|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
My PCs actually took a real liking to Orik for reason I fail to comprehend fully. I mean, I like him too and I might have portrayed him in a sympathetic way enough for them to care, but usually they are of the bloodlusting sort (and they didn't hesitate to kill off other major NPCs in Thistletop like poor Lyrie).
Well, I'm already organizing a playtest of 5 classes out of the bunch, but for the moment I have to say this might be the biggest misstep in Paizo's path so far. And I quite love Paizo and their products, to the point that I'm probably partial even to bad decision-making, so this speaks volumes.
The first problem is the concept itself. It's true, many people here have reacted negatively within minutes, but isn't that weird on its own? There's something utterly uninspiring in the concept of these mixed classes. Some people might love them, of course, and other people simply won't use them... But a blunder is a blunder, and the signs are there.
Take the Swashbuckler, for example. His Panache pool is equal to his Charisma modifier. His 1st level Deeds, Opportune Parry and Riposte, need 1 point each to be executed and 2 uses of Attacks of Opportunity.
But I digress. The point is not that these classes are low-powered when compared to Core classes: I understand that power creep is a legitimate concern and I wouldn't want classes that skyrocket either. The point is that the mechanics simply don't seem to work as intended, and that's because mixing classes is really tricky. Maybe even trickier than designing completely new ones (a feat, pun not intended, that so far has given us really interesting and fun stuff to play with).
The only evil thing you can do in such a situation is enforcing your point of view on others and treating them as "bad evil people" for playing the game in a way that's fundamentally different than yours.
It... might be too much, yeah. I mean, resurrection magic is available in your world, and it only seems fair if the PCs have it for the villains to have it too. Still, your players might feel cheated.
Actually, at low levels, the rules make much more sense than you think. In my opinion you're seriously underestimating how difficult it is to approach someone undheard and kill them in a single blow. You might seriously harm them, but cutting a throat with a clean slash? Not likely, unless you are a professional with some serious training on your back (eg. someone with the Sneak Attack class feature). In that case, a Rogue has just the right chance you're talking about to kill an unaware guard in one silent hit.
This isn't valid at mid-high levels, though. But at those levels you're probably not attempting to one-shot a common guard, so a different set of rules applies.
Same sex couples are in hiding, even if, by the strict text of the setting, they shouldn't necessarily have to be (such as the couple in Sandpoint, said to be an open secret to the townsfolk, and the only one who really seems to disapprove is the local sleazebag crimelord!).
Actually it's not the crimelord. The Scarnettis of Sandpoint are depicted as having some sort of "dark-grey" morality (what about setting fire to the other mills?), sometimes leaning strongly to the darker side of the spectrum (Alamon Scarnetti and his band killing the varisians). They are not Sczarni, though. The reason of the hate on the couple is that they cling to old Chelish traditions which seem to treat homosexuality as a scandal. And they're equally scandalized that no one in town cares anymore about such things.This gives us two facts: Chelish traditions, in fact, do ostracize homosexuals. And those traditions are nowadays frowned upon by the majority of the common people living far from Chelish holds, but political reasons might make secrecy a necessity for some people.
Well, my best character in 15 years of gaming is probably Rasputin.
Rasputin, Kobold Wizard (transmuter)
Hi guys, I'm currently playing a Paladin (Oath of Vengeance) in the Council of Thieves AP. We're on our way to level 3 and so far the adventure's been great. Now, I'm a big fan of the Pathfinder Paladin but I found something that I need to work around. That is, Feats.
Me, I found that Antagonize seems to be really good (I'm using it with Diplomacy and not Intimidate, so it's good but not completely broken).
For the bucks I've paid, I'm already getting more than my fair share of use out of Ultimate Magic. Great job so far, giving players a lot of options and keeping down the power creep. Words of Power are just what I wanted them to be, and I especially love some new feats.
Makes me wonder what kind of game play Italians favor...
