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

BPorter's page

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 1,191 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
You'll find that most people who like Pathfinder rapidly come to the conclusion that it's in their best interests to stay the hell away from these message boards,

Sadly, this is becoming increasingly true. I've been a Paizo fan & customer since the RotRL AP/Golarion announcement. I spend a lot less time here these days than I used to because of what these forums have developed into in the last six months or so.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HalifaxDM wrote:
ElyasRavenwood wrote:
I'm happy with pathfinder. I like the system. Can it be improved? sure. Are there things I don't like here or there? sure. But on the whole I am happy with the game.

This. I have played Pathfinder since it's inception migrating from 3.5 (and previous to that all editions back to AD&D and BECM). Yes there are some things that niggle me about PF such as escalating skill bonuses and DCs to ridiculous levels and travel rules that are a little to dull and simplistic but overall PF is one of my two go to games (the other being Savage Worlds).

Go team Paizo!

THIS +1.

And honestly, the constant straw-man arguments permeating the boards these days that you have to like everything to like anything, that if you don't want a completely new edition you're slavishly devoted to butt-kissing Paizo, etc. are becoming more than tiresome.

For those clamoring for a radically new edition, all change is not good. A PF 2.0 will likely not satisfy some, heck even most, of the radical design suggestions being thrown around. Even if/when a substantially different PF 2.0 appears one day, once you realize Paizo didn't adhere to your specific criteria then what? Immediate calls for PF 3.0?

There have been threads recently that have progressed well beyond differences in taste - complaints of developer's turning a deaf ear & blind eye to the poster's obvious RPG genius, calling Paizo incompetent, exaggerated claims of bloat, references to new material as "tumors" & "cancerous". Not to mention the dismissive posts or outright attacks on those who don't agree, or even dare to not agree as strongly about the things they view as broken. These are the standard-bearers of the Paizo fanbase that should guide the specs & goals of future Pathfinder content? Do they even like the game that they so radically wish to change? Did they ever?

I like Pathfinder in it's current form. Do I like everything? No, but I look to things like Pathfinder Unchained and third-party publishers to provide me alternatives that don't require me to redo/undo everything. Paizo continues to produce some of the highest quality products in the RPG industry - ever, not just today. They continue to find new design space and creative elements in a system that, according to claims that are very similar to the "PF2 must come!" crowd, was "done" and "used up" back in 2008. Archetypes, new classes, new takes on races and monsters, subsystems like those found in Ultimate Campaign now combining with products like Pathfinder Unchained & Psychic Magic.

Not to mention that they've displayed an incredible amount of skill and knowledge with how to profitably run & just as importantly, grow, a RPG business. Eric Mona has, for several years running, cited that Core Rulebook sales continue to grow.

Yeah, I'll stick with Paizo & Pathfinder. I don't have to like everything, but they're doing a TON of things right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Apologies for the late post-session feedback but Laying Waste was an even bigger hit than I anticipated!

So far, all indications are that this is THE critical hit/fumble system I have been looking to implement for many, many years.

It's proven to provide the high-five-inducing spectacular "YES!" moments of the old Rolemaster critical hits without the complete-randomness limitations of that and similar systems. It was also very intuitive for me and my players.

Laying Waste is on the fast-track to become one of 3PP rulebooks that are considered "core" for any Pathfinder game (along with Deep Magic & Spellpoints Compilation).

I've got another session coming up this weekend so the system will get another live-fire exercise very soon.

Thanks again for a terrific product.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Qstor wrote:

Is the gunslinger class appropriate in "base" Midgard?

Mike

It's appropriate if you want it to be. It's not the cop-out answer that it sounds like, they've truly treated it as an optional element that can be utilized or ignored per the GM's desires.

That said, "base" Midgard has the development of gunpowder solely residing with the Cantonal dwarves of the Ironcrag Mountains and it is recommended that a gunslinger PC have a tie to that region to provide a canonical justification.

Also, Kobold Press did a Gunslinger supplement that, as I understand it, introduces Vril "guns" - arcane powered firearms that are tied to ancient & forgotten empires. Even if that doesn't fit your idea of a gunslinger, it shows an example of how to incorporate it into the setting.

I'll close with this:

I'm still on the fence with the gunslinger and firearms in my PFRPG campaigns. That said, I think the more limited, canonical option is a much easier step to take than the "anyone who wants it" approach advocated by the pro-fantasy-firearms crowd wanted to see in Golarion. To be fair to Paizo, they largely held the line of presenting it as an option but the Inner Sea Campaign Guide did retcon earlier treatments on firearms to make it "more possible". --I wasn't a fan of that approach.

Midgard presented in such a way with built-in setting controls that I went so far as to allow a dwarven gunslinger in my Midgard campaign.

Midgard has become the go-to campaign setting for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Kajehase wrote:
Fnipernackle wrote:
This is FANTASTIC news. This should put to rest all those Pathfinder 2.0 threads/theories.
Kinda suspect they're more likely to fan the flames of them, actually.
Yeah, it's more that they are testing the waters for their ideas for PF 2.0. Sorry, Fnipernackle, but it's coming sooner or later. Maybe a bit later with this release, but it's coming.

Perhaps. However, this sounds much more like an evolution/refinement of a game (you know, what almost every RPG means when they use the word "edition") rather than the major rules re-write every edition that we get with D&D.

I'm all for tweaks & refinements. However, I'm done with the "blow up the game & start over" approach to editions. If PF 2.0 (whenever it happens) is a shift on par with 3e -> 4e -> 5e, I'm done.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:

The AP sales may not be faltering, but people are getting more dissatisfied with the game rules and that's eventually going to become an opening for another system to take away the customers who aren't satisfied with the lack of revision.

According to what, o revered Internet oracle? Paizo staff have cited in multiple interviews that core rule book sales have increased every year for multiple years (I think year 2 was the only one to come in lower and that was following the launch year).

The complaints of min-maxers, disenchanted 4e fans, or forum-only-RPG-business experts notwithstanding, plenty of people are happy with the game. If you go through the various "X is underpowered", "time for PF2e", and the "better change or D&D will leave you behind" threads, you're going to see a lot of the same names. Being vocal doesn't mean you're correct or have numbers on your side.

I remember similar claims were made when Paizo opted to develop the PFRPG rather than get on the GSL bandwagon. Those dire predictions, threats, and "expert business recommendations" were spectacularly wrong.

I'm all for making improvements in the game but claiming that "people are becoming more dissatisfied with the game rules" with nothing to back it up other than your desire to see development embrace what you want is a bit disingenuous.

I'm sure D&D5e will make a big splash initially. Time will tell if it has staying power greater than 4e did. Reflexively doing a major product shift on what might happen seems like a pretty bad way to run a business.

I'll trust Paizo to make that decision over the prophecies of forum-posters every time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm going to respectfully disagree with the E6/E8 suggestions. You can certainly go that route but I don't think that should be your primary focus. Here's what I would suggest.

Rule #1: You're converting a world/setting. You are NOT converting a rules-system. Presumably, you've picked Pathfinder as the system for a reason and the more you try to transform it the less time you'll be spending on playing up the aspects of the setting that (presumably) enticed you to consider this.

