Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Red Dragon

Auxmaulous's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,438 posts (2,503 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Logan1138 wrote:
Adjule wrote:
Oryou can do like so many others, and not allow rez magic if revivify is not something you like.

Yeah, I know, I could do that but the number of things I would have to change (if I even ran a session....I don't DM much) is starting to mount to an undesirable level IMO.

I am just getting an overall vibe of "too powerful, too easy" from 5E at this point. I like gritty, low-fantasy in my D&D and 5E (at least what I have seen so far and it is still early days) is looking like 3.X/PF/4E in terms of PC power and non-lethality. Plus, as I stated earlier, I don't really run games as DM that much (I kind of suck at DM'ing), so I wouldn't have control over which elements are removed.

I was really hoping that 5E would be the system that allowed me to get back into gaming in a serious way. Finding people who want to play "old-school" rules (B/X Basic and 1E AD&D) in face-to-face settings is pretty difficult so I was hoping that 5E could allow me to game F2F (I don't like PbP gaming) using rules that I enjoyed. The more I see of 5E, the less I think that is going to happen. Maybe the DM's guide and its "dials" can save this situation (for me).

This is why I'm going to dodge the PHB - but yeah, it is starting to look like too many core components are default very high power or sets the game at very easy mode. This goes to my earlier posts concerning design philosophy. If Wotc is assuming that people want at will cantrips and full overnight healing as a default, then how are they going to lay out the rest of the game as the systems unfold?

Looking like I will be waiting on the DMG - and now at this point I don't think they will come through with what I want. Again, it's looking more like it won't be an option to run this like an older system with a system overhaul, but more likely a new system that has some trappings or "old-like" or "old-ish" but not the same. I don't think the DMG is going to provide us old-schoolers what we are looking for. At this point the DMG would have to have a bunch of strike-throughs or omit this from the Basic/PHB books since the big issues are not what the DM has as a guide but the core rules the players are using to make characters and play the game (spells, healing, etc). If the players are using the PHB (with default high power) with the DMG has optional overrides it is going to create some major confusion and conflicts in groups. Player A is going to see X feature and want it, while Player B sees Y feature and want it - while the DM using his new DMG has both of those overridden by a side-box.

Maybe the way they will manage something Revivify is to not change the spell, but to change the rules in the DMG about handling negative hp or Death?

Haven't had time but I really need to read all the spells. They were what broke 3rd ed for me (and by extension - all the magic items, buffs, stat boosts, etc) so this is where some core system problems may lie.

--------------

I'm with Logan, it is starting to look more and more like it will be too much work and too many minor changes to track. Lucky for me I have C&C and all my 1st and 2nd ed books. Too bad, I was going to run a 5e version of L1 - The Secret of Bone Hill.

I really wish FGG/Necromancer would put out a rules mod book for 5e in addition to more spells and monsters book for the new system. I think with that crew creating a formal book of mods it would be easier to use instead of the upcoming PHB. By easier - I just mean a printed hardcover I can hand to my players instead of the PHB or a redacted printed Basic doc.

I'm leaning more towards not supporting this as a system - I still think some of the features are very good ideas: Bounded Accuracy, no x-mass tree, limited buffs - they just should have started with a lower powered baseline and worked up from there.

Ah well

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
You did state earlier up thread that you (personally) did not feel that Wotc did anything wrong with the pdfs (a sore spot for many people here) and that they (Wotc) were in the right both legally and morally. You have to understand that while you feel this way, many people here do not.
I certainly do understand that. But people get upset at a wide range of things. It's not always reasonable or fair to get upset (or worse, hostile) at a given person/event/company, but I feel like that idea isn't given the time of day in the gaming community. When someone questions whether a certain hostile reaction is reasonable, it tends to be met with additional hostility. I'm not surprised by this, but that doesn't mean I think it's appropriate. It's unpleasant, and it makes actual discussion very difficult (if not outright impossible). I don't feel like the gaming community tends to have stronger emotional reactions than other communities, but I do feel like the gaming community tends to react with those strong emotions to relatively minor issues. It's a matter of proportion.

I agree it isn't fair because it isn't based in rational thought.

Gamers take an edition of what they like very personally, maybe even as a reflection of who they are, how they like to play, what gaming means to them in their lives - when in reality the games are just a sum of rules to guide us in an experience. We are after all talking about a game here - but again, it's more. That game and collection of rules, numbers and design in various incarnations is what we do to pass the time away. I remember many a tough day - losing someone I love, having some kind of life crisis - so much so that I don't want to game..and then a week or two later while the problem is on my mind I DM and for a few hours I forget my problem - or I give my mind a break to get perspective.

Gaming is our lives. I know it's my life and I'm not ashamed to say that.
That's the reality - so you are going to get very human (re: irrational) responses when aspects of it/our lives are being perceived as being attacked, slighted, challenged or changed. Involve an investment of money (all those edition books I paid for) or a perceived loss of money (I was cut off from my pdfs by X) and you are going to get some very agitated and opinionated people.

I get your motivation in trying to scale this back to a like/dislike format sans attacks, rage and rhetoric. I just think you might not realize that these games are a integral part of our lives and the way some people may feel about their game and the parent company is on par with a sports fan and his support of his team and their owners (love/hate). I wish people could step away from the emotional approach - but I also see the source and reason why it's such an emotional and irrational subject.

Trying to fight the irrational with appeals to rationality is both admirable and futile effort. The more emotional investment people have, the greater the bias they are going to have - I just don't see this having a positive or productive outcome for such a charged subject - if you agree or disagree with how "charged" it actually is not going to matter to those who do. Asking people why they are so upset may force some introspection or questioning, but if they source it as X, Y and Z reason they are probably not going to go much further than that because they already have their answer and now they see you as challenging their X, Y and Z experience and reasons.

Anyway - had a better post that got et by the boards. Need to get to work.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
I don't think you are being uncivil Scott - but you are being dismissive and showing a considerable lack of empathy on the matter and that's what seems to be causing the problems.

It's difficult (for me, at least) to be particularly empathetic to the sort of person who refers to an entire company (a number of employees of which I have met, gamed with, and shared drinks with, and who struck me as genuinely cool people) in a hostile or insulting manner. You can call the decision shortsighted or whatever, that's fine, but "savages"? You may view a lack of empathy on my part as the root cause of hostility in this thread, but I don't - this thread's tone was hostile well before I started posting in it. The only difference is that the hostility became personal, rather than simply being directed at a company people don't like, once people realized it could be directed at people disagreeing with them instead.

That said, I appreciate the support, as it were.

Fair enough - I think that this being paizo's forums with many people initially coming here during the early edition wars may factor into the bias against Wotc and any of their post 4e offerings. So it was probably hostile coming in - and I don't think you should be blamed for the actions and slights (real or imagined) of a company.

You did state earlier up thread that you (personally) did not feel that Wotc did anything wrong with the pdfs (a sore spot for many people here) and that they (Wotc) were in the right both legally and morally. You have to understand that while you feel this way, many people here do not.

But I agree - the edition warring and excessive bashing/rhetoric need to stop or this thread is going to get shut down. People can express how they feel but the guidelines of this specific sub-forum dictates that people need to make sure their feelings are not veiled attacks. It's just counter productive.

Cheliax

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

I don't think you are being uncivil Scott - but you are being dismissive and showing a considerable lack of empathy on the matter and that's what seems to be causing the problems.