I can try with this, but there are many italians here on the messageboards who can answer in different ways. Now, that's because this varies greatly. I'd say that 3.5 was really popular some years ago... White Wolf has a nice share of the market, but not that much. 4E is not doing as well as 3.5, afaik. Pathfinder goes pretty well in my area (central Italy)! Sadly, there's not much room for smaller publishers, but I don't think we should put Paizo with the small ones.I'd also say that Pathfinder is really more known/played in Italy that in Ireland!
So a person could steal a copy of a digital product and that would be ok, but stealing the installation disk of the same product would be wrong because one is physical and the other is digital?
I read all of Neverminding's posts and, to me, it looks pretty clear that he stated many times that both are wrong. The distinction he does is in the mindset of the people, and I think that's almost factual, so I see no point in contradicting him.We should say: "I agree, but we should really work on kids' education", not "You are wrong because there's no such distinction". There is. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of perception.
It *is* indeed compatible provided you do a little amount of conversion (or that you find that same conversion done by someone else). The real problem is not compatibility but power creep. Pathfinder is a great game but if you put it together with 3.5 you could end up with much more powerful heroes than in 3.5 alone.
I partially agree with Erik, but while it's true that Skinsaw Murder "as is" doesn't have that many elements of true mistery, I also think it'd be really, really easy to tweak the adventure just a bit to introduce them.
Fighters in PF can have a great offensive potential. You should keep this in mind when designing/adapting encounters to challenge them. Usually having a group like this fight a solo monster is not a really good idea... You can do it, but you should tweak the monster a little.
That's like saying "For a good AP, you would need a Book of Exalted Deeds."
Noooot so fast...First of all, I said "You would probably require some material like the one published in the Book of Vile Darkness", not the book itself. So, that's like saying: running a good-themed campaign would "probably require some material like the one published in the Book of Exalted Deeds". ;) And I don't think this is far from truth. In BoED you can find new creatures, particularly good-themed spells and a bunch of stuff like that. And that would be quite useful in running a good-themed campaign, but not *required*. And there's a reason for this. Pathfinder's core assumption is that the characters will be good or neutral aligned. This is *not* as strong as in (let's say, but no edition war please) D&D 4E, but the feeling is still there. You are given the *option* to create an evil character, but that's a "variant", not the main rule. E.g. the Paladin is the core class in the main book, the Antipaladin is a variant in another book. That's just the way it is.
So, the game already has enough implied material so that if you want to play a righteous character you can do it without anything else.
And... There's more to it, actually. When I say "an AP like that would probably require printing some not-so-friendly material like the etc etc" I'm saying "Hey, for that AP they'll need to print stuff who can be unappealing to some people. Like, let's say, the stuff on BoVD is not appealing to everyone. Yeah, stuff like that". Maybe it's not dark spells, maybe it's not rules for addiction (we already have them I think), maybe it's not blood-themed prestige classes... But writing an evil AP means that they'll have to write something with the same style. Maybe just fluff, maybe just the adventure, but you can't really write an adventure about "sacrificing young maidens" without gettin a lot of people mad at you. That's what I meant, and I don't think it was that obscure or unclear. BoVD was simply an example of the "style" they'd need to recreate and that same style could get them in troubles.
Another thing I'd like to underline: what would you define as a "good AP"? I'd say an AP where the PCs are required to be good and their "goodness" is a main theme of the AP itself. For example, I wouldn't call Second Darkness a "good AP", even if the PCs are supposed to save the world. They are also supposed to be running a betting hall, to pretend they're drows and things like that. I don't really think that we've seen a really "good AP" from Paizo so far, but I don't have them all so I'm not sure about this.
(on a side note: what's the deal with this boards? That's like the third time someone tries to counter-argument something I said with an apparently parallel example who, in reality, doesn't fit to what I'm saying and I have to explain WHY it's not fitting. Guys, try some other tactic from time to time!)
Thanks everyone. Mauril, I thought about that solution for 2handed weapons and I find it perfectly reasonable (a bit cheesy, maybe, but not that much). I really hoped for something with 2 weapons but eh, you can't really have everything, isn't it?
