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

BPorter's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 1,308 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Backed! (PF all the way, baby!)

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have to say, the portrayal of the "vampire spirit" is the most elegant and interesting depiction of the auto-alignment-shift caused by becoming undead that I've seen.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
baron arem heshvaun wrote:

After all the print books, its time in Dragon, and 1000 plus strips, Rich still keeps me wanting more.

Thank you Rich Burlew, a modern day maestro.

It's not said often enough, I dig your work sir.

Amen, brother. Rich rocks!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ok, I bought Town of Glory last night and have done a preliminary read-through and started a test-build. I plan to post an actual review once the product is offered here on

First Impressions:
Reasonably quick resolution
Lots of room for expansions & future add-ons.

Kingmaker is probably my favorite AP. The sandbox approach that they took is, IMO, brilliant and while I know that the initial kingdom-building and mass combat rules were rough, I liked them enough to want to see them refined and expanded - which they were via Ultimate Campaign and Legendary Games' Ultimate X line.

The downside to kingdom-building is that it really is geared for what it's name implies: kingdom-building. I've looked at using kingdom-building as a nation-tracking mini-game for myself but to take existing nations and develop them, the process is very front-loaded with work and the level of abstraction doesn't really work for me. I can't lift a settlement stat block and easily reverse engineer it into Kingdom-building settlement stats, for example.

However, I'm a huge fan of the Downtime system in Ultimate Combat.

Town of Glory is closer to the Downtime system than Kingdom-building. It has a fair level of detail but a GM or group of players don't have to devote a campaign's focus to developing their settlement. The development of a frontier town or outpost is also a far likelier scenario for your average campaign than developing a new kingdom.

Reading through the PDF, I can't help but get a Warcraft-style vibe from it, as population, food, goods, and trade interact within the outpost/community rather than having stats focus on contributing to the kingdom-level stats. There are Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced buildings and while Kingdom-building has pre-reqs and dependencies as well, Town of Glory lays the options out by Building Complexity so understanding the town's possible "feat chains" is clearer when reading.

Also unlike the Kingdom-building settlement rules, I was able to quickly start out a thorp and generate growth for a couple of months as a quick test-drive. It's intuitive, yet flavorful.

I seriously hope this line gets additional expansions. Additional buildings, event generation, integration/intersection with the Downtime rules, and extrapolating this mini-system to other parts of the game seem like they could be easy and logical extensions of the game. Remember how everyone liked Jade Regent's caravan rules in concept but had problems in execution? I could see a Town of Glory approach to caravans, shipping, and trading.

Best of all, it doesn't replace or invalidate the Pathfinder system's normal settlement stat-block building rules. If the settlement stat-block is the summary-level view, Town of Glory can be used to drill down to street level if desired.

My "first impressions" reads like a mini-review but, honestly, this PDF impressed me with it's utility. It was an impulse buy in the hopes that it would generate some ideas.

My only regret is that I can see the potential lurking within Town of Glory and can't apply it (yet) to a broader swath of my campaign. I would love to see it get a much broader and in-depth treatment.

Minor criticism: The "Town Walls" basic structure is incorrectly listed as "Town Halls". "Town Halls is also listed in it's correct placement as an Intermediate Structure.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I love the Pathfinder RPG. More importantly, my players love it.

Is it a perfect system? Of course not. There is no such beast.

And while constructive criticism is good, what I don't like are the posters that just have to throw barbs and slurs at the designers or Paizo when designs or errata don't conform to their wishes. You don't have to like it, you can certainly say you don't like it, but you don't have to buy it or use it and you certainly don't have to be a di-k about it.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Greg, I just wanted to say thanks again for such a detailed reply. I've been a fan of FGG and Necromancer before that for many years and your detailed teasers of the larger Lost Lands setting have been fantastic.

I also want to thank you and the entire FGG team for your approach to the setting. This world is clearly a labor of love and the details that you are placing within the setting are bringing the internal consistency that I love from fantasy worlds. With most RPG settings, these kind of details are ignored or barely touched upon. This is all the more impressive to me given that the setting previously only existed as a loose framework for the company's adventures. That this level of detail and internal consistency can be added later to make a coherent whole is pretty darn incredible.