Your posts are in-effect telling people how they should feel and that they were not wronged and that they are incorrect or misguided in their feelings that they were betrayed. When they feel betrayed.

As long as you take that approach while posting here the acrimony isn't going to go away.

That being said I don't think this should become a "turn Scott Betts into a Wotc pinata" thread where people can project their anger at Wotc/4e on one poster. It's not right and it isn't fair.

--------------

People who supported Wotc during the 3e/4e transition are going to be biased to defend, while people who didn't transition (for various reasons: ogl, pdfs, didn't like the new game) are going to be biased against.

Since this is a subjective issue maybe instead of bickering about feelings people should instead state how they feel (without restriction), give their reasons why and then leave it at that.

Just a suggestion.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

I'm hoping so - on one level or another they have fixed some big issues: layers of numbers, stacking buffs (bleah, hated that), item dependance, etc. I hope I can pick this up and make a few system changes to get the game emulator I want.

My concern and the concern of others is if some of the default power levels in the basic doc are considered the starting baseline and foundation with little room for change their could be some problems. EX: At this point if they put SLA cantrips in the game then they are assuming that everyone likes at will cantrips. Same goes with healing - they are assuming people want per combat and next morning healing as a default.

All easily changed on my part - but it goes towards their mindset and core gameplay philosophy. I am getting no indicators that my playstyle will be addressed or supported in upcoming products.

Not saying I can't make the tweaks, I just don't think based on what I've read that they are really looking to support older style play as a full published option but instead they seem to want to present a game that is "kind of older style play" but a different animal entirely.

Former is good, latter - not so much.

I'm looking forward to the DMG, not the PHB.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Buri wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

That's extremely disingenuous of you. There's a big difference between "decide who distributes their products" and "make unavailable something that has already been paid for."

Furthermore, this is precisely the sort of argumentation for which you're constantly taking others to task.

It is technically, financially, and practically untenable to expect a resource to exist forever. Paizo and/or Pathfinder won't always be around, and neither will the PRD. I guarantee it.

Anyway, for some comparison here's a timeline of editions:

d&d: 1974 (3 years)
ad&d: 1977 (12 years)
d&d2e: 1989 (11 years)
d&d3e: 2000 (3 years)
d&d3.5e: 2003 (4 years)
d&d4e: 2007 (7 years)
d&d5e: 2014

pf: 2009 (5 years)

If the time that a company keeps a product available and supports it determines how much trust that company has, then Wizards is still way above Paizo with an average product lifespan of 6.7 years and two whole editions for lasting over a decade. Since 3.5 worked with 3 that shifts their average produce lifespan to 8 years counting them together. The actual problem is a perception and entitlement one.

Where do you get 6.7 from?

You only get to count 2000 and up as full editions which Wotc controlled. Prior to that it was TSR.

And when did full product support end for 4e, last month or 2012?
Also again, Essentials should be considered a .5 since it requires a transition doc. That breaks that edition down even more.

d&d3e: 2000 (3 years) (last product in 2003)
d&d3.5e: 2003 (5 years) (last product in 2008)
d&d4e: 2008 (4 years) (last product in 2012)

Using these ranges on average its 4 years, It you're counting Essentials as a .5 to 4e it's much closer to 3 years per new edition/.5/half step.

Cheliax

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

I forgot to mention the Satan Seller incident.

Went to a new middle school, made some new friends and we started gaming in the school library during lunch break (yes, nerds). One of the older librarians saw my Greyhawk maps (1st ed boxed set, had that and the earlier gazette - crown jewels in my gaming collection) and the rest of my meager gaming stuff and she expressed her concern and disapproval of gaming and she gave me a book to read call the Satan Seller, which wasn't about gaming per se - but about a guy who got into drugs and rock n' roll and eventually became a high priest of a powerful cult. At one point he gets out, gives his life to Christ and tells people the horror of human sacrifice. This was a few years before the Satanic Panic hit full swing.

Suffice to say, years later I found out that Mike Warnke made it all up for the greater good of making sure people were not seduced by Satan. Ah well, and those cults sounded so interesting....

On the upside, the other librarian (who was more reserved and quiet) pulled me aside to complement me on the beauty of the Greyhawk maps. She liked them so much that she felt I should protect them and she had them both laminated for me at the school - secretly mind you, so the other librarian wouldn't know. For a kid without money or resources or even the notion to get them laminated in the first place this was a very nice gesture and I cherished those maps for a very long time.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

If only they'd never gone to 2nd Edition and just kept putting out exciting new books for AD&D!!

Oh wait. If only they'd never put out AD&D (or BECMI) and kept putting out exciting new books for the original Chainmail version.

Funny thing is that for the most part BECMI, OE, 1st and 2nd are mechanically all the same and I can run any module from those systems for any of those rule sets on the fly. Chainmail is a different animal.

Poor comparison/false analogy. Those editions were more like variations of the Call of Cthulhu editions than the big system change over from 2nd to 3rd.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

I think alot of the old school DMs are looking for a very challenging game for their players. Old school challenges were:

- Spell selection (smart choices)
- Spells being limited resource
- Casting having risk (being hit = failed spell, hitting your friends, spell consequences: aging, risk of death, etc)
- Hit points being a resource which required players to play very cautiously and not assumed that they will be easily recovered.
- Magic items and magic consumables being very limited in availability.

That's just a small sample list - when I see "workarounds" a red flag is raised because now you are affecting the challenge level of the game.

Each of these small things in 5e hit those concerns so they need to be houseruled or the game needs to be passed over if it doesn't work for the DM in question.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

I probably won't be picking up the PHB, since I don't like the current default power level of some of the offerings of the basic pdf to increase - and from the ToC it looks to be more of the same, just greater in power/detail.

I will probably pick up the DMG and MM and see how I can use those to mod or enhance the existing basic game framework. From the looks of it (and I could be wrong) the PHB is going to just be an increase in player power (feats) and options for power - something I do not want for my game. If they present more player class options on par with the basic doc then I might pick it up, but if the basic doc adds in these classes as a "basic" version when it gets updates as they have stated - than no, I see no need for the PHB in my game besides something for my players to hold in their hands.

The content of the PHB based on previews of some feats makes me cringe actually and from the looks of it, it seems like this book is being presented as a power baseline and will not have the adjustable dials (could be wrong about that).

People here may not get all of that - I just want to have and run a game that focuses less on character options, running the maze of options to maximize every choice and complex mechanical character options for the players to gain mastery over. Do not want that. I just want a game that focuses on gaming and less on PC details and progressing planning/system & CharOp master.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Buri wrote:
The trust argument is blown way out of proportion. The basic rules are available for free and gives a very good impression of the core game. Look at them and see if you like it or not. There have been many, many articles written on the theory and decisions into Next for all to see. You can accurately see where they're going. Whether or not you like their implementation of those ideals is secondary but is where the trust part comes in. But, again, I would point you to the free basic rules PDF so you can see what that implementation can look like.

I don't think a free pdf of the basic game is the be-all-end-all of gaining trust back from customers. How they manage the brand over the run of this edition and how they treat their clientele is going to be the factor. The free pdf was a good idea and a good gesture, but also I have concerns about wotc that isn't directly tied to the D&D brand.

For me right now it's just a wait and see thing.

If they provide more options for me as a DM to run the game I want to run and they try to stick with some levels of modularity (as they have pitched) than I will buy some of their releases. If they pull the rug out/make a direction change/producing crud early on or mid-way .5 during the life cycle of the edition then I will not "deal with it" or ride it out like I did for 3.5......I will just be gone.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
I1 - Dwellers of the Forbidden City (Iconic lost city in jungle adventure with some mythos overtones)
This is what The City of Seven Spears was trying to be.

