but some of the perception driven one was not so good.

John Kretzer wrote:

[…]

Also I am kinda sadden by the fact they are reacting to what looks like me a vocal minority on these boards about certain classes needing to be 'fixed'. It usually lead to some very poor design decisions as it did with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition. […]

Interesting, so over night the Devs went from being wise and trusted to being duped fools lured into something that "usually lead to some very poor design decisions".

Not saying it has happened yet...or overnight. Though really to 'fix' rogues maybe they should concentrate on making better Rogue talents...would that not be easier and actually better a fix the to scrape the old design completely?

How would all around quality of life buffs that don't assume trap finding to be a NEED THIS IN EVERY PARTY ability be harmful?

I figure it'd be probably about the same as the rogue, ranger, barbarian, and paladin buffs between 3.0 and 3.5 which were all good and needed.

Some interesting stuff for sure.

Giantslayer as an AP sounds promising con't wait for more info.

Pathfinder Unchained is interesting. I wonder how this will work with published APs and such. Hopefully it's a seamless integration and simplified high-level play.

Pathfinder Online still in a closed Alpha state?? Hasn't it been in development for almost 4 years? Does anyone still play MMORPGs? on PCs?

We took bunches of pictures (the ones of the book pages sadly were not legible - the pages were already blurry and my wife's seat and iPhone did not help). Those pictures can be found here: LINK

I wish I was one of those people who could squint at those pictures and figure out what they say.

MMCJawa wrote:

Also...have we gotten any ANY announcements regarding new CS books...?

The Customer Service: Guide to Subscriptions has not been formally announced yet :)

I need to go start a thread: Customer Service Bestiary 1 Wishlist.

Top contenders:
1} Dire Cosmo
2} Dread Cosmo
3} Cosmolyxtrix Demon
4} Advanced Abysal Cosmo Ooze

This book may informally be referred to as the Cosmonomicon.