I can't wait for the setting to come out!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Another awesome iconic image by WAR and a very cool backstory by Mr. Mona. Another great iconic!

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wow, THAT was a great Iconic background!

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Skaorn wrote:

I would be in favor of a streamlined version of Pathfinder, myself. not necessarily a new addition but not necessarily a new addition. There are several things I like from 5E that I have been enjoying. I like the Advantage/Disadvantage replacing a lot of status effects and modifiers because its fast and its super easy to work with. I like the iterative attacks better and think they're a better idea for fighting classes over 3rd's version. I like the fact that you can tank in AC and actually be a hard nut to crack. I like the scaling spells as it makes more sense having one cure spell than various cure spells at different levels. I also like their Feats better, though not the system of how you get them, because they are a big deal; and not just the equivalent of a major class feature or close to it in power level.

Having a book dedicated to pairing off the flash of Pathfinder so you could focus more on running a story and not looking up status effects and rules. Most games I play in are 2 to 3 hours long. By the time you get to mid level in the PF games I play in, we can only really fit one medium or large encounter in a session. A Dungeon crawl might take months to do while in the 5E game I play in now we might do as little as a third of a dungeon in one session. This provides a real sense of accomplishment rather than frustration of slogging through a handful of rooms in a month. This is not to say I don't find 5E kind of shallow, but it does let you do a lot more in a short span of time.

I do think there are room for things from 5E that could be added to regular PF, though, without major changes. Scaling Spells and big Feats for instance. Imagine for instance if the basic range combat Feat included Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and either a couple of Weapon Proficiencies or Far Shot. I like that better aesthetically and think it would condense the Feat tree.

I wouldn't mind seeing the linked accuracy for attacks as well, but I agree I'd rather see +10 rather than +6. Poor BAB would...

So, a few clarifications up front so that things don't get misunderstood due to the Internet Forum Filter:

You like several things from 5e. I understand and can appreciate that design innovations can serve as inspiration and in some cases appear as parallel design. So with no snark intended, I have to ask:

1. Are you playing 5e?

2. Regardless of the answer to #1, above, why should PF adopt those things? If they already exist in 5e, wouldn't it just be easier to play 5e rather than rewrite PFRPG?

We saw it with 4e and I'm seeing it again with 5e. Why does PF need to skew towards D&D? Why can't it be it's own thing?

As an example, in addition to Pathfinder, I love Savage Worlds. Very different games. Each appeals to me with different aspects of RPGs even though I could use either system to run a fantasy game set within the same world. But I don't expect, nor would I want, Pathfinder to adopt the raise/exploding dice mechanic of Savage Worlds, nor would I want Savage Worlds to adopt a PF-style Vancian magic system. Different RPGs can be their own thing.

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
adembroski wrote:

I do use a home brewed ability score generation method... But working in bounded accuracy and flattening the feat trees are total reworks that effect other systems. The feats themselves would have to be rewritten, and who knows how magic is effected by all this. If I had a team of playtesters and a couple more designers just hanging around, sure.

I do think Paizo is dipping their toe in the new edition waters... That's one of the reasons I posted this. Throw my voice behind the idea.

...and throwing my voice and subscriptions against the idea.

I love Unchained and it and Occult are showing that there's plenty of design space left in the current system.

When a new edition comes, I want it to be the clean-up & tweaks that almost every other RPG adopts. I do not want, nor will I buy, a WotC "nuke & start over" approach that D&D seems to go through every time.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Obviously I can't promise anything, but I AM interested in what people DO want to see in this book, and books like it. The short solicitation text is often written *very* early in a book's life.

1. The in-game operation of locating, buying from, and selling into black markets.

2. Smuggling in-game treatment.
3. Player options for integrating black market downtime actions/events.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So far, I'm really liking this entry in the series.

I especially like the enhancements to Ultimate Campaign expansions to buildings/rooms. More of this in future installments, please!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

WOW.... just WOW.