"Try" being the operative term. That ap was too much focused on grind and not enough on theme or atmosphere.

Good of them to try though.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

A few less referenced mods - but excellent just the same

N1 - Against the Cult of the Reptile God (good low-level investigation)

I1 - Dwellers of the Forbidden City (Iconic lost city in jungle adventure with some mythos overtones)

I2 - Tomb of the Lizard King (interesting BBEG, pretty tough mod)

X4 - Master of the Desert Nomads (good wilderness adventure, great creatures and set piece encounters)

Cheliax

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Alan_Beven wrote:
Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.
Just don't want casters to have that level of flexibility with magic in my games.

What flexibility is that, exactly? The ability to consistently contribute meaningfully to combat encounters?

I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!" I'm not a fan of tradition for tradition's sake, especially when it comes shackled to a host of headaches and awkward asymmetries.

LOL

The ability to "consistently contribute meaningfully to combat encounters?"

Where have you been in the last 14 years of d20 gaming?

It isn't a case of "in my day". I ran 3rd ed (since 2003), I run PF - I went back to play in a 2nd ed game after 30 years - superior in almost every aspect for an older and non-modern system.

Your awkward asymmetries and headaches are contrived and were told to you by other people, so please spare me the "1st/2nd ed/older systems were only good because of nostalgia" nonsense.

Older systems - less problems. I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

Older systems - less character power/reliance on power/less break in verisimilitude. I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

Please stop telling me how older editions ran or what my motivation is for looking at and possibly tweaking 5e to emulate older editions and I will continue to not talk about 4e.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Alan_Beven wrote:
Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.

Just don't want casters to have that level of flexibility with magic in my games.

The fact that varied selection of spells exist so they can re-write their powers every day is enough. Cantrips should follow the rest of the spell casting model, X times a day.

For me that is - keep in mind that this is supposed to be a modular system that has an appeal to older edition players and DMs. That's what I'm looking to recreate.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

I wasn't planning on reducing the raw power (damage) of the cantrips, the houserule works more on frequency use in a day which leads to factoring how many encounters they have between breaks and how hard the day is.

So I want all the limits of a 15 minute workday (limited spells/resources/hp), while NOT letting them play (nor have I ever allowed) an 15 minute workday. I want one of the challenges of my game to be resources and resource management - at all levels. Players should make choices beyond using X spell for A problem. It should always be "should I use X spell for problem A, when I sill may have B, C, D problems down the road.

5e is expressly against that in it's most basic document and at it's most base level - overnight healing, spammable decent attack, short rest healing/recharges. If this is their design consideration as a foundation, then I may not be switching after all as this will NOT emulate the feel and game play philosophy of 1st/2nd ed games.

And while my houserule limits cantrip use, it doesn't change a core game assumption - no touch AC. So unless that wizard has a high DEX - he still may only be using his base proficiency to hit with that SLA fireburst. So long range, decent damage (no bonus) but with a success rate on par with using their sword they are proficient with.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

Wow Snorter - excellent post.

Can I improve upon it?

You even covered Harryhausen and why to this day I would want a Vudra AP/Campaign support.

Nope - can't improve upon it, post is perfect.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

Beholders & Beholder-kin, Carrion Crawlers, Displacer Beast, Mind Flayers, Githyanki, Umber Hulks, Hook Horrors, Myconids, Kuo-toa, Slaad, Thri-kreen and Yuan Ti.

Demogorgon. Was my favorite Prince of Demons when I was a little kid.

Actually - I covet most of these from the TSR days, wotc did a poor job in replicating these creatures in 3rd ed. Same name and stats, didn't feel the same under 3rd ed rules.

All of that being said I do think that Paizo's the Serpent Folk are a good replacement for the Yuan-ti (which the latter was based on). Skum =/= Kuo-toa (Deep Ones).

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

Modern Horror RPG

Player says: "My guy is heavy into his research, investigating the Unknown and fighting monsters. He would never have attachments like a family, wife or gf."
Player means: "Are you nuts, you will use them as leverage against me the first 5-minutes after we start the game!"

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

These are huge concerns - on top of all of that, Wotc has not put out a good module since they took over the TSR reigns. IMO - of course. I just can't think of anything that was slightly memorable that they have produced during the 3rd/3.5 era. Not talking Dungeon mag 3rd ed era, some of those were good - much better than Wotc offerings at the time. I just can't remember any of the modules - the hardcover "return to" being included (I have them all). Just boring adventures that started looking very set piece/minis focused near the end (those book layouts were terrible).

Luckily we have FGG taking some of this on, but I think the actual adventure content is going be (and has been) their weakest area and pretty lightly supported for this game if no other 3pp step up.

Maybe the new AP style mod will fix it?

I completely agree that the best adventures of the 3E era were in Dungeon -- it wasn't even close. That said, I did like Red Hand of Doom.

People seem to love that one - I bought the series (the hobgoblins right) - if one stands out it would be that one.

But yeah - they really need to work on their adventure cred. Maybe now with a little less focus on minis and maps (for the minis) and them trying to setting up tactical fights will give way to memorable locations, plots and interesting NPCs.

mini focus/tactical play ruins maps rant:
I find the mini/map tie-in as sort of design limiter when it comes to modules, Paizo following the same Wotc trap.

Take for instance the Emerald Spire and map pack (got the pdfs from the KS) - I don't like them. The maps are all forced into a box because of the need to produce a map pack and all the levels look similar and have to follow a limited parameter due to their flip map product line. The actual level design/content for the module as Paizo's take on a mega-dungeon is decent - not earth shattering but it could still be fun. Probably the smallest mega-dungeon out there.

I guess I don't think the limits of physical products should be transferred over to creative content. I want a maps that are limited to only what's written on paper - not "can we make this as a product" to be part of consideration taken when creating a dungeon level.

Cheliax

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

Not a fan of Golarion or the newer Realms material -once you had to keep pace with the novels to stay current with the ever changing realms (I hate fantasy novels) that's when I checked out. The original grey box gave me a land of mystery, fog and unclaimed tracks of open land. FR started loosing me with some of their novel/module tie ins - but even through some of 2nd it was my go to campaign world. If I ran it again it would be grey box only (those hex overlays were brilliant, btw - had them for Ravenloft also).

Golarion Rant/Critique:
Golarion has too much of an earth culture/kitchen sink feel but besides that, one of things that bothers me is the producers desire to be progressive in their game world (without reasons or justification beyond personal) to get a game world "they would want to play in" while leaving in what amounts to an otherwise oppressive or repressive world (in some areas at least) with untouched offensives that doesn't directly impact their modern world view or their daily lives (so they are ignored). So some ideas that bother them irl are revised to their modern standards (Race, Gender and sex roles) while other classic fantasy/irl examples of injustice or things that a reprehensible that don't affect their daily life are ignored or left untouched (forced concubines, child slavery/sacrifice/abuse... or worse). Just seems very contrived/"we don't want to offend anyone" without rhyme or reason why things are the way they are (magna carta, etc). So social justice - sort of (if it bothers us) - while leaving in a bunch of other bad stuff (or ignoring it). Wholly illogical and inconsistent without internal reasoning besides writer personal social worldview/preferences.