Rule #2: Dark Fantasy, not Low Fantasy. Warhammer is a pretty high-magic world but it's dark. By most measurable criteria, Evil (Chaos) is winning. There are two aspects you need to keep in mind to slant the game towards Dark Fantasy: 1-Dangers lurk everywhere, there are very few idyllic forest glens, there are many dark, haunted woods. 2-Choices are NEVER black-and-white. Choices should always have a consequence and usually should be choices that have to be made where somebody in the game world loses. The heroes saved the village but that farmer and his family were slaughtered by orcs. You stopped the cultists' ritual but half the city burned down, etc.

Rule #3: Status matters. A primary tenet of the Warhammer setting is that social status matters. This is largely reflected in Warhammer's career system where you have to "pay your dues" to advance to the more prestigious careers. You need to have some kind of social status mechanism. For example, the Midgard Campaign setting has such a mechanic and while your Charisma stat can influence it, it's not the sole (or even primary) driver.

Rule #4: Factions, agendas, and conspiracies. Everyone, even the PCs, should be tied to a faction, religion, organization, philosophy - something. And it should be pretty common that those elements of the world will be at odds with each other on occasion. This church doesn't like that church. This soldier doesn't like people from that country. Nobles scheme. Cultists plot.

Rule #5: Magic is dangerous & powerful PCs will be the primary exception to this rule, especially in a system like Pathfinder where so many classes are spellcasting ones. So you'll need to reflect this in the world around them -- most NPCs aren't spellcasters, outside of arcane orders and churches, there really aren't "magic shops" as they exist in some Pathfinder campaigns. Oh, and see Rule #4 - those orders and churches really don't care if you have the coin. You better have the coin AND be willing to do something on that group's behalf if you want to purchase any magical assistance from them.

Rule #6: Magic is feared Yes, the PCs probably have access to more magic than most groups in a given area. Guess what? They're viewed with suspicion and fear as a result. Even allies will be wary about the person who can charm them or blast a group of cavalry with a spell. And if a spellcaster becomes a threat, don't expect local authorities to pull any punches. Spellcasters are a threat and they're going to react accordingly.

Rule #7: Make choices; say "no" when appropriate: This isn't the cantina scene from Star Wars. "No, Fred, I'm sorry, you can't be an Oread undead-blooded sorcerer. Why? Because you'll be viewed as a monster and a freak by every settlement in the the world and attacked on sight. Since this is a campaign involving intrigue in a city, that won't work."

As for specific Pathfinder-adaptation suggestions:

1. Use the low-magic treasure rules. Wealth should be harder to come by to help drive the grubby/gritty side of the Warhammer experience.

2. Use the slow XP progression. Warhammer characters don't typically go from Ratcatcher to Noble quickly. Since in a level-based game like Pathfinder, character level directly translates to character ability/power, you need to slow things down.

3. Standard point-buy should be the highest used. Not Heroic, certainly not anything higher.

4. Setting integration over character-optimization. You can play an elf in the center of a human city but the player better be willing to accept the buy-in that the elf will be viewed as a rarity. No, you can't be a Chaos Knight and openly walk the streets. If you want to be a half-orc, you best stick to the borderlands or wilderness or expect knights, soldiers, guardsmen, etc. to try to kill you. If they're successful, they'll suffer no legal ramifications. (Obviously, there are exceptions to this suggestion, but they need to be just that - rare exceptions that are well-integrated into the game. They shouldn't just be hand-waived away because someone will say "you're limiting my fun".)

5. Forget about CR...mostly You want to make PCs feel like life is cheap and dangerous? Stop worrying about whether encounters are perfectly balanced. Now, I'm not saying ignore CR altogether. What I'm saying is don't adhere to the conventional wisdom of "this many below-APL encounters, this many at-APL encounters, this many above-APL encounters". A mob of commoners or goblins? Throw as many as required to make them a substantial threat. The adventure is a ghost story? Worry less about whether the PCs have a magic weapon and more about what relics they need or actions that they need to complete to banish the spirit or put it to rest. And don't be afraid to lean towards the higher-end of the CR/encounter scale - you want to bloody their noses more often than not.

You can also add house-rules or 3rd-party supplements to further reinforce the "threat" of the world: spell-failure tables, etc. I definitely recommend things that amp-up the threat of combat like the Critical Hit Deck or Torn Asunder but those should be added to provide the final tweaks to the setting. Modifying the mechanics should be seasoning, not the meal. The setting is the main course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:

I don't know if others have noticed, but since the Skull & Shackles adventure path, Paizo has had a shift in art direction to more egalitarian and realistic clothing. One of the results of this is that the fanservice-y costumes of Amri,Seoni, Alahazra, and Feiya are becoming increasingly "out of step" with the fashions of the world setting.

Regardless, of your opinions on "fanservice,"... My question is, do these characters need an art update to dress them more "realistically" for the Golarion setting?

No.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sticking with Pathfinder for the following reasons.

#1. It scratches most of my FRPG itches even with legacy items like Vancian casting and the X-mas Tree effect.

#2. I've been with Paizo since RotRL#1 and they've continued to impress and expand the game into new territories without losing sight of what works. Honestly, the bigger threat to my Paizo spend each month is that Golarion's less attractive bits bother me more than the RPG unattractive bits. Midgard continues to impress and so long as the Kobold's continue to support Pathfinder, setting/rules compatibility isn't an issue.

#3. Economics. I'm fortunate enough that my hobby isn't breaking the bank, but rainy days always come around now and again. If my d20 investment prevented me from going to 4e (that and it's design...), that investment is substantially greater now. My days of buying games I won't/can't play are behind me.

#4. If I'm going to break away from Pathfinder in search of something simpler/easier to run, it would be Savage Worlds, not D&DN/5e. Savage Worlds has all of the core components I expect and is much, much easier to customize without sacrificing setting/story flavor.

#5. D&DN/5e - It just isn't appealing to me and WotC's business model of the last 5-6 years is just at odds with what I want from RPG publishers. I like my OGL, my HeroLab, & my 3rd-party publisher support. I like my free PDF with my hardcopy subscriptions. I like not seeing Christmas layoffs, etc.

As a side note, if/when a Pathfinder 2.0 comes around, if it's a "rewrite" New Edition rather than a "update" New Edition, then I'll either stick with the current edition of Pathfinder or switch over entirely to Savage Worlds.

I'm pretty much done with Edition Treadmills, especially for "D&D-style Fantasy".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LoneKnave wrote:
@BPorter: Hey, do you think casters are overpowered? If not, you aren't really the audience being polled. Just thought I'd mention.

Yes, I tend to think casters are over-powered at high levels. The level of power introduces problems with campaign consistency, genre emulation, and feeds the power creep cycle.

The fix, however, should lay in scaling back that power (reserving current high-level spell abilities for Mythic) instead of straining the game by trying to amp everything else to "catch up".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Damn, that was a great movie! It had everything I wanted from a modern-era Cap movie. It's my new favorite superhero movie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I really like this PDF but I have a couple of questions. The darakhul template is addressed in a sidebar on its power impact. The version presented provides a playable version of the race. So far, so good.

1. Is the version presented here intended to only apply to PCs or would it be used for NPCs and replace the monster template in most cases?

2. If not intended to replace the monsters, what is the in-setting rationale why PC darakhul are different in Midgard?

3. If it is intended to become the new "base creature", is the intent that only ghouls spread the disease and those that are darakhul retain more of who they were/class levels/ability to learn at the expense of being weaker (fewer stat bonuses) and "sterile" (unable to spread the disease?