I do not and will not knowingly ever acquire such material, even if I am not happy with a given company. Piracy is wrong. I earn my money, and I decide what to spend that hard-earned entertainment budget on. The companies/artists/authors/etc that make the stuff - whatever it is - that I want to spend that budget on earn their money in turn. They really earn it with return/subscription business. Buying something once is a test - repeat business is commitment.
Piracy is wrong. I said it and I will say it again. I always buy my stuff from Amazon.com (...pdfs just aren't my thing, I guess) because it's cheaper, BUT...Yep, there's a BUT. This is not really the case with Paizo products, because the whole ruleset is readily available from the SRD, but you'd be surprised to know how much piracy can contribute to give popularity to one product in one gamer area and invite many people into buying the actual books.
I'm from a country where piracy is widespread and a "common practice". And I know it's a sad thing. But I saw this happening too many times: someone pirates a product and start distributing it, people like it so much that they buy the actual product. If no one had pirated it in the first place, the product would have remained unknown and not a single copy would have been sold. Mind you, I'm still not saying that this is good for the producers. I don't know what this is, really. And I'm *not* defending piracy, I'd like this to be clear.
I guess that piracy is more or less like advertisement. Companies PAY for it (not receiving the due money = pay, basically), but they *do* have an income from that. Is this convenient from them? I don't know, really. I don't think so, either. But that's just speculation on my side. The most important thing is that this is "unwanted", uncontrolled advertisement, and this is not right.
Again, I repeat that this does not apply to Paizo products, or at least not to anything I know of.
I have some questions on this matter, but before I begin: I'm talking about "casting spells as swift actions" and this can be obtained in different ways. Quicken Spell is certainly the most straightforward but there's also Spell Critical (Eldritch Knight 10°) and probably there's more. If you think that these ways of casting a spell as a swift actions are somehow different and should be treated accordingly, please point it out, because I don't think it's very clear. Now, the questions:
Ahh the old "lets try an evil campaign" discussion. Every group eventually tries it and learns it just does not work. I won't go into the various problems with it but go ahead and give it a try, you'll see.
Aaaah, nice way to put your personal experience as a factual evidence.Personally, the last evil campaign I ran lasted for 3 years before people wanted to try something new (and right now I'm running an all-good party). Also, I do enjoy playing evil characters in a "all evil" scenario and that would be a good half of the characters I played when I get to be a player. Still, you don't see me saying "Evil campaign are awesome and if you try you will never get back, that's valid for every group!"
That would be no less correct than your grossly incorrect statement.
OP asked how to use Paizo material to run an evil campaign, not if running an evil campaign is a good idea or not.
I thought about that, too.
Now, this doesn't change facts that you *can* do something about it with pre-existing Paizo APs.
Or, to put it another way, that the wizard is a Tier 1 class and the sorcerer is a Tier 2 class, on a scale from about 1 to 6.
I'm really curious about this. Even if it's OT, could you post a list of Tiers for the core classes?
MS your argument about Wotc being greedy with their business basically amounts to "their not giving me what I want and how I want it so they must be greedy"
Then I should read it again, because it didn't seem like that to me. ;)
Full respect to you! :)
Also, to reinforce this, I think there are also some cultural values at work here. Some cultures value honesty (sometimes blunt) and being direct, some others value the "politically correct". It would be helpful to know other posters' cultural background, but it's really difficult on the internet.
So if I were to say 'You are not a proper human being' I may not be an elitist? The attitude isn't enough?
That is not a proper example. ;)Your logic falls when you do not consider (not because you don't understand what I mean, but simply because you want to create an hyperbolic example) that we are still talking about likes and dislikes, not the essence of human beings. I understand that this argument, as it is, may seem weak. Allow me to be more specific: with your example, you are comparing one's attitude in saying "4E is less than a roleplaying game" to another's attitude in saying "TriOmegaZero is less than a human". This is blatantly false, unless you guys take your discussions about RpGs *waaaay too far*.