Back on the kitchen sing: the other Golarion "sin" is really the boring lands with little originality or creativity - the this is human culture "X" given fantasy treatment is a bit overdone. Africa Land, Eastern Europe Land, North America Land - all overdone and somewhat formulaic.

I do praise them for places like Razmiran (just a glossed over Church of Scientology really - but still good) and Numeria (a tribute to aspects of fantasy meets tech from old D&D modules and campaign world). But unique lands and places like this are not the norm for this campaign world. The real interesting lands that mimic earth history - such a Vudra, are more or less undeveloped or only glossed over.

The lack of high level NPCs running around for the players to follow is another good feature and learned lesson from FR. I think they should still list some high level movers and shakers, but they should not be used as dramatic plot devices to further the campaign world along while the players watch the soap opera from the sidelines (such as the World Turns, Days Our Lives or Game of Thrones).

Golarion showed some initial promise of being a new Greyhawk or FR but the limited art direction and internal logic lost me and the whole thing looks like a jumbled mess.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Bill Webb wrote:
The only real way to do a $40k or so cost project is this. Keep in mind we are a small basement company, and that we write checks from the bank of Bill and Krista.

I dont know HOW MANY TIMES you can say this and people STILL not get the bloody point. It's either this (KICKSTARTER) or the product doenst get made.

I mean you guys have been saying this for YEARS and in more than one place but still there are people who still have a problem with it.

Lol, well in fairness some people are fearful of the risks associated with Kickstarters - and they have their reasons.

I don't look at that way of course, in fact I think several gaming resources would have languished or been under-produced/developed without a KS: City State of the Invincible Warlord for one, the recent Metamorphosis Alpha supersized book - these are niche products within an already small industry/fan base. Smaller games or supplements that have an equally small but devoted fan base who want to see these products back in print, updated, revised or expanded. I wish this option was around or used when they were trying to launch Chill 3rd edition.

Without the KS option of funding I would imagine than many of these things would just remain projects or dreams that would never see the light of day.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Sunderstone wrote:

TBH, I'm a little annoyed at the current trend that most of the products starting out as kickstarters requiring us to fund them. Then add to that, some exclusive content only goes to backers who donate $x amount.

A kickstarter every now and then for a huge product is ok I guess, though the exclusives via donation tiers is kind of lame. Maybe you should reward all the people willing to trust you and invest sight unseen after the product is released (also so we don't end up with another Razor Coast fiasco). Necromancer used to practice this, they called it Web Enhancements.... and they were free.

This makes Zero sense and it sounds like you are tainting your logic with your frustration of not being able to fund kickstarters. If you recall, the guy behind Frog God and Necromancer Games Saved Razor Coast (him and a few other people helping keep it alive/raised from the dead).

You think they should "Reward people willing to invest sight unseen after a product is released?" Really?

These guys are not Wotc or Paizo that can afford to print up a book that is unpopular (no way to gauge how successful it will be) without knowing what kind of sales they are going to get. For their smaller books (Dunes of Desolation by FGG) they didn't make a kickstarter, they added it as a backer kit option for early access - beyond that the book didn't get KS funding. It was just a small book they took a risk on to add to their catalog.

BTW - did you buy that book? Probably not.
That last point is to illustrate producing product "sight unseen".

A couple of unpopular books/big projects - and you say good-bye to this company.

Sunderstone wrote:

I'm an old school fan of Necromancer, I even had almost every module they published in print version. But from the promised Vampire and Liches enhancement (I was looking forward to the hinted at Vampire expansion) that never made it and the other stuff that never appeared from the lineup, I got the impression that Necro was only going to publish something they could guarantee would sell well to justify the usage of the spare time they devote to such products. Now and again, they stated previously that Necro was not their main job (also understandable).

I just can't get behind the "let the players fund this" attitude that all things are now starting out as a kickstarter as of late.

That's the thing though - you don't need to fund this. You can leave it up to other gamers to support the hobby (the real "sight unseen" crowd), then when 95% of the KS-made product is available for regular purchase you can pick it up. Only the re-issue of Rappan Athuk (from their old catalog) had an exclusive module/level - everything else is pretty much available on their website. So far on these 5e books, I'm not seeing anything yet that is backer exclusive (I wish their was), we are just getting the books a couple of bucks cheaper/earlier while helping guarantee that they get made.

You contradict yourself several times here and you post sounds like sour grapes to me because you can't fund a project or just choose to avoid KS. You want them to publish books "sight unseen" but you seem to understand that they need to "publish something they could guarantee would sell" - two points that directly contradict themselves.

You seem to want the old style selling format - go to your favorite GS, browse through the books and pick up what you like. That doesn't work anymore. Most of those brick and mortar LFGS are gone. These guys don't want to produce a book that no one wants and is going to languish on a bookshelf somewhere. They want to know the demand, produce X books and pass on some savings and give early access to backers - with the idea that the books will be added to their existing catalog.

Sunderstone wrote:
Again, every now and then a huge product may require some funding to justify the time spent, etc..... But what happens when the funding goals are met and then even doubled? Will we ever see products we don't have to fund beforehand again? No more free web enhancements?

Again, you seem to be stuck in 2003 mentality. Every major book project (new campaign, mega module reprint for new gaming system, etc) is probably going to be a KS project from these guys. They can gauge the worthiness of taking on the project, and on top of that WE (the consumer) get more of what we want if it is fully backed (increased content). Keep in mind that everyone gets that increased content - even people like you who may buy the product after KS and goes to regular sale.

So the KS format (for their major products) is designed to: add more fans to their fanbase, gauge the popularity of potential product, maximize the potential of a product (best book we can get), while minimizing risk and exposure. On top of that it's a great way for a company like FGG/NG to communicate with their existing fans.

And on top of that Part II: It's a way for some backers to be able to buy products at a reduced price - something they otherwise couldn't afford.

Sunderstone wrote:
As an aside, I wonder what Chris Roberts will do with all that overage on his Star Citizen game. That particular kickstarter cap was obliterated and is likely enough money to retire his whole generation.

I could give two s@%#s about the Star Citizen KS, what about the Sword of Air kickstarter that missed an extra 100 encounter areas because we where short on funding? That was an RPG travesty - if I had the money I would pay Bill Webb directly to write and publish those encounter areas.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If there's a good enough reason for my character to go in, then I'm probably going to go in regardless of the danger or I'm going to find it an unfun game: playing a character who is strongly motivated to do something, but can't because it's too dangerous isn't my idea of a good time.
So, you're telling us, that if your character grows up hearing about the ancient red dragon living in the nearby mountains with records of it living there going back for the past thousand years, threatening not only your home town, but the entire region, you're going to take your 1st level character there when your character's sister is taken by that dragon?

Either that or my character's going to sit at home getting dead drunk hating himself for being a coward. Neither way will be much fun to play.

Mind you, he'd go up there hoping to negotiate or to sneak in and rescue her or something other than go toe to toe with the dragon.

He certainly wouldn't shrug his shoulders and go look for an easier adventure. Unless he was an a%#%#*& who didn't like his sister anyway.

Edit: Or that a dragon isn't a level appropriate challenge for a 1st level character, so a GM who plants an emotional hook that says "Go fight the dragon" at 1st level is being a jerk.

Or you go looking for a sword or other magic item to kill the dragon or sneak in to save your sister (and maybe other prisoners) via other adventures...also picking up some friends along the way help you out, each with their own reasons for going along.