Again, I understand the tone-down to make the race PC-ready and like it. I'm just not sure what impact/explanation it's supposed to suggest in-setting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

THIEF PARTIAL REVIEW

First, I’m a huge fan of the Thief series. I’ve played Thief: The Dark Project, essentially replayed it when I went out and purchased Thief Gold, Thief: The Metal Age, and Thief: Deadly Shadows. I’ve played them multiple times. Thief is probably my favorite video game franchise. So it has been with much anticipation and some trepidation that I’ve been anxiously awaiting the Thief “reboot” (more on that in a bit).

Second, I’m a fan of Dishonored. Lacking a viable Thief game on either of my consoles, I gave Dishonored a try and was not disappointed. Dishonored is a great game and its setting is engrossing in a manner similar to the Thief universe. I’ve purchased the DLC for Dishonored and in the final days leading up to the release of the new Thief game, I was playing Dishonored so it was fresh in my mind.

I haven’t finished the game yet but have played several story missions and side quests. I’ve certainly played enough to feel I can weigh in on how Thief is as a game.

On Internet Buzz & Reviews
I don’t put much stock in video game reviews, but one of the few game sites I frequent is GameSpot. I don’t need to agree with a reviewer to enjoy a game, but after playing Thief for 8+ hours and watching my sons play the Prologue, Chapter 1, and some challenge maps (don’t worry, they’re prohibited from playing certain missions/levels), I’m convinced that either they’d made up their mind that Thief wouldn’t stack up against Dishonored or they don’t really like stealth games.

The Thief vs. Dishonored Debate
Dishonored is a game about an assassin/bodyguard with mystical powers. Yes, you can play Dishonored as a stealth game but I played Dishonored to get my Thief fix and while I loved the game, it didn’t hit that mark. Corvo possesses a lethal skill set. Even while playing in stealth mode, the dual-wield of blade and ranged weapon clearly puts him in different mindset than Garrett, the thief who steals as much for the challenge as the prize. Yes, stealth is an option in Dishonored but even if spotted, Corvo is more than equipped to deal with most threats in the game: sword, gun, crossbow, summoning rats, stopping time, etc.

The GameSpot review complained about the lack of a jump button in Thief and the interaction of Garrett in the environment. Unless the reviewers were trying to climb or vault every surface in the game, they were being bull-headed about navigating Garrett’s world. My kids (13 & 8) picked it up within seconds (they were also completely engrossed in the world of Thief). Corvo has a jump button but honestly, once Corvo has access to Blink that became the primary method of navigating difficult terrain for me. There were plenty of things Corvo can’t jump over or onto.

I also find the Dishonored art style, while interesting, a bit cartoony for my tastes. I much prefer Thief’s aesthetic.

Finally, Corvo is yet another voiceless first-person protagonist. Aside from your in-game decisions which determine the game’s outcome (a plus), the biggest window we have into Corvo’s personality is the Outsider – a Loki-like trickster at best or a demonic agent of evil at worst. Garrett, in every game in the series, is a character with a voice. Yes, you can play him as you like, but you have a sense of who Garrett is within the story and his world.

Gameplay
I find the gameplay hits all of the Thief marks for me and I absolutely love the additions of Garrett’s “presence” in the game. Hands placed on a doorframe while he peeks around a corner, being able to look down while climbing a rope and seeing Garrett’s body and legs, legs leading the way when I vault a balcony, being able to lean over a railing to peer down at a street – all fantastic additions to the game and increase my immersion.

The “city hub” element has been drastically improved over Thief: Deadly Shadows. The addition of the ability to interact with recurring characters, side quests, and Arkham City-style exploration are welcome complimentary elements to the excellent story-based missions.

I’m impressed that so many settings can be turned off to reflect the style of play you wish to enjoy. Focus is completely optional. I’ve turned it off as has my eldest, but for my younger son, Focus makes it accessible for him in much the same way Detective Vision did in the Batman Arkham games.

I worried that "the claw" would become the Garrett-Grapnel. It's not. It's used to gain a handhold for Garrett to ascend to ledges that he wouldn't be able to reach otherwise. When it's used beyond that, it's done as part of the climbing sequences that incorporate a third-person view (ala Uncharted). The climbing is only accessible in certain sequences but it's a welcome addition and superior to T:DS's climbing gloves.

On the “Reboot”
IMO based on what I’ve played thus far, Square Enix is calling this a reboot to welcome new gamers to the franchise. When it’s been 10 years since the last installment, I can appreciate the fear that if the lore is obscure or a learning curve is perceived as too high, new players might stay away.

While nothing is specifically called out to link to the previous trilogy, you’d have to blind, obtuse, or not well-versed in the original games to pick up on it. My guess is that the GameSpot reviewers are aware of Thief’s role in inspiring later stealth games, but are likely not fans that played the prior games significantly.

Within the prologue and first three story missions, the following are present:
1. Erin, Garrett’s former apprentice, is by all appearances the young girl Garrett took as an apprentice at the end of Deadly Shadows.
2. A ring shaped as a Mechanist’s gear symbol
3. A newspaper that speaks to the banning of the “Old Gods”. I took this to mean the Pagans, but we’ll see.
4. An ancient Keeper library (even if it’s not specifically called out as such).
5. Basso refers to never getting married again. (Hearkens back to Basso’s mission for Garrett in Thief 2)

Finally, Garrett’s evolution continues in this installment. I was concerned about Garrett relying solely on the blackjack – no sword or dagger in his arsenal. But it fits the story and his interaction with Erin. When looking at the series as a whole, Garrett starts as a thief relying on the weapons the Keepers taught him to use, but his desire to avoid unnecessary killing (and underscoring his status as Master Thief) leads him to abandon the sword for the dagger, and ultimately the dagger as well – to reinforce his attempt to teach Erin.

Garrett is still the antihero or, at best, the reluctant hero. I loved the voice of the actor who originally played Garrett and was sorry to hear he wasn’t returning. I feel that the current actor does a good job, however. He does a good job of relaying Garrett’s affection for, and frustration with, Erin. It’s sadly ironic that the star pupil who left the master who took him in has suffered the same experience with his own apprentice…

Yeah, I know, this is a long-winded partial review but I think a lot of the Internet buzz is not accurately depicting the game.

If you’re more of a fan of action-focused stealth, Dishonored is a great game. I love that game for what it is, but it isn’t Thief. If you’re a fan of the Thief series, give the game a chance. Garrett is back, and after a ten year wait, I’m thrilled. I’m not saying it’s a perfect game, but it’s a damn good one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
I really hope this bombs and the rights go back to Disney/Marvel.

Amen. This is going to suck.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Hoover wrote:

In the classic article on West Marches style games based on the campaign experiment of the same name the author goes to great lengths to explain how the PCs drive everything based on what they find. He does however note that he as the GM has most of the plans behind the scenes and the players are just uncovering what's there.

In another thread I admitted my one issue with this style of gaming: Intelligent Villians. What do you do if you want to have a scheming mastermind monster planted somewhere out there in the wilds? For example you've got say a young green dragon, Int 12, that's lived already for hundreds of years. Is he just flying around his forest waiting for adventurers to find him?