Just got my PDF this evening but first impressions are that this book is everything that I hoped for and more. The number of levers and switches that this book provides is staggering.

It's been called PF's Unearthed Arcana but this is a much more useful & coherent collection of optional rules than any Unearthed Arcana book I've owned previously. It also appears to have avoided the missteps of earlier variants like Ultimate Combat's Wounds/Vitality and Armor as DR.

For everyone who's ever been told "you can't use Pathfinder to run that type of game because X is too ingrained or hard-wired into it", this is the book for you. Skill systems, wound thresholds, ways to customize spellcasting, the Stamina system, the inherent bonus system... there is so much here.

It will take me a while to determine what to include & use but there is so much of it that I want to try!

For anyone who has heard people say that Paizo is running out of design space with the Pathfinder rules - this book shows what a hollow lie (misperception if you prefer) that is.

I just want to thank Paizo and all of the developers and staff who worked on this book. You have my sincere thanks.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

The developers also don't see a caster-martial disparity. (To the point where they regularly nerf martial options, while introducing even more overpowered caster options.)

That doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist.

By extension, that doesn't mean that it actually does exist, either.

Note, I'm not saying one doesn't exist - it has in some fashion since the game was created. The degree to which it exists is debatable, however.

Combining this post with your earlier one about duct tape and gushing pipes, however, this comes across simply as mudslinging rather than an attempt to persuade/debate.

Out of curiosity, if PF is so "broken", do you play it? Are their other systems that you've tried that better align to what you want from a FRPG? Are you a Paizo adventure/setting fan hoping for a fantasy heartbreaker closer to your desired style of RPG?

I ask because you seem less interested in tweaks and more in the "completely new edition/start from scratch" camp. Things don't always come across as intended on the Internet, however, so I'm not certain what you're hoping for - thus the questions, above.

That you're dissatisfied with PFRPG in its current state is clear, however.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hark wrote:

The real advantage of a 2.0 would be to bring innovations developed later in the line to the core rules providing a better and more diverse base to build a game on.

When this kind of thing happens is very uncertain as Pathfinder is still going strong, and things like archetypes do a lot to bring new concepts to older material.

That said without an eventual second edition Pathfinder as a game will eventually be abandoned and die as the product line eventually loses profitability. A 2.0 is a far more preferable answer than no more Pathfinder.

Except that unless you're positing a "what if", that hypothesis is irrelevant. Paizo, has even as recently as the past few months, said that PFRPG Core Rulebook sales continue to grow. 5e didn't "dent" PF sales according to Eric Mona, so either people chose to buy 5e & PF, or PF fans didn't drop PF in favor of 5e.

Will there, someday, be a revision or new edition? Very likely.

However, at present the PFRPG is around 6 years old as its own thing. Paizo continues to find new creative space with the current rules.

I've been with Pathfinder since RotRL#1. Even back then, there were a lot of predictions that weren't worth carrying around in the plastic bag used to clean up after a dog. Things like:

"If Paizo doesn't jump on the 4e bandwagon and produce 4e content, they're going to go out of business."

"If Paizo thinks people are going to buy another version of 3e, they're wrong."

"How can Paizo think this will work? There's nothing left to design that hasn't been done."... and then we saw things like the Advanced Player's Guide...

More recently, say in the past 2/2.5 years: "they're running out of design space. Really, what's left for them to do?" and then we saw Ultimate Campaign, Advanced Class Guide, and now Pathfinder Unleashed, and this summer Occult Adventures.

Now, if someone wants to say, "I want Paizo to design precisely to my tastes and I know that there's zero chance of that without a new edition" or "4e or 5e does it for me but Paizo makes the best adventures so I need them to get with the program" or "if I post often enough or am disdainful enough, they'll design things the way that I think that they should", I can at least appreciate the honesty of the approach.

As for the doomsayer predictions, you've been consistently wrong for 6+ years. Yes, even the weatherman calls for rain on the right day on occasion - it doesn't make him a prophet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Honestly, I think you have an opportunity, here, rather than a problem. However, you’ll need to get GM buy-in, obviously to proceed as planned.