My sandbox campaign/plot adventure:
You can run dungeon crawls as mindless monster bashes or you could run them as a legitimate progress for a larger story arc. Last campaign around 95% of their exploration into:

- Goblin & wererat infested silver mine (working for BBEG and were planning on eliminating the threat of silver to be used as weapons in the final battle/reveal).

- Underground garden with an insane treant that was breeding plants so they could live above ground without sunlight (since it thought eternal darkness was coming due to the BBEG).

- A Dwarven hold, being reclaimed by descendents who abandoned their halls because of a family secret and skeletons in the closet.

- A short and fast run deep into the Underdark to rescue some adventures who disappeared six months prior based solely on a string of clues. Traveling 3 days underground in record time, under exhaustion, no rest/spell recovery - planned out of course (that one the players took me by 100% surprise and 100% PC directed). Only a few adventures that ended up prisoners survived, but they saved those that were alive. Had this whole area written out to be a completest, did not at all - expect them to pick up old clues and then decide near the end of the campaign out of the blue to actually go look for them.
Hats off to them, that's why I am happy with my players.

- An ancient swamp, filled with flooded barrows - looking for a witch and her half-ogre son. The players were duped into thinking they were evil and needed to be destroyed when in fact they were both Good and were causing problems for the BBEG.

- Journey to the underdark part II - looking for something the bad guys were looking for there they: met a LN Eye of the Deep/Sorcerer who traded in magic and info with travelers underground - became an ally in the end of campaign War.
Refugees from the Treant's garden - bugbears hiding out from the wrath of the BBEG, who became hideously mutated by remnants of his weapon/energy source used to adapt the treant's plants to darkness.

- A tower in the woods that a declining elven clan ignored. Held an extra dimensional space guarded by a bound devil who watched over a sleeping elven noble (his dreams of monsters made into flesh) - his imprisonment and being forgotten part of the reason of the clans decline.

All of these were designed 100% sandbox/dungeon bash - with PC and NPC motivation and actions and in game events taking them to the different locations. Most of which I hid from the players but as the PCs investigated the bad guy/mysterious goings on, they found leads and they followed at every opportunity.


Anyway

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:


-Idiot Game Masters who say they want to run a certain game system, but have all these weird @$% wonky home brew rules concerning stuff the game doesn't ACTUALLY have, because they read some #@^& sci-fi novel (WH40K), Shoe-horned it into a FANTASY game, runs all these weird @$# rules OUT OF HIS HEAD WITHOUT GIVING THE PLAYERS A SINGLE INKLING OF WHAT THEY ARE!

Idiot Game Masters who say they want to run Pathfinder but actually run a homebrewed E6 super low magic railroad campaign....

That wasn't very nice, let me fix it for you -

Idiot Game Masters who say they want to run Pathfinder but actually run a homebrewed E6 super low magic railroad campaign and don't bother telling you in advance.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
Use the levels of exhaustion rules they provided. Explain to players that while they are considered "At-Will" using them does cause some level of exertion, so abusing the use of them could lead to gaining a level of exhaustion. It probably won't come up in play, but in game you can still justify why wizards can't stand on the battlements defending a city all day long by hurling cantrips at their enemies.

Oh, it would come up in play. If my players can make a 1d10 ranged attack for free every round they would use it every round. This was an intentional design consideration to make Wizards closer to Fighters in their "attack per round". Me being who I am - I can't let that stand.

But implementing exhaustion as a control would be a good fix using the existing mechanics.

Maybe I will baseline 4 (level 1) + casting stats per day (long rest) per my original house rule and allow extreme stress optional use could take you through the exhaustion tract - maximizing or stopping at level 3 exhaustion. Maybe in units per level (1 extra cantrip at level 1 advances track 1, 2 at 2nd advances track 1, etc). Need to play with the math. if it's too generous I could see players trying to redline it.

-

I will probably also use the exhaustion tract for my 1st ed emulation part of my houserules for any and all spell casting over the course of the day.
Man, that was an ugly system - brutal - I miss it.

Little extra option for my doc.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Adjule wrote:
One of the things I thought 4th edition got right was no stat penalties due to race. Pathfinder improves on the 3rd edition, as a bonus to Str didn't require -2 to 2 abilities. But I think having just bonuses to scores is the best choice. It opens up some other combos, such as gnome fighters or dwarf rogues or elf barbarians, without feeling like you are gimped.

LOL, bringing back stat penalties based on race for my home game.

And a bonus to hate me more - bringing back racial class limitations (no Gnome or Halfling paladins, etc). Not sure about racial class LEVEL limitations yet, need to see how the multiclass systems is going to look like.

Hey, you can't make everyone happy - that's why we have house rules.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Diffan wrote:
It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.

I'm a 4e naysayer (a bigger 3rd ed naysayer actually - that was the beginning of the decline imo) and I like basic as a starting point - but everything you listed IS a problem for me.

The difference here is that these problems are actually workable from this lowered baseline than anything I could do with a 3rd ed/PF based high powered default and number assumptions already built into system.

I am going to fix:

[snip]

So to me, this is just a better starting point to get a 1st/2nd ed feel with some easy mods, while having a game that is actively supported. As much of the 4e-isms and 3rd-isms will be chucked and flushed down the toilet as I can possibly strip and rip out of the system. 5e just gives me less to strip out to get the game I want.

Honestly, this could be done with 4E and 3E with little fuss. I think that perhaps your more willing to mod this version than others?

I mean, for 4E to reflect some of the significant changes you suggest, it would take about the same to get working.

[snip]

In all honestly this is quite easy to do but the question is: Do people want to make the changes that make the game more preferable to them? For 4E, the answer was NO. And I have to ask: Why is it OK for 5E? If someone is going to alter the game THIS much to emulate older systems, why not just play older systems? And this isn't a post to tell you *NOT* to play 5E or to change to to your liking, I'm just curious as to why it's easier or OK to change 5E but not go to the same lengths with 4E or 3E?

3e/4e bash:
While I have 4e books I never got around to running the game or getting heavily into it. The game philosophy was too heavily MMO influenced (I can hear all the 4e players exhaling a collective sighing at this comment) ....just like 3e was CCG influenced (power builds, waiting for more powerful content to invalidate older content, character/deck building for success, etc). I can say this as a mature adult because I have played many MMO's and I was a big fan of CCG - even when that 2nd hobby had a hand in putting the final nail in TSR's coffin. Not saying that 4e was an MMO on paper or 3rd ed was a CCG RPG - just that their design and marketing influences were there. The thinking, marketing, language and presentation has those influences. (Spare me the attacks)

Just like 3e, 4e has too many built-in design assumptions to rip them out. In effect the amount of house rules needed would be easier to go back to an earlier edition of the game (more on that). And like I said, this also applies to 3e - but isn't as obvious because 3e's problem is the accumulation of numbers and problems over repeat play and over the course of character levels. You need more to match existing numbers, big six, characters folding on themselves (item creation) and a bunch of other unforgivable nonsense.

So what you end up with in 3rd ed/PF low level play is slightly similar experience to older versions of the game, but as numbers, and the need or pressure for number optimization mounts the "game" part falls apart. Also the ease of the game - not talking about numbers knowledge and the amount of knowledge to attain system mastery - I'm talking about the actual "how easy it is to fight and survive" part of the game is just too easy. I think some of this "too easy" is also tainting 5e.

-

Why is it OK for 5e? Why is it easier to change?
Bounded accuracy - something I was doing in my home designed games since '97. Moving away from escalating numbers as a selling and motivational tool/reward for players - and just avoiding bad math games.