It would seem that in this "plotless" style game where everything is based on what the PCs find when they get there it would be antithesis to then have such a villain in the wilds. Please share your thoughts and/or any experiences you've had in such games.

So almost every campaign I've run for the last 15 years has followed a similar concept, primarily because my players tend to avoid having plots/assignments handed to them and pursuing what interests them.

Villains: You've got to have them. I take different approaches for different campaigns but usually, it's different approaches for specific villains.
The agenda-based villain: This is a villain with a plan and she is actively pursuing it. I work out what the villain hopes to accomplish and her general plan for achieving it. I also map out a loose timeline of how long it will take for an objective to be achieved if the players do nothing to stop it. If the players choose to pursue other things, certain events will happen and will affect the setting.

Location-based villain: This is a villain that either controls an area or limits his filed of operations to a single location or small area. He's searching for a lost relic, questing to find a path to immortality, ruling his domain with an iron fist -- whatever. If the PCs never venture to this area/location, the status quo in that area remains largely unchanged. Unless, of course, at a later point in the campaign you want to shift the villain into an agenda-based villain.

PC-generated villain: This is a villain that reacts to something the PCs are doing/have done. Whether it's a bandit lord, bounty hunter, local authorities, thieves' guild, etc. - the PCs are now on this person's radar in a negative way and they are now actively working against the PCs.

As with any sandbox campaign, this requires more up-front prep to establish plot seeds and hooks in broad brush strokes.

Saying that the campaign will be limited to a certain area is not any more restrictive that saying "I prepared this adventure/plot and you need to follow it". Much less so, in fact.

You can absolutely have the setting/world change. The only thing imposing a static environment is a GM who doesn't want to adjust and update the campaign as the players interact with it.

Also, I've found that the key is to define the area in broad strokes and then focus on individual NPC characters and their goals, and objectives. If you know who the main NPCs are, what they're doing and why, filling in location details, henchmen, etc. is much easier.

Past the initial setup, I find most of the campaign management is updating how the NPCs, setting, and villains adjust/react to what the PCs are doing (or what they're ignoring and allowing to occur by omission). Plots I never would have considered have arisen out of this style of campaign to the increased enjoyment of the players and the GM.

Here's a sample framework of three PF campaigns I'm running currently:

Group A - wandering adventurers. Consistent player mix where they can pursue adventures that interest them. Go anywhere, do anything.

Group B - same as Group A but for a different set of players

"Pick-up" Campaign - a campaign set in a city focusing on "smaller" (i.e. shorter) story arcs. Session frequency and player composition varies and the intent is to allow characters to drop in and out as needed while allowing for PF play even when a full Group can't get together due to scheduling conflicts.

Campaign Rules for the Pick-up Campaign consist of the following:
1. The campaign is set in and around the city of Korvosa. PCs may be from other areas, but they've moved to the city and now call it home.
2. Each story is limited to a single session. i.e., no cliffhanger ending that is picked up on the next session. Story arcs can continue across multiple sessions but that's because they are occurring within Korvosa rather than tied to specific players/player characters.
3. The players' characters will, through the course of the game, all have at least made the acquaintance of the other PCs. Since they all live in the same city, even if they haven't adventured together they may have met previously at a tavern, worked a side job together, etc.

Trust me. These types of campaigns not only work, but can be extremely rewarding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
So it's pretty much a "I was happy with those lazor rabots confined to Numeria, and now it looks like they're going to spill over to my cherished realms of princesses and dragons fantasy" problem here?

You keep wanting to go there in various threads whenever someone isn't for the "full speed towards gonzo fantasy" option, but in a word - no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeven wrote:


It feels like there is a tug-of-war going on between different developers in the Golarion setting. One group roots the setting in the standard fantasy pseudo-Medieval/Renaissance era, while the other pulls it towards the early Industrial/Revolutionary/Colonial era of the C18th-19th.
This does create some very jarring contrasts - like the rival images of Andoran Knights in the campaign book where one depicts C18th Revolutionary soldier and the other a C13th knight in full plate.
I think Paizo could do a much better job in skinning things to fit the setting, rather just dumping random elements in from far removed centuries of real world history.

Its not meant to be an historical simulation, of course, but when you use elements from historical periods that are really, really far apart in the same country then it becomes somewhat jarring. It makes the whole setting feel unstuck in time, and becomes hard to get into. Since you already have to suspend belief to allow for magic and fantasy monsters, not having a familiar era in time to ground it all in makes the whole construct feel very unstable. It really needs more stable anchors.

Bingo! Sweet baby Jesus, we have a winner!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeven wrote:
BPorter wrote:
B) I specifically mentioned that I like the mix of cultures. But I want internal consistency from the setting and this "jumbled world". Vikings mixing with samurai, no problem. English colonial gear mixed with knights, plate armor, & revolutionay garb with no in-setting context for the development of such things - no thanks.

Its best to think of Golarion as a Disneyland type theme park. There are medieval knights in one section, Victorian-era explorers in another, cowboys with guns somewhere else, alien robots in yet another. They don't actually mix because theme-park characters know to stay put in their own sections.

Adventures are always focused on one specific area, so the bigger picture or overall world consistency is less important.
If you don't like that then Golarion is not the setting for you.

Well, as someone who has been with Golarion since Rise of the Runelords #1, thanks for suggesting that I take my ball and go home.

I get the idea behind "self-contained" areas. But if Golarion is truly intended to be moving in the direction of becoming such a hodge podge/theme-park design, then your probably right and my days of setting campaigns in Golarion will be drawing to a close.

But I'd like to think that if Paizo hears from enough customers that "Golarion shouldn't be Disneyland" I likely wouldnt' have to pull that particular trigger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
zergtitan wrote:

my apologies BPorter, I meant no offense. I understand that Paizo looks at customer feedback for details as to how to improve it's work. I'm sorry if the term I used of "cookie-cut" seemed to offend you (I should of used another term) But one of the main points I saw with your take on this book was that it was getting more complicated then you liked. this is understandable, but pathfinder generally doesn't design new additions to a system unless they find a need to do so (Worldwound AP=Mythic rules). And with many of these systems you can pick and choose what you will.

In terms of technology, I believe the points you are making are ones that in many ways pathfinder has thrown out the window. (ex.Alkenstar & Numeria) In the case of the images described of pith-helmets and khakis, I believe that was the desired interpretation wanted since Sargava and the Mwangi Expanse are based off of novels like those containing Allen Quartermain. so the clothing is somewhat expected. plus the images you state have guns, don't. in fact in them they are using spears, not firearms. firearms don't appear in any illustration until the creation of the Ultimate Combat core rulebook with the gunslinger class.

No problem.

As for the picture I was referencing, while I couldn't find the image, I did find the thread:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2idqw?Todays-Blog-Post-A-Rifle#21

In that thread, James Jacobs said the following:
"Actually, you may have read a bit TOO much into what I said. As I mentioned in the last post, the more I've thought about it... the more that particular illustrtion doesn't "FEEL" Golarion to me.

As for Modern stuff... maybe some day. If we DO Modern stuff, though, it'll be under a different brand from Pathfinder. Pathfinder's our fantasy setting, and is only one thing that Paizo's doing. It just happens to be the BIGGEST thing we're doing now... but in 3 years, we might well have some other campaigns and/or games out there, including d20 Modern stuff. Who knows?"