So, the attitude behind a sentence *can* be enough, yes. And, in fact, I do not disagree when DigitalMage says:
It can however be indicative that you may potentially be elitist
It doesn't mean, however, that the implied attitude behind a sentence is always the same nor that it always carries the same weight. Pragmatics in linguistics teaches us that context is important. I do not feel that, talking about a light-hearted argument like roleplaying games, the attitude behind a certain expression of like/dislike *can* be enough.And, to get back to what DM said at the beginning of this side-argument, it is a matter of how people read things, yes. For this reason I think we should stick to what is written. If someone says "Meh, 4E sucks" or "Meh, PF sucks", I do not jump immediately to conclusions about that person, regarding it as inferior/superior. I find this to be a reasonable reaction. I see that not everyone thinks the same, and someone feels entitled to say "Ehi, look at this guy here, he must be an elitist/a prick/an ass/a whatever!"
That's fine, I won't die because of someone's judgement on the internet, and I'm clearly not special in this. I was just warning people that no, usually what you read on a messageboard is *not* a clear indicator of that person's behaviour. Not like 5 minutes of real conversation can be.
I also think that this bad impression is purely a problem of language, but I didn't choose my words without reason. I wanted to make an example, and I think that's the part you missed.
The whole point of my reasoning is this: does this attitude make me an elitist? My answer is: no, it doesn't. It *can* be a part of elitism, of course, but alone it's not sufficient. Elitism means that I feel myself (or the group of people I belong to) superior to others, and I don't value other people opinions because they are inferior.
Thirded, seems a fair number of Pathfinder fans to come off as elitist at times heh.
Disliking a game doesn't make you an elitist.While I feel that Pathfinder is a superior game compared to 4E, I do not feel superior to those who play 4E. That would be very stupid. They simply like different things.
It's like saying I'm elitist because I don't like my pizza with pineapples. Sure I think a proper pizza should never see a pineapple on the same table, but this doesn't mean I feel superior to the hundreds who seem to like that thing.
When thread go down to arguing about dictionary references for me it's a clear signal: time to close the whole thing. While I have no decisional power on this (...thanks God) I still hope there's someone with a Wisdom score of 10+ out there.
A deluded Azrael Lukja hopelessly wrote:
I prefer listing my opinions here and let the others decide their value. I hope everyone sticks to this.
Fine, I didn't ask for this, you got me into it.Point one: out of combat rules. We are discussing systems here, not house rulings. Even if I could easily believe that Digital Mage has the best 4E game of the world, it doesn't change anything about my argument against 4E lack of proper out-of-combat rulings.
So... The system lacks some skills. That's a fact. You can house rule them back into the game? Sure. Doesn't change the fact that the system lacks those skills. So, the system lacks something and you have to make up for it. Your solution works nice for you? Great! I'm happy for you. Is this supposed to be a counter argument? It isn't, it's more like "Hey, I have it this way and it works...". Everyone is royally fine with that, believe me. Also, that referred not only to the lack of some skills but to the whole mechanics of Skill Challenges. As I said before, that system sucks so much that there's no point in defending it. Aside from the math errors, which show an obvious lack of proper playtesting, I can just wholeheartedly agree with martryn here.
As you said, you can just ignore them. Well, there you have some well spent bucks! Rules so bad you should ignore them and do just like you did before! Now that's that make a good system! ;)
Point two: powers with no use outside of combat. The ritual system when 4E got published was nothing but a joke. I don't know if now, with so many supplements, you actually have a decent choice. I hope it's better. I know they have overhauled the costs of the ritual because out of the box it was plainly outrageous. Aside from this, I actually agree that 4E Rituals are one of the few good things the game has.
But it's not enough. When I say "lack of combat options" I mean this: your character can pull a particular trick and be awesome while he's fighting... Now he has no enemies and can't do that. Why? Because the target is "A creature", and you can't use that on the door to burst it open, because the door is not a creature.