As a baseline, 5e is a better working frame to try and rebuild 2nd ed, with numbers in better control than 2nd ed could ever hope for. Because even 2nd ed is flawed in it's math - just not as bad as 3rd (no number control) and 4th (too much number control).

So if it turns out that the proficiency bonus for Fighters in 5e is too low for my (and my players) liking, I can institute a small trade-off feat system/class ability that will give them a +1 or +2 to hit to break away from all the other classes - a feat or skill, fighting style or whatever works. But it is MUCH EASIER TO ADD THAN TO SUBTRACT from a bare bones system, even with all the flaws and design directions 5e has taken (hand hold healing, too easy on the players, no negatives at CharGen, etc) it will still be very easy to change this system. I already have a working doc a few pages long that changes the entire feel of the game - with some small and modular changes.

I don't know if this is a marketing gimmick, but so far - all the changes I plan on instituting don't change the core game. Even the healing/rest changes or spell changes. None of it. You have to accept the proficiency number as a workable number or have a way to tweak it - since this is the binding mechanic of the system, but as of now that number is so low that you can easily add class features or skills to supplement it without wrecking the game.

-

thejeff wrote:
Probably also on how tightly tied together the mechanics are. If anything you change leads to needing changes in other things, it can become problematic.

Hate to agree with thejeff (no really, I hate to agree with thejeff - ask him), but he's hit on it 100%.

Answering a few different posts here - Summation: IMO 5e mechanics are much easier to change or remove and you don't break the rest of the game. I don't think that Wotc would anticipate the severity of the changes I'm making to their core Basic game (lol, can't please anyone) - but it can be done. So far, no headaches or thoughts of burning my 5e work down.

Yet....

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.

I'm a 4e naysayer (a bigger 3rd ed naysayer actually - that was the beginning of the decline imo) and I like basic as a starting point - but everything you listed IS a problem for me.

The difference here is that these problems are actually workable from this lowered baseline than anything I could do with a 3rd ed/PF based high powered default and number assumptions already built into system.

I am going to fix:

- HD/Short Rest Healing - removed to a very low healing rate

- Overnight Healing - Removed to a much lowered healing rate

- Second Wind - limited in how much it can heal and exploits, cannot be used to heal more than you started between the rest periods.

- At-will casting of orisons/cantrips - changed (already posted somewhere on these forums)

- Racial ability score penalties - Coming back
- (Bonus) Level caps for DEMI-HUMANS.... once the multi-classing rules come out.

- Rogue attack sneak attack will have specific qualifiers to gain advantage

- Paladin smites (taken out for 1st ed and 2nd ed house rules)

- Alignment mechanics - I will bring them back, but to 1st ed/2nd ed levels, not the crazy that is PF/3rd ed games

- Expanded Skills - adding only a few

- 4e and 3rd e aspects of spells (reactive response or stackable numbers) will be changed to reflect earlier systems. Ex: The way Mage Armor in basic now gives you a baseline AC instead of +X. Shield spell will get a similar (shorter duration) treatment, something that will more closely resemble 1st or 2nd ed player handbook entries.

So to me, this is just a better starting point to get a 1st/2nd ed feel with some easy mods, while having a game that is actively supported. As much of the 4e-isms and 3rd-isms will be chucked and flushed down the toilet as I can possibly strip and rip out of the system. 5e just gives me less to strip out to get the game I want.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

Well, right now I'm working on a houserule doc to make the game run more like 1st or 2nd ed.

A big example of anti-old school feel is the default healing rules (don't know if you have read them yet) - they are very generous - heal full points on long rest, or roll your HD + Con Mod per HD on short rest (if you spend HD). So a 4th level fighter, can take 4 short rests a day for 4d10 + Con Mod (x4) or 1d10 + Con Mod on 4 separate rests or any combination. Incredible generous and the system as written needs a helping hand.

Short Rest:
A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.
A character can spend one or more Hit Dice at the end of a short rest, up to the character’s maximum number of Hit Dice, which is equal to the character’s level. For each Hit Die spent in this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character’s Constitution modifier to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total. The player can decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll. A character regains some spent Hit Dice upon finishing a long rest, as explained below.

Long Rest:
At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points. The character also regains spent Hit Dice, up to a number of dice equal to half of the character’s total number of them. For example, if a character has eight Hit Dice, he or she can regain four spent Hit Dice upon finishing a long rest.

Full healing after a nights rest is very anti-old school - and as a baseline to start from it is a little troubling. That's just one thing. The very fast xp and level progression is another (at least the low levels, not sure how much higher CR monsters are worth).

I don't know what's going to be "missing" from the rules once the core 3 books come out. This can be things as arcane as weapons vs AC or armor types, old style declared initiative and action speeds (2nd ed) and a number of things that I suspect will have fallen through the cracks.

I really like the overall simplified approach of the new rules, but I think a more "severe" version of the rules or a supplement for the rules could be published. I think the market is there. Of course it would have to come from a source that people would trust to know how older style of games should run and feel.

I think a book of options and tweaks would be a good resource for DMs and even help provide some baselines when running NG modules under the 5th ed ruleset, similar to some of the rule tweaks and advice given in Barakus, et al - DM suggestion for reducing XP gain or slow advancement. Some tips on getting an 0E, 1st or 2nd ed feel would be appreciated.

NG and FGG adventures have always had a 1st ed unforgiving feel to them - that is from an adventure writing angle though. A small set of rule tweaks and suggestions for various earlier editions would be phenomenal. People want streamlined rules - but I think they also are trying to capture a "feel", hence the strong fanbase for NG and FGG modules. What I'm suggesting is step beyond the modules without actually competing with the makers of the new rule set - a rules supplemental if you will.

This could go into the 5e KS or a book that comes out down the line after the 3 new NG books are finished - or not at all, it's just an idea.

Sort of rambling here but I hope you get the point.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
lastgrasp wrote:
Announcing it during paizocon seems a bit.....whatever I would of waited till after. A bit more classy.

No - they are a primarily a 3pp and Dungeons and Dragons Basic was released just a few days ago. And being a 3pp they need to strike while the iron is hot.

They did this in the past there are a ton of creatures that made it out of the Wotc IP lock because Necromancer Games acted fast vs. waiting around for that market to develop. The Frogemoth, Orcus, Arumvorax, Caryatid Column, Eye of the Deep and a ton of other creatures are available for PF because NG moved fast to fill a void that Wotc didn't want to fill at the time.

This is a smart move and a reaction to the release of the rules while the interest is there. I have no doubts that FGG will still produce material for PF

And partially ninja'd by Mr Finch

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

Chuck,It's

2nd 300
3rd 900
4th 2700
5th 6500
6th 14000
7th 23000
8th 34000
9th 48000
10th 64000
11th 85000
12th 100000
13th 120000
14th 140000
15th 165000
16th 195000
17th 225000
18th 265000
19th 305000
20th 355000

...off the top of my head

BTW, whens the big FGG 5e announcement going to come?

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

Thank you for posting some monster xp examples, I'll probably run this at 1/2 or even a 1/4 xp values when I run my game to get a slower pace.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:

After a quick review of Basic and the Starter Set, I'd put myself in the "mildly positive" group.

There are some things here that simply make no sense (humans get a +1 to everything? The cantrip Ray of Frost eventually out-damages Magic Missile cast as a first level spell?) but overall I like what I see. Specifically fewer rules and "fiddly bits" than 3E. I still miss the self-contained stat-blocks of 4E, though.