So, it would appear, that at least conceptually, I'm not the only one that feels that a kitchen-sink setting that embraces a wide range of playstyles can still have a consistent feel without having to embrace "everything goes".

...and no, the irony that J.Jacobs said a pith helmets doen't "feel Golarion" is not lost on me given that they show up in this Companion.

...and yes, they will NEVER exist in my campaign versions of Golarion. If you like 'em, that's cool. I frakkin' hate them, however.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
zergtitan wrote:

BPorter: in my opinion this jumbled world is what makes Pathfinder great. It's more real. Take a look at the world we live in, it's not all middle earth or Arthurian landscape, it's a huge and diverse planet and we can find something new in every corner of it. Now I know you want a classic RPG style world to which I say choose your country and stay there. (If you don't like any part of the world then USA, then just stay in the USA.) that's the beauty of it. What you see as a jumbled mess, I see as a world full possibilities to play classic fighters to samurai, to even a gunslingers and I love it!

So while it may not fit your cookie cut RPG, the variety of options give many different groups choices, appealing to a wider audience. So if the vairiety of Pathfinder bothers you, either pick and use what you want or choose another RPG there are plenty out there to choose from that fit your desired image.

But for now I like this culture curry, globalized, and diverse world that is Pathfinder. And I say Paizo, keep shaking the world and gather as much fruit of human culture and history as you can get. :)

A) Last time I checked, Paizo was receptive to customer feedback, even when they didn't agree with it. Apparently, you aren't receptive to opinions that don't mesh with yours if you're suggesting that I find another RPG, so spare me the derogatory "cookie-cut" comments.

B) I specifically mentioned that I like the mix of cultures. But I want internal consistency from the setting and this "jumbled world". Vikings mixing with samurai, no problem. English colonial gear mixed with knights, plate armor, & revolutionay garb with no in-setting context for the development of such things - no thanks. With a calendar spanning 4 millenia, transportation magic, etc. Those "advanced influences" would have the ability to emulate modern transportation and communications as they enabled advanced nations on our world to do through the 19th & 20th centuries. So why is Sargava developing 19th-century British colonial-style garb when it's parent nation, with greater resources, military might, and influence is stuck in an ealier Earth-era equivalent? I'm all for a mix, but not a sloppy one.

C) There's precedent for what I'm objecting to. In the early days of Pathfinder APs and while Golarion was in its infancy, the Paizo site posted a picture of what was effectively the equivalent of British Imperial forces in pith helmets, knee socks, & khakis bearing 19th-century rifles fighting ape-men or somesuch monsters. It would have been a perfect fit for a game of Thrilling Tales or Savage Worlds and while there were some vocal fans, the overwhelming response on these boards was that it "didn't fit". We have a mix of cultures and technological disparity in our world even today. That doesn't mean that it's a setting suitable for 95% of the APs Paizo has published to date.

You like the current mix, that's fine. I don't like where it's been headed recently. I also think some more thought of the potential impact of new items (like clockwork listening devices that can record, playback, and self-distruct) should be considered. And who knew cheap gems were a read/write storage medium? -- I'm not really looking to have to entertain a Golarion 2.0 because things need to get retconned out due to negatively impacting the setting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

(This isn’t a full review, just a first-impression after a preliminary read-through.)

Magic shop discounts, full-on Victorian outfits, pith helmets, & clockwork “bugs”?!?

I’m all for supporting many varied playstyles with a campaign setting. I love the diverse cultural influences. I like kitchen sink settings. However, a setting that never says no isn’t inclusive, it’s a flavorless mess. It’s like Paizo flushed editorial oversight down the drain.

So why is a former colony more advanced than its parent nation (Sargava vs. Cheliax)? Sure a pith hat is an article of clothing but the only reason for including it is b/c pulp-era movies had British soldiers wearing Pith helmets. Are we that lazy as gamers that we can’t imagine adventuring in an African analogue without having to see items & imagery more consistent with a Tarzan movie? Who knew that a relatively isolated colony is at the avant-garde of fashion while its founding nation is so backward? Hey, maybe during that Reign of Winter jaunt to Earth, we should swing by Saragava and pick up attire that will help us blend in...

Hey fantasy espionage just got revolutionized by an 1100 gp magic item! I’m sure that will constitute a huge financial burden to spy networks and adventuring parties alike.

How about morphing blades that can attack targets simultaneously!? Yeah, that doesn’t seem overpowered or contrived…

Say, it’s not the quality of your armor or the skill of the smith that counts, it’s all in how you work your anvil, baby…

I'm pretty freaking happy with what’s been coming out of the RPG line. (You even got me to like “epic” stuff with Mythic Adventures.) Paizo’s done a pretty good job of keeping a lid on power-creep. Unfortunately, there appears to be a content-equivalent of power/scope-creep going on outside of the Pathfinder RPG line.

I’ve been a Golarion fan since Rise of the Runelords #1. I certainly don’t think a setting needs a narrow focus or shtick to work like a Ravenloft, Midnight, or Iron Kingdoms. But it needs to have some attempt to adhere to an internal consistency. The kind of stuff introduced in this book helps push Golarion towards being a jumbled mess, not an expansive, imaginative, or consistent setting.

Despite being a Companion fan from its earliest days, I dropped my subscription to the Companion line a few months ago as it seemed to be morphing into a power-creep line. I re-upped it b/c some of the books coming down the line were on topics that were of interest. I’m rapidly reaching the “why even bother?” point.

Sadly, between questionable anachronistic elements and mechanics like I’ve cited above, this book is not a good addition to a Golarion library or an incentive to maintain a Companion subscription.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Last year, I wrote a few posts talking about the successful experiences I had introducing my kids and several of their friends to Pathfinder. Most of the kids were my older son’s friends, but my youngest and one of his friends were part of the initial group. Aside from the larger sessions, I run a campaign exclusively for my two sons.

Age 7 is a bit young for lengthy Pathfinder sessions and although my youngest likes to play, it’s usually less frequently and for shorter periods. A few weeks ago, my youngest told me he was working on a Pathfinder story for dear old Dad. I smiled, saying that would be great, grateful for the enthusiasm and hoping that if not age 8, perhaps when he turned 9, the RPG seed would flourish.

Then, a few nights later, he asked if I would show him how to make characters and monsters in Hero Lab. I did, but stressed that he should only make full characters for important characters.

A few nights later, he informed me that he had selected a map. The map he had selected was of an island taken from the front of one of his novels. I was impressed. I complimented him on his imagination as well as his ability to not try to do too much work for his first Pathfinder session.

The next night he was working in Hero Lab again. However, this time I noticed that in addition to working on the computer he was making notes in a little notebook. When I asked him what he was doing, he brought the notebook over and showed it to me – and what he’d written in it blew me away.

There was an outline (or the bare bones of one). He had a section where he’d listed the characters that he wanted to include, a list of the monsters he wanted to use, and a list of events comprising his plot.

His brother and I played through his initial session that weekend. It only ran for a little over an hour, was disjointed at times, and was wildly unbalanced (throwing a dragon at us seemed a bit unfair) – but boy, it was a blast. 2014 looks like a good year for gaming.

RPGs are truly a great pastime & hobby. Thank you, Paizo, for the wonderful game that is Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darth Grall wrote:
This thread is surprisingly calm. Guess that just shows how bad off the Rogue was...