While I’m not against re-fluffing something in a game on occasion, as a GM I think it’s usually cheese-fuel to do so just so a player can get a certain build or mechanical benefit. Personally, I’m much more inclined to allow the exception if it’s done in a way that integrates into the story and campaign world.

As an example, BioWare does a really good job with world-building. If you look at their Dragon Age games, Dragon Age: Origins establishes the setting & some of its “rules”. However, as you progress through the series, you begin to see exceptions to those rules but there is usually a strong storytelling reason to explain away the apparent contradiction.

My recommendation would be something like the following:
The path of Pharasma cleric to Shadowdancer is almost unheard of – in fact it is viewed as a heretical practice by Pharasma’s faith (but not necessarily by the goddess herself). By going down this path, you are acknowledging that your character is coloring outside the accepted lines of most Pharasma followers and inviting story-conflict. This is also known as providing story ideas for your GM, which most GMs (and in my experience all good GMs) appreciate.

As for the undead follower, this is the (perhaps secret?) tradeoff for pursuing this path: when your character dies, they too, become an undead who will be paired up with a future follower of this rarely-traveled path of Pharasma’s faith. Obviously, negotiating how absolute this is with your GM would be important – can you still leverage things like raise dead and resurrection?

Other possibilities:
Is this a forgotten practice, and your cleric is the first in generations to follow these teachings? Or is there a hidden sect, seeking to do Pharasma’s will while avoiding persecution by the traditional faith?

Is Pharasma truly ok with this breaking with doctrine given the eternity of service pledged or has another divine force with a similar portfolio fueled this rift with Pharasma to further its own ends? Perhaps one of the ancient Osirian deities, given the culture’s obsession with the afterlife…

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Still, over reliance on a tool to the point that you don't know how to function without said tool is not good

That's a mighty big assumptive brush that you're painting a whole lot of people with...

And even where it might be applicable, it would be an issue with the user, not the application.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dekalinder wrote:
I mean, you guys really stat outs npc? I always just winded them

Sure, I improvise when I need to or rely on sources like the NPC Codex or Gamemasters Guide. But important, recurring, or adversarial NPCs I stat out when I can. I've found that doing so makes it easier to bring the NPCS to life during the game. It also has provided inspiration for characteristics of the NPC and even entire plots and subplots that I wouldn't have considered without fleshing out that NPC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ok, I've wanted this book since it was announced and the previews keep amping up my anticipation!

One question. Why does it show up in my "my subscriptions" list but not in my "expected to ship" listing?

Normally, I'd take a wait-and-see approach but I want this book ASAP and don't want a clerical error delaying it!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm an unabashed Midgard fan. I've converted all of my Pathfinder campaigns over to it and currently have 3 ongoing campaigns set there. The primary campaign is set in the Canton of Melana, the second is in the Zobeck region, and the third is currently on an island in the western ocean but will be moving to the Southlands.

I'm the GM of the campaigns but the PC composition of the main campaign is as follows:

Human male fighter/rogue
Gearforged male fighter
Human male slayer
Gnome male alchemist
Gearforged male ranger/sorcerer
Tengu male magus
Dwarf male gunslinger

My players absolutely love Midgard. As a GM, the setting resonates with me in a way that few others have and is perhaps the only setting where I wanted to run a campaign in every region.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Merry Christmas!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Green Arrow from the comics (I believe. I'm assuming his portrayal is the same as in the cartoons) is basically "Liberal hippy Batman".

At times this has been true in the comics, usually it was done in a very ham-fisted way that didn't do the character (or the causes) any favors. Basically, they took the Robin Hood angle and amped it to 11. Which made him a bit of a hypocrite being a billionaire. Unfortunately, many writers were fond of making him a hypocrite in most facets of his personal interactions as well.

Much of this was (thankfully) jettisoned with the New 52 reboot. Unfortunately, it took a bit for rebooted Green Arrow to find his New 52 footing but the recent run by Lemire has quickly become a fan-favorite take on the character. The current writing team, I believe, are actually from the Arrow show and even before that, the show had begun to positively impact the comics with the introduction of characters like Diggle.