Well, you could, if your DM were let you. And any good DM will let you, actually. But let's go back to point 1 and see how house rulings do not defend a poorly designed system.
This is not only a lack of options but also a lack of consistency, and this lack of consistency is what obstacles my player to roleplay. It just breaks the suspension of disbelief and suddenly the game feels like "chess" or "minis" or "WoW" or whatever you want to call it.
Also: At Will cantrips in 4E are awesome. That's why I'm very very very glad we have at will cantrips in Pathfinder too! Here I should be reminding you that we're talking PF vs 4E, not 3.5. Suffice to say that I actually switched to 4E when I was still playing 3.5.
I would argue that Pathfinder is a better system for roleplaying than D&D 4° Edition for the reason I've already stated. Consistency, proper rules support for every in game situation (both in combat and out of combat), and also *no clear division* between combat and non-combat situations. Also, it lacks some elements who are plainly gamists and those element break the suspension of disbelief for me and my group. The first ones to come up to my mind are: auto-leveling skills (why should a 20° level warrior who has never picked a lock in his whole life be better at it than a 5° level rogue who does it for a living? Also, numbers are just an example), applying different rules to PCs and NPCs, mechanics too unrealistic and PC-based like minions. There are others.
When I played 3.5 I had to houserule something away. With PF I've yet to modify anything, I'm fully satisfied and I've players wanting for more. This simply couldn't happen with 4E. 3.5 was not a perfect system, Pathfinder is not either. While I think that overall core 3.5 was not a bad system (imbalanced as hell, but a good DM could keep up), I think that Pathfinder is currently the best system you can find if you want a fantasy game. After playing and defending 4E for more than a year I would not suggest it to anyone. Sure, something got better since day one... But many other things just kept getting worse. WotC should understand that a roleplaying game is not a computer game you can "patch" and call it a day. That's what they've been doing, and for this and many other reasons I gave (and I'm going to give) my money to the fine folks here at Paizo. In their products I can actually find good rules I can use instead of bloated rules I'd be better off ignoring for everyone's sake.
I dare say it doesn't.The problem is not whether an Eidolon is treated as a summoned creature or not. The feat Augment Summoning works on every creature you conjure with a summon spell. The status of "summoned creature" is only a logical consequence of being summoned, and the Eidolon has that status too because of the part you quoted. But the Eidolon is not, indeed, a creature conjured via a summon spell (except if you are using the spell Summon Eidolon, which works differently from normal summoning of a Eidolon).
I could go through the list of martyrn's complaints about 4E and disprove nearly every one of them. Basically, it comes down to personal preference.
I could also have done the same to your post (...and quite easily, considering that I "disproved" a part of it even BEFORE you wrote it ;) ) but I didn't. That would be edition war and we're really close to that right now. I prefer listing my opinions here and let the others decide their value. I hope everyone sticks to this.
Anyways, to be fair and honest there is one point out of martryn's 16 that is incorrect. I agree with all of the others, of course, but this one just has factual evidence that denies it:
4. Players feel they can't make a character without using character builder. Character builder allows too much access to feats and powers that really shouldn't be allowed in the game.
It is possible, for a DM, to open up the Character Builder and manually delete all of the options he doesn't want to include in his campaign. Then he can save this file and pass it to the players. This was one of my preferred features of all times and I'm willing to give Caesar what is Caesar's.
2) The idea that D&D 4E is a miniatures skirmish game and not a RPG is rubbish. You can roleplay and make a storybased game with any RPG system. (You can even do it with action figures or cap guns.) There are some rules for handling diplomatic encounters, sure (skill challenges). This is to give a DM a framework on how to run roleplaying situations - not to replace roleplaying.
It's funny how you take some time to write a rebuttal of a thesis just to see people jump in and propose the same idea without any changes.