Not really. I can't speak for others, but I generally see little benefit in posting in threads laden with rogue-sucks-hyperbole. I apparently failed my Will save today.

The rogue is extremely versatile. If you're going to look at it solely from a munchkin perspective, you'll find DPR winners but that's hardly a good measure of a classes effectveness in-game.

Anecdotally, the rogue remains the most popular class among all 3 of my current campaigns.

I like the other niches the new classes fulfil, but as with the ninja, the ineffectiveness of the rogue is VASTLY overstated by some vocal posters on these boards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Divine Healing mechanics sound awesome! Very flavorful and it reigns in the "I picked this deity just to get X, Y, & Z".

Note: I'm all for players picking abilities & the character they want, but if they are going to pick a deity that isn't prominent in the campaign region, they should feel like a bit of an outsider rather than expecting the GM to increase the prominence of their selected deity just to accommodate the player's choice. This seems like a nice mechanical way to reinforce the setting's canon/lore. More importantly, it also gives players of foreign/minor deities an incentive to spread the faith!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbral Reaver wrote:

The iconics should be interesting races like aboleth, mu spores and gelatinous cubes.

Humanoid races are boring. If I wanted to be a humanoid, I'd just go outside.

So when you're indoors you're NOT a humanoid? Strange, but interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As others have said, conflict helps drive plots. Also, human nature tends towards fearing/disliking what one doesn't understand. In a world populated with dozens or hundreds of species who can kill you, people are going to look at the odd-person out through the "are they a threat" lens.

But while I think that's part of the argument against the "play any species/critter you want" grab-bag, it's just not internally consistent. Or at least, when a GM tries to make it so, players often cry foul.

To take the OP's sample party, none of those races have a significant present in Golarion's Inner Sea region. I also can't think of a published setting that would, more to the point. So outside from perhaps a few cosmopolitan cities here or there, those characters are going to stick out like a sore thumb. Realistically, that means that every time they bend or break the law or if the bad guys come looking for those PCs, just about everyone in town is going to know exactly who to look for. In my experience, the player is intentionally choosing to play a rare/monstrous race but expects the GM to run the world as if a commoner on the street should react with a simple "Hi, Bob." You can't have it both ways. A greatly overused but applicable example are the legions of Dr'zzt-inspired "good" drow. Most players want the drow's cool abilities but want to forget that it comes with the in-game-canon of belonging to one of the most feared and reviled races in the game.

In the Elder Scrolls setting, catfolk are one of the primary races. They're integrated into the setting. The one's cited in the OP are not (save the human), at least not within the Inner Sea region to any large degree. If you want a setting that treats those races as commonplace, you're going to have to create a setting for that. Whether that's a settlement, a city, or a game world is up to you.

It also creates the problem of internal consistency with respect to the game itself. So goblins and orcs are considered evil marauders and can be killed with impunity but that ifrit and catfolk are clearing not monsters? How exactly is Joe Commoner going to know that?

I'm all for a setting that incorporates different elements. I'm not a fan of constantly having to shoe-horn in the race-of-the-week and then being expected to act as if they're as commonplace as the "big 6".


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Has it been two months since the last go round already?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

First, thank you for asking the customers for feedback.

Second, I apologize if this post seems argumentative or adversarial as that’s not my intent.

I’ve been a fan of the Companion line since its inception, but I think it’s time to figure out what the Companion line is intended to be.

For me, the biggest draw and really the sole reason I would put a Companion book in a player’s hands is to provide an aid that would enable them to develop a character that is more closely tied to the Golarion world and any campaigns set within them. The early companions certainly did this in spades, but suffered from the valid criticism that they seemed more geared toward GM gazetteers than Player’s Companions. Of late, however, the Companion line seems to have swung too far the other way, turning primarily into a crunch-laden book. There are still elements of Golarion lore, of course, but they seem to have been scaled back to accommodate the new “Companion formula”. While there are exceptions, the Companion line has gone from a “must-buy” to a “will this really add to my game?” line.

Of the “new format” Companions, the Varissian one is the gold star – everything in that book adds to player’s knowledge of the region and integrating into various aspects of the setting. There have been some similarly strong entries: Knights and Pirates come to mind. I also enjoy some of the “Blood of …” entries as well but it seems we’re stretching the concept after the next few entries. While I don’t mind a “Blood of Genies” or somesuch, “Catfolk of Golarion” has no appeal, especially when there are still large swaths of the Inner Sea region that haven’t received decent “integrating your character” content.

Entries like the Dungeoneer’s Handbook, Quests and Campaigns, and Dragonslayer’s Handbook hardly feel Golarion-centric. They’re needlessly crunch-heavy with feats, archetypes, equipment, and spells. They’re interesting ideas, but I think that they’re better fodder for the RPG line. They certainly are not something that I would hand to a player to read for inspiration on how to better integrate their characters in Golarion. In fact, they require more GM oversight than the early Companions. Much of the content is fine, I just think it would be better served in a different line. Either that or the Pathfinder Companion line should be renamed the Player Options line because some of these books are definitely losing their Golarion-specific focus.

This next comment is an unfair comparison as it deals with a different setting, different publisher, and a game world with far fewer published words than Golarion. That said, when I think “Player’s Companion” I think of this line or books like the Varisia Player’s Companion. The line I’m referring to are the Player’s Guides from Kobold Press for the Midgard setting. These books also have archetypes, feats, traits, and spells but they are absolutely dripping with setting lore.

That’s what I want from the Player’s Companion line - player’s introduction to creating characters from a particular region. Focusing on a particular theme is fine but I feel that while Paizo has done an incredible job of avoiding the “Splats for splats’ sake” model employed by WotC, if there is one line that is guilty of falling into that trap, the Companion line is guilty of it. Too much crunch and much of it is only thinly tied to Golarion.

I want the Companion line to return to “must-buy” status for me rather than its current spot of “line I don’t know if I want it, I certainly don’t need it”. Given the August Gen Con product explosion, I cancelled my subscription to the Companion line to keep my monthly Pathfinder spend from being too ridiculous. I had every intention of renewing the subscription in September. Right now, “People of the Sands”, “Blood of the Moon”, and “Bastards of Golarion” sound like they’ll have enough Golarion-lore to make the buy list (although the “skinwalker” stuff in Blood of the Moon has it on the fence as it sounds uber-niche). The rest of it sounds like crunch-heavy books that can easily have the Golarion-lore stripped out of it. Re-upping my Companion subscription is starting to look like a long-shot rather than a forgone conclusion.

Players may love the new formula and I suspect the sales volumes support that crunch-heavy model, but I’ve rapidly tired of it. Return to content like Varisia – Birthplace of Legends and you’ve got me back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Jeven wrote:
I wonder if this will move the Golarion setting in a more techno-fantasy direction as a whole.

Not on my watch! Numeria is our techno fantasy playground, but what happens in Numeria stays in Numeria! :) if you want this style of fantasy gaming, go to Numeria, but you aren't going to see robots invading the River Kingdoms or stun rays swinging the tide in Andoran. Golarion is a classic fantasy world when taken as a whole and that is where I want it to stay.

Lisa

Thank God & thank you Auntie Lisa!

I look forward to the Nmeria AP but definitely as a "season to taste", instead of going the world-changing route.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GeraintElberion wrote:


I'm always curious about the mindset which suggests that government officials are somehow the least trustworthy of people.