I expect my opinion will evolve as a I read (and especially try out) the rules.

I was very opposed at the 2 point/4 level stat increases myself until I realized that the base starting stats (if you use PB or fixed array) was considerably lower than 3rd ed. So out the gate, the best stat for a human (unless you roll) is a 16 if you don't roll for your stats - this is after adding in the +1 on all the stats. I think the highest stat out the gate is a 17 (Dwarf with +2 Str to highest array stat of 15). And I really like the fact that they cap the stats at 20.

If I allow my players to roll their stats then I may only allow a 1 point progression per 4 levels, if at all.

I think that they have taken great strides to control the number ranges - to hit, AC, skills, etc, and I really appreciate it. This might be the "sweet spot" edition - yet to be seen since I still need to see the beasties and their xp values (again, easily scalable).

I do dislike the cantrips - not their power per say, I just don't like at will shooting-sprouts-of-fire-all-day that was ported over from PF. More of an immersion thing for me plus I do feel that magic as a rule should be a finite vs infinite resource (personal preference).

If I run this I will probably do what I did with PF cantrips: No prep needed - you can cast any cantrip as you need, but limited to 3 times a day + casting stat mod. My players like the versatility to cast orisons or cantrips without specifically preping them and since we are all old school players they were ok being limited per day. Under this houserule I don't care if a higher level version of Ray of Frost does more damage than MM, MM still doesn't need a to-hit roll and the Ray (under my rules) is still limited in use per day.

I really like the fact that in the base game there are no stat boosters, I'm hoping if they do put them in that they end up having very little numerical effect and are more focused on their utility, ex :Bull Strength gives the character Advantage for all STR checks and any skill checks that are based in STR for the duration. So it's easier to perform STR tasks (smash down doors, life items one class higher, etc) instead of getting +2 to hit and damage as a flat, generic combat bonus.

There are few other things that I dislike, but overall my reaction is positive and I think most things can easily be fixed or scaled to fit my gaming expectations better than 3rd ed or PF ever could.

I don't even think it will be hard for me to convert PF stuff to this system since I already wrote out some guidelines for converting PF to AD&D 2nd ed.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Joana wrote:

It has a pregen bard. Is bard even one of the classes they've released yet?

It also has boxed text that tells the PCs what they do: "Taking a brand from the fire, [the person on watch] leaves the fireside to investigate." :P Is that common for FGG? I've never actually looked at anything of theirs before.

No, this isn't their usual fare - it is very railroad/narrated to a degree, but this module was intended primarily for brand new players and DMs - hence the scripted aspect.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

lets' check the list here:

- You don't have an opinion of 5e
- Didn't playtest 5e
- Haven't read the rules yet
- Don't actually care why people like or dislike the new system

- But you are concerned about the general reception and reaction to 5e here on Paizo (Pathfinder) vs. ENWorld?

So you don't care about the actual subject matter at hand, but more about the disposition of the posters from two different websites?

Is that about right?

To me it seems like you are trying to start a fight/stoke flames where none exist.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
If I was to be convinced to add levels to a gelatinous cube, I'd probably spin it in the game as the cube being a sort of magical mutation. If I was to leave it mindless, I'd probably assume that it was just permeated with magic and occasionally those spells kind of bubbled to the top and it would deliver them through it's natural attacks.

Just created a new DM feat for you Ash...

-Shining A Dumpling (DM Feat): This DM feat allows a DM to take a terri-bad or idiotic/joke idea and make something fun or interesting.

Hats off to you Sir/Madam/Other!

Btw, maybe a Magus would also be a good combo - Spellstrike + pseudopod!

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
If a cube got druid levels, would it wildshape as a Medium creature or would it start at Large? What DC would it be to wildshape into a gelatinous icosahedron?

I know this comment would break the high standard of this thread and would break CR guideline by going into dreaded fiat realm, but I would rule that no matter what shape the cube took it would still be gelatinous.

Even if in its dim mind it thought (?) that it wildshaped into a cute bunny on a tree stump with fur and fluffy tail, it in fact would just be a slimy, translucent, gelatinous mass shaped like a bunny sitting on a tree stump.

This ignorance on the part of the Cube may or may not play a role in its success as a Druid (adjust CR accordingly).

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
As for gelatinous cubes...I prefer to include them at the bottom of pit traps. >:)

Don't forget to add a level of Warrior or Adept to that Cube....

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

link

A sad day on Sad Hill Cemetary.

True CN in The Good the Bad and The Ugly (and essay on the Chaotic Alignements).

Your acting in westerns affected my GM style and NPC interactions in many a Post-apocalyptic game.

Rest Well

GBU, 2nd to last scene

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:

Well, no, because that's part of the agreed baseline when starting a game.

And if your agreed baseline is that you're going to push the characters to their limit, that's fine. But you don't need the permission of some chart or formula to do that. Your players have given you that permission by coming to that type of game. You could just use an APL +1 or +2 encounter and assign APL XP and treasure for it.

Or I can keep the listed CR then add in an NPC level to shore up any deficiencies.

Some creatures are barely out of CR while others are glaringly out of CR - I would use different tools for different situations. All legal options should be used without guilt or casting aspersions.

Ross Byers wrote:
And, as I said, if you've decided a creature is over or under it's CR, you don't need the book's permission to fix it. You've already decided the book is wrong. (And there are many examples in this thread that show when the book is wrong.) You don't need to 'stealth' fix it by applying a +0 CR class level. You can just boost its stats. Or add racial HD. Or just add numbers where you feel they're deficient. You don't need a level in Expert if what you really think you need is +2 to will saves. Just give it the saves.

I don't need the books permission - I use those values as a guideline. And if a creature is below those values then I do what I can - legally - to make the creature fall in line with those expected values listed in those guidelines.

These are not stealth fixes, these are legit and legal fixes. And your suggestions of adding racial HD, while not changing CR (also redlining) doesn't really work. You have either added +1 CR to the creature (which is already overvalued and doesn't fix the problem) or if you just add 1 HD and not adjust CR then you are effectively doing nothing different than what I am doing by adding a crappy NPC level. Redlining/Optimizing the encounter - legally.

Arbitrarily assigning the values works for me - I put in what I would need because I get the math/challenge/expected numbers. Most GMs around here DO NOT feel comfortable changing a stat arbitrarily because they have been given DETAILED rules for advancing creatures and they are now (per your suggestion) bypassing those rules.

I don't consider players optimizing as Cheesy unless of course they are twisting a rule to get an exploit. Using something that is superior to something that is subpar is cheesy, it's just building out a character for best results and success - this coming from a ref who despises the CharOp/Build out to 20 mentality.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
richard develyn wrote:

I realise that. I just thought the first 1/2 CR from the non-key class should be rounded up to 1 - as an opinion :-)

Richard

I personally think it should be kept in (I do this sometimes) for hyper-optimized player groups. So in a way you get a slight pad to a creature (not much when talking NPC classes) that you as DM do not need to pay for out of your xp budget.

There are a few legal workarounds to increase creature power without having to add CR/xp, most do not increase the power very much and should only be used if the PCs can handle the extra pressure or if they are redlined in effectiveness. Theoretically you could add a non-key class or NPC class to any creature without changing its CR as long as the new stats do not take it out of its base CR (291 bestiary).

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
But you're not talking about the science with that post.

No, I'm talking about people involved in scientific process, AKA scientist.