Okay I see this argument about the word summon a lot. No, this is wrong. Look in a Role-playing game like D&D, you would know spell names are meaningless because you can call a spell anything and have the same effect. What makes the most sense here is the italicized word summon is referring to the summon sub school. Look up those summon spells and notice they say Conjuration (Summon) or summoning. The sub-school makes much more sense to base that feat off of rather than just what some wizard decided to name a spell. Like in Call of Cthulhu rpg, one spell can have many names but do the exact same thing. The name of the spell is meaningless. In character, it is just a generalization to make it easier to label spells. Like, I can call the magic missile spell "Seeking pulse of doom." Different name but does the same thing. So what it comes down to is simply, does the ability to summon an Eidolon fall into the Conjuration (Summon) specific school? Not what some wizard wrote the name to be to make it easier to work into conversation or lessons.
While I can see where you're coming from, your argument is invalid because the rules actually refer to the spell names on a regular basis. Maybe this was more valid in 3.5 than it still is, but we can't deny factual evidence like...
SRD, Cleric Spontaneus Casting wrote:
(a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name)
This makes you wrong. I agree with your interpretation of this particular rule, but the argument you are using to support it is incorrect. Does this mean you can't rename "Cure Light Wounds" into "Gentle Healing Hand of Light"? Well, of course you can, but you should remember what you just did and remember to apply Spontaneus Casting to your renamed spell even if the name is different. But ultimately the name is used as a perfectly valid identifier for a kind of spell.
Speaking about obscure tributes... Has anyone noticed Castle Odranto in Ustalav? The tribute to "The Castle of Otranto", the first gothic novel in english literature, is not that obscure. ;)
Sometimes I feel for the poor Reynolds.
A big group doesn't break the system. I managed to DM 9 players at once, and 6 was just regular some years ago.
On the other hand, a DM who is unable AND unwilling to do the necessary adjustments to play with such a group can do a great deal to break the system. I don't mean to be snarky, but this is just how things are. It's not your group's fault, and it's not even you and your group's fault. Guess what remains? Now, if you changed your mind about your unwillingess to do a bit of work for everyone's entertainment (including yours), you can get some of the advice posted here and make good use of it. Otherwise I really fail to see the point of this thread. Again, sorry if this sounds snarky, but reading the whole thread I just got this sort of attitude from the OP: "Hey guys I have a problem I don't want to solve, but it's probably system's fault, there's no way my encounters could be too easy! I don't care if you want to help me, really, I don't have time to do what must be done and everyone else does! And even if I had time, I probably wouldn't do it anyways!"
Unsurprisingly, that thread got closed. But I read all of the seven pages and it gave me some interesting things to think about. One of the posters there said that in 4E you can have roleplaying like in every other game, because it depends on the system, not the players... And that's basically true. But it's not a well-thought argument to support one edition over another.
When 4E came out, I was pretty excited. I played it for a full year before switching to Pathfinder, and I still own the 3 core rulebooks. The reasons I switched? There are many.
It is true that it gives you exactly the same bonus. But it's the same bonus from different sources and, being a multiplier, it just adds up. It's not like a named static bonus where a +1 Deviation doesn't add up to a +3 Deviation... Every multiplier is unnamed and, if the right circumstance occours, it just gets added.
At 20th level, whenever the cavalier makes a charge attack while mounted, he deals double the normal amount of damage (or triple if using a lance).
Allow me to disagree with your reading. Not that this makes a big difference, but here's my reasoning:
Supreme Charge lets you deal double the normal amount of damage on a charge attack while mounted. That is easily read as a x2 multiplier.
I think your reading could be correct if it wasn't for the fact that if you're using a lance your damage is tripled, not doubled, as stated between the parenthesis.
Aaaaand I'm royally fine with this! What I'm not so fine with is double standards. And while I agree that Pathfinder art could look "cartoony" (because it's really, really different from gritty realism, or realism at all) and I agree that everyone has different tastes in different things (I love diversity, really!) calling Pathfinder art "cartoony" and then claiming that 4E art is any way different in style... Well, that is the type of argument I find biased.I think the difference is not so much in style but in quality. The only artworks I like from 4E are, guess what, Reynold's.