Admittedly, I'm not American, but I've been ripped off by private business a bunch of times (well, sometimes I've caught them at it and avoided being ripped off but... y'know). I've never (so far, touch wood) been treated in the same way by a public official.

The PPI mis-selling scandal is a good example. Even when the government stepped in and forced the banks to start paying people back we got private scammers trying to get a cut out of people's paybacks.

I'm not saying that government workers can't be shiftless and untrustworthy, but they're not uniquely so.

Corruption can occur anywhere. While I'm not giving corporations run by corrupt people a pass, I don't view corporations as monolithic repositories of evil.

There are plenty of good people in government. There are also plenty of cronies, petty bureaucrats, crooks, and incompetents that are able to hide within the halls of government and enjoy job protections that the private sector doesn't have.

That said, my comment was directed at government's willingness to waste or misappropriate taxpayer money. I work with customers in both the private and public sector across multiple states and I've seen how both sides handle money. As evidenced by Detroit, one can be fiscally irresponsible very easily and for a protracted period of time if the government culture will allow it. Sadly, Detroit is just one example of fiscal irresponsibility writ large.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
You're not from America. We've had 30+ years of propaganda pushing the "Government is bad" meme at us. From Reagan's "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." through to the tea party.

Actually the "government can't be trusted and works best when limited" meme has been around since, I don't know, the founding of the nation.

Most memes are better than the prevailing one we've had for the last 40-50 years where "disastrous results don't matter as long as our intentions were good".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

What the hell?

If I give someone a check for 50 bucks a week over a 30 year career for a pension fund you can't just say "oops sorry I spent the money"

Haven't been exposed to government officials much have you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Inspired by this book, I just posted my first RPG product review.

I just wanted to thank the Kobold Press family for making this product and this world. I wasn't looking for another campaign setting but it appears that I could not resist Midgard's dark beauty.

Congrats on the ENnie nomination. It is very well deserved. If there's ever another chance to get this book in hardcover, consider it pre-ordered!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pledged!

I have to say, even if I hadn't recently discovered the awesome that is the Midgard Campaign Setting, this would have been a must-buy just for the expansion of magic schools/sources, etc.

That said, however, this is the first time I've ever jumped on the good ship Kickstarter -- it just wasn't my thing. In the spirit of positive feedback, I have to share what pushed me over the edge: the Hero Lab files.

Honestly, if there were Hero Lab files for all of the Midgard books at this point, Golarion would already be my "fallback" campaign setting. While all of the stretch goals sound fantastic, having a book with this much content with full Hero Lab support made this an instant "must pledge".

Congrats mighty Kobolds. Looking forward to this and more to come!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:

So I personally really like the cavalier. I think they're versatile, mechanically interesting, and fill their own special little niche within the fantasy world. They give you that knight who can be of any alignment, give you a progressing mount without tying you in to spellcasting, and their unique use of Teamwork feats give them some interesting ways to "buff" the party.

But I noticed there are a lot of people who are extremely dissatisfied with the class, and I was curious to hear the reasons why. Thoughts?

The class is excellent. It's one of my favorites. Many posters, or at least some vocal ones, dislike the mounted warrior aspect. 'Cause if it can be optimized in a dungeon, some think it's inferior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:


That's what I believe to be the case, but with the CRB precedent of materials costs, it seems prudent to address the concern ASAP. At least one of my players raised this concern as he perceives the lack of such costs as "broken" (as I understand him).

It's an alternative system, if I'm following you. If you want to keep track of every item a PC is making & selling, you're going to utilize the Crafting rules. If the PC wants to run a smithy, but you don't want it to turn into a session of "Smithmaker, the RPG", you're going to use the Downtime Rules, where the money / day reflects the profit achieved from the running of the business (i.e. after various items are crafted & sold, you make X). Kind of like a mass combat abstraction versus adventurer-scale combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Nelson wrote:


Officially, all hexes are the same and all settlements are the same and all lots in a settlement are the same. Population is not a relevant stat in the published rules and exists purely as a bit of flavor text.

If you are interested in a more robust system for integrating population with your kingdom-building rules... stay tuned. :)

(Raises hand.) Count me as interested. I love the kingdom/city-building mini-game but using the default population numbers, I can't replicate, say, Sandpoint, without greatly increasing the size of that town.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While I'm intrigued by the Numeria region and interested to see Paizo's take on it, I really hope we don't get Numeria and the Darklands in the same year. Reign of Winter is definitely "experimental" with it's trips... elsewhere. Given that the next AP will incorporate Mythic rules, while the story sounds "standard" I think the inclusion of Mythic shifts it squarely into the Experimental camp as well.

Despite having zero interest in RoW's world-hopping and on the fence about Mythic rules in general, it's been an ongoing internal debate whether or not to maintain my AP subscription. While I think Numeria and the Darklands would be interesting, I don't see my groups getting a ton of use out of such, and I probably can't justify two years worth of subscription costs for "I like the discount and MIGHT be able to pilfer nuggets for my home campaign".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Character background generator is excellent! Yesterday, I generated a new character for each of the CRB races and was very impressed with the diversity of characters generated. If a player or GM is ever stuck coming up with an idea for a character, this system is excellent for getting past the block. The incorporation of events granting access to traits is superb as well.

And for those wanting to let the dice determine alignment, the conflict resolution system presents some cool options as well.

Best lifepath/background generation system since Traveller!

This book continues to impress me. I strongly support more RPG books of this type that expand the game's scope in non-traditional ways. I like bestiaries, NPC guides, and crunch books just fine, but I think this book will become another trademark example of how Pathfinder has surpassed its predecessor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
xevious573 wrote:


Papa Chango wrote:
Anybody feel like this is PHBII for 3.5 and this means Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle? Mythic rules and other books make me feel this way.
I don't think Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle yet. We haven't even gotten to Psychic magic yet! I (very much a personal opinion) WANT a book on Deific Adventures! Numeria and all its Sci-Fi glory still needs to be explored! These guys are very creative, they'll figure out plenty of ways to continue allowing us to explore Golarion and they'll find things...

Sweet Jesus! The game isn't even 4 years old yet! We're nowhere near the end of Pathfinder's "useful run".

I'm also sick of the WotC-style edition treadmill. When PF2 does eventually come around, if it's a rewrite rather than a tweak, I'm out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While anti-4e hysterics are unnecessary, taking an element from 4e just because it made it into that game is equally unnecessary for Pathfinder.

That's not to say that the designers shouldn't look at other games for inspiration or innovation.

However, a lot of what the OP is ranting against stems from people explicitly suggesting that Pathfinder adopt 4e-style mechanics. Prior to Pathfinder's release and continuing through when Pathfinder was in its infancy and 4e was still viewed as "the dominant game", there were a quite a few vocal posters railing against Paizo for not getting onboard the 4e/GSL bandwagon. For most of the early-adopter Pathfinder crowd, 4e was a HUGE step in the wrong direction.

Since 4e's decline/failure*, there's been an uptick in suggestions to add some 4e elements to Pathfinder and a lot of Pathfinder fans have no interest in it. Whether those suggestions are due to input from fans of both systems, willing Pathfinder converts, or reluctant Pathfinder converts whose 4e fields have dried up is anyone's guess.