Irontruth wrote:
Hein T. Tran's behavior has absolutely no bearing on whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not. It has no bearing on whether diesel emissions have negative impacts on air quality or not.

This is an example of the type of disingenuous wordsmithing that gets passed off as discourse around here. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. I never stated that CO2 was or was not a greenhouse gas. The reason I brought up Mr. Tran was to illustrate a case of mistrust and malfeasance in the scientific process.

What is science? Data collection and creating theories to explain phenomenon.

Everything presented in the CARB report or data collected and turned over to (C)ARB becomes questionable because the science itself becomes skewed and twisted to promote an agenda. Or at least an incredibly negative perception is created to an already charged situation.

So Mr. Tran's behavior has 10000% to do with it - a guy who purchased a fake PHD and the entire study doesn't get thrown out the window? Yeah, CO2 = greehouse gas, got it. Not once was that brought up - scientists and shenanigans and the potential ensuing mistrust was the focus of my last post.

As to the CARB report and contributing scientist they are human variable that ultimately affect the outcome: how much of an impact, how can it be regulated, does it need to be regulated (per this study, another study, etc)?

Thank you for providing an example of what I was getting at with my earlier post. I don't know if you were arguing a different point or didn't want to address that scientist are in fact the gatekeepers of science. You just want to defend the data - which is collected by scientist.

Irontruth wrote:
If a scientist does bad work, it should be possible to show and prove that the work is bad.

And what happens if the scientist isn't really a scientist, or he has an agenda, or he's in it for the herd/trend/crusade? The data is collected by this "bad scientist" is good?

Irontruth wrote:
Almost every example that climate change deniers give relies on how people attempt to control the perception of their work, and not the science that it's actually based on.

And almost every example of proponents of climate change do nothing but take one side, close their mind or refute any and all possible information that undermines their argument. Sort of like how you were trying to chop off Magus' at the legs on his Viking village argument - who wasn't really disagreeing with you but was presenting an event/incident - all because it didn't fit your narrative and view on climate change.

BTW - Thank you for assuming I was a climate change denier where no where in this thread or on these boards have I ever (in several years) made that claim. You assumed that since I questioned the scientist (who are human with motives) and posters who push the issue that I was naturally opposed to the concept.

Irontruth wrote:
The various climate-gates have all revolved around scientists trying to craft a message to effect change. I'll admit, that's a problem and needs to be watched for. It doesn't change the underlying science though.

Yes, it does. If you have a segment of the scientific community cooking the books then they are no better than all the other industries (such finance) that cook the books and are looked down on with scorn and distrust - even unrelated companies are eyed with suspicion. It taints a whole industry. Events of a political nature/affiliation or association can also do the same.

As to your underlying science where do we decide what "established" is? Where is that line? When I can recreate an experiment with similar results in my backyard or do I just take their "word" for it since they are after all, scientist?

The environmental movement has been married to environmental science since the 60's - that means it's political or there is a political/social angle and change they are trying to exert over society. That their influence and relationship has had an impact on Environmental Biology and related scientific fields for the last 50 years. Which to me makes them no different than lobbyist in MO. This is all not even taking into account things like: human ego and vanity, greed or any other motive that would drive someone to cook the books for a desired end.

Irontruth wrote:
Skepticism is good, but it is not an end unto itself.

Actually it is an end unto itself. If we questioned everything - and not just the things that bug us (EX: Banking/Big business for liberals, Big Government for conservatives) then we would live in a far better world. Too many people here posting on autopilot or just regurgitating talking points from their favorite media sources. I lean hard right and I don't trust anything media tells me - including right wing media - until I can substantiate or research it myself.

Irontruth wrote:
Ultimately, the anecdotes of a scientists behaving badly are similar to the anecdotes in another thread. "Because I know a guy who one time had a bad interaction with a mental health professional, that means that ALL mental health professionals are bad." It's not sound logic.

Again, wordsmithing and poisoning the well by using the phrase "anecdote" - which implies that it's just a second hand story to be dismissed is framing the example I'm giving as hearsay or a folksy missive. That isn't the case with my example I provided - the guy got fined a few weeks of pay, but still works for CARB (or he did after that incident). What I cited happened and his research contribution impacts a large section of the California economy and the trucking business.

It's just your attempt to dismiss an event which presents your argument (believe the scientist no matter what) in an unfavorable light. Subtle, but a bit dishonest in your choice of phrases.

-----------------

If people want to have an honest discussion about this issue I'll come back, but I'm not going to do this back and forth rhetorical garbage and loaded language. I don't even care about climate change to be honest - I came here because I saw a thread that wanted to address the how's and why's things get so heated and why so many threads eventually get locked. Language that is designed to shut down, dismiss or even discredit is the frequent problem - in effect the thread is already going to go down in flames before it starts because of the participants and their debate style (mine included).

Not trying to beat up on IT here, I actually respect your views even if I never agree with them (on other issues). Just pointing out the how and why this happens. Dissecting a discussion if you will to get an answer.

So I'm done here. I hope you guys - all of you, go back to trying to figure out what Turner was trying to accomplish here and get off of solving the climate change crisis in what became climate change thread #12,983,532

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
The science of chemistry and physics coul......
Sigh

Seriously, do you think politics enters into what can be proven through science?

Are you honestly saying, that if I construct an experiment that has nothing to do with either of our ideologies, just simple chemistry, the results will differ purely because you and I have different political views?

Bolded the relevant parts.

I won't debate formula, the issues for me arise when we factor in on how you decide how to construct your experiment and why you constructed and how you present your information i.e. - I don't trust you to be clinical in your research and divorce your political or ideological beliefs from output, that your agenda colors how you construct your study and what you cover, what is left out, what is taken out of context.

nugget

Dr. Enstrom, a research professor in UCLA's Department of Environmental Health Sciences, published important peer-reviewed research demonstrating that fine particulate matter does not kill Californians. Also, Dr. Enstrom assembled detailed evidence that contends powerful UC professors and others have systematically exaggerated the adverse health effects of diesel particulate matter in California, knowing full well that these exaggerations would be used by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to justify draconian diesel vehicle regulations in California. In addition, the complaint argues that he exposed the fact that the lead author of the key CARB Report used to justify the diesel regulations did not have the UC Davis Ph.D. degree that he claimed. Instead, according to the suit, this "scientist" bought a fake Ph.D. for $1,000 from a fictional "Thornhill University."

Finally, Dr. Enstrom discovered that several activist members of the CARB Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants have exceeded the legislatively mandated three-year term limits by decades. The suit contends that shortly after Dr. Enstrom revealed this systematic wrongdoing, UCLA not only issued a notice of termination, it denied him any compensation for his work by systematically and wrongfully looting his research fund accounts. Dr. Enstrom worked for more than a year without pay as he in good faith appealed his wrongful termination using UCLA procedures. Ironically enough, the fake "scientist" was only suspended for his misconduct while Dr. Enstrom was terminated for telling the truth.

Dr. Enstrom is a separate (but still disconcerting) issue, and not the core focus for me linking this article.
The fake CARB (California Air Resource Board) scientist is.

BTW, even though Hien T. Tran (the fake scientist not named in the article) was demoted in the organization he was not let go from CARB. Mary Nichols (the head or ARB) kept all his data and kept on pushing for heavy regulation using his statistical contributions, none of his work was thrown out.

And you wonder why I would question the "current" scientific process or any peer reviewed (re:echo chamber) data presented on these boards? And always presented with an agenda?

Thanks, but no thanks.

1 to 50 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.