One can argue the rationality of it, but one should acknowledge that looking to 4e for design inspiration carries some negative implications for many that looking at Savage Worlds, Hero, GURPS, Shadowrun, etc. doesn't.

*NOTE: I'm not slamming 4e. Objectively, the game is dead/in-decline from a publishing and 3PP-support standpoint as WotC is working on 5e/Next. There is, however, a large quantity of antecdotal evidence (some from opinions expressed by WotC staff) that 4e was not as successful as desired, fractured the fan base, and was too radical a departure from prior editions. By that criteria, I'm calling 4e to be in decline or a failure at this point it time as opposed to when it launched.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Avh wrote:
Post full of soapbox ranting...

If you're trying to persuade someone to your viewpoint, you might want to avoid phrases like "don't have the balls" & "if I get banned for telling the truth". Your thread is full of your opinions, none of which I can see containing an objective truth.

No game is perfect but the way you're making your case is bordering on trolling. Also, I have to say:

1. If you have the option to multi-class and it's viable (which it is) and you have the option to single-class and it's viable (which it is and Pathfinder made it more so...) you haven't (I'm paraphrasing this next part since your sentence seems off to me) "given up all freedom of character creation".

2. Calling a professionally developed and published set of rules a "set of houserules" is insulting to the people who work on those rules. It also grossly dismisses the effort that goes into developing the Pathfinder products. IF they are just houserules, why are you so bent out of shape over not liking the items you're ranting about?

3. How do you get 10 years out of a game that wasn't published until August 2009? Are you blaming them for the development choices made by WotC in the 3e & 3.5e?

4. If the Paizo staff doesn't think about upcoming products there won't be a Paizo for very long. That's a wonderful business plan you've got there, pal. Since many of the Paizo family are full-time staffers, I hope for their financial well being that they ignore your advice on this point.

Additionally, I have never seen a RPG company that did as good a job as Paizo does at considering what rules currently exist. Just because they feel Stealth can be handled via common sense rather than a re-write or disagrees with whatever "broken rule" you're citing, doesn't make them ambivalent, incompetent, or uncaring.

Coincidentally, it's rantish posts & ground staked out like the one you submitted that prompted this thread in the first place.

In other completely ancedotal news from my gaming table:
1. There is no evidence in any of my campaigns that the rogue is sub-optimal. It's one of the the top 2 most selected classes amongst my 3 groups of players and is very effective in-game.

2. Martials are more popular than spellcasters.

3. Stealth works fine.

4. My players run somewhere around 60/40% single-/multi-class.

5. Paizo keeps producing a TON of gaming content that I and my players want.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kvantum wrote:
Nobody's going to argue that the whole team doesn't deserve a movie break after the GenCon rush, but don't you think it would look a bit better for the company if you did it after finishing shipping out this month's subscriber orders? It kinda ticks me off, personally. A minor thing, I admit, but still... the timing on it doesn't seem like the best fan relations idea.

As someone who's been checking hourly for the last day and a half to see if his Ultimate Campaign PDF is available, while I can appreciate the anticipation of new products, I have to disagree.

I think it's tremendous that Paizo does things like this. The people at this company, but all indications, work their collective butts off and I think it's great that the company rewards that work with things like this.

GenCon is just one event. The Paizo work ethic goes year-round.

I hope you all enjoyed the movie.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"
Check "My Downloads"

C'MON!!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I’m a huge OGL & 3PP fan. It was the OGL & 3PP that brought me back into the d20-sphere and caused me to purchase the D&D 3e ruleset. Rather than being limited to official D&D splatbooks, there were suddenly a very large offering of products that catered to varying tastes and if you looked hard enough, you could find something to scratch your particular itch.

So while going the Pathfinder route was a no-brainer for me, I was thrilled that PF would encourage the ongoing use/support of 3PP products. I have bought & continue to buy a ton of 3PP products. However, this past weekend as I was looking through several PDFs, it occurred to me that unlike in years past, I use very few “crunch” products these days. It was a short walk to realize why:

General lack of Hero Lab support.

Yes, I know that in some cases, fan-created material is available for Hero Lab. However, in the rare instance where I go searching for it, I’m often reluctant to use it.

Yes, I know that Hero Lab is not required. However, one of the major draws for me as a GM is that PF utilizes a consistent framework for PCs, NPCs, and Monsters. Hero Lab allows me to have my cake and eat it, too – I can turn out a fully-statted, detailed character in minutes. I don’t go so far as to say Hero Lab is a requirement for PF GMs, but I strongly recommend it for the utility & value it provides.

Although it’s a nice-to-have tool rather than a must-have, as a GM with a full-time, demanding job, a wife, and kids and all of the time demands those require, I’m not willing to lose the time-saving HL gives me on NPC creation so I can focus on adventure, setting, & such.

Unfortunately, this means that most of those awesome character classes by Super Genius Games or those expanded character options/advanced feats from Open Design don’t get used. Or if so, very rarely.

I recognize that some 3PPs have begun testing the waters with HL support in some of their products. I'm officially weighing in with a "thank you" and "please, more".

I recognize that the coding of Hero Lab files isn’t an insignificant undertaking. I realize that there are costs involved. However, I’d pay more for those PDFs if HL files were included. I’d also likely buy more as I’d be more likely to use them.

As it stands, without them, I find myself leaning towards products that aren’t providing character-crunch like setting creation guides, pre-made settings, etc. or searching out publishers that are providing HL support (or are at least having Lone Wolf develop it) ala Frog God Games.

I can’t speak to the business realities of being a 3PP. I suspect that what I’m asking for may be seen as unrealistic or unfair. However, I can’t escape the conclusion that I’ve arrived at from a time/prep/value-for-my-$ perspective. As a fan of 3PPs and their products, I figured that it couldn’t hurt to ask. Maybe I’m just in a small minority. However, my gut tells me that I’m probably not.

Thanks for your consideration.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Knight Magenta wrote:
I am pretty sure that torture is a fear effect. Paladins are immune to fear. Ergo: you can not break a paladin under torture. You can tempt them, but you can't break them. Barring certain powerful magics.

That's .... Something that I never considered but a pretty cool interpretation. Remove the fear element and the only reason for breaking would be from a selfish sense of self-preservation vs. devotion to the faith. This is a much cleaner scenario where falling could result.

I have to chew on this some, but I like it on 1st glance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To the OP, a couple of questions:

1) Does your group subscribe to the concept of "party roles" and each character is expected to fill one?

2) Do YOU see a "problem" with you current sorcerer as the experienced player cits?

For #1, if your group expects character to fit a particular role, make sure the role slotted for your Oracle is one that you want to play. Understanding that role can help define the spell list.

Personally, I think the idea of players-must-fill-party-role is vastly overblown. Most players in my games make "what do I want to play" the 1st priority. They also tend towards more well-rounded characters rather than trying to optimize into glass-jaw/one-trick-pony characters but different strokes for different groups...

For #2, if you don't see a problem with your sorcerer character, then there's nothing to "fix" with your oracle build.

Optimization aside, I do think that "don't try to do everything" is good advice. I believe you can get a better play experience (mechanically & role-play) if you tailor your spellcaster around a particular theme. Be really good at one form of magic and decent in a few others. Trying to "cover all the bases" tends to lead to watered-down or directionless characters in my experience.

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 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.