The take on Green Arrow and his progression/evolution from vigilante to hero in the show has been far superior to many (not all) portrayals in the comics and if the show can continue to not only take content from the comics and reimagine it, but then also positively influence the comics then I'll be a happy viewer & a happy reader for years to come.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
No, I'm not, I- OH! Skyhold. Nm.


(Looks at the DA dialogue tree...)

Friendly response: Nicely played.
Humorous Response: I don't think you're my type.
Antagonistic Response: Yeah, you wish!

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Good Lord. I sat down to play after the kids went to bed and before I knew it, eight hours had passed.

Fantastic game. So far, everything I enjoy in FRPGs, Dragon Age lore, and Mass Effect-style interaction. LOVING this game so far....

.....just so tired. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aranna wrote:

Doom however needed a rewrite. And some crazy hacktivist blogger might appeal to the coffee shop hipster crowd.


...oh wait, you're serious?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Vibranium is what Cap's shield is made of.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rakshaka wrote:

Oh, believe me, between Stoneshape and some of the other Druid spells, I've crafted coffin scenarios that were as vexing as hunting down a Lich's phylactery. It's amazing how many one inch tunnels you can put into a 5' cubic square of stone.

Its not so much the action economy that gets me, more of the "Is this monster behaving like every legend and myth that's been told about" shtick. More often than not, its alway better to mist the vampire from damage than wasting the action on turning them away. I'm wishing I was wrong about that and am looking for examples to solidify my conflicted opinion.. 'Has PF made vamps no different than any other monster? Is the folklore (weaknesses) ignored in favor of the mathematical practicality of damage until death?

Off to bed, so I'll be back to respond in 7-10 hours.

In my experience, yes the vampire weaknesses come into play. They almost HAVE to if you're running vampires effectively.

Vampires are social creatures that can enlist outside, non-vampire resources, especially if they're wealthy and can leverage civilization's laws against the players.

Vampires should not be going toe-toe with PCs all the time, especially if it's a vampire that's survived for decades, let alone centuries. Guerilla tactics, dividing the party and attacking isolated PCs or NPCs, softening them up with dominated NPCs/creatures and "creatures of the night" should be employed.

In other words, in my experience, when vampires are played to utilize the benefits at their disposal in a manner that the PCs themselves would employ, those vampire weaknesses become essential tools. If vampires are limited to a static role in an encounter/location then don't be surprised if they get killed like "just another monster".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes, I'd buy this book.

Additionally, I'd like a book (or section) that shows how to apply Kingdom-building & Settlement-rules to existing settlements & nations, which, let's face it, is more likely to see use in a politics-influenced campaign than the development of virgin territory. I understand why Kingmaker took that approach and I love it, but I'd really like to see this next logical step taken.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I really hope that the new magic item creation system is simple, yet flexible - something along the lines of a rune-based enhancement system like those found in Dragon Age and Shadows of Mordor video games.

I really want a way to incorporate flavorful magic items with history and an ability to be improved by the PCs and get away from the "magic-mart" requirement/desire to replace Item X with new/different Item Y.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Can't wait! I've been looking forward to this one.

FWIW, Iron Gods is awesome as well. However, I think those bemoaning a return to "classic" tropes are forgetting - or perhaps ignoring - that for players new to the hobby these aren't "classic", they're new. I run a campaign for a bunch of 14-yr olds and none of them have heard of, much less played, Against the Giants.

And given my newfound love of orc-slaying thanks to Shadows of Mordor, hell yeah, bring on the orcs. (Tolkein or otherwise.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tirisfal wrote:

Its THAT argument again!

Look, first off, 17th-19th century stuff is my favorite; my homebrew is heavily inspired by the cultures of that era (such as colonial America, the French Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment, Edo Period, etc), so its safe to say that this is totally my cup of tea. I get that this isn't for some people, just as pirates and space lazors aren't for others, but I'm the target demographic for this one.

Secondly, how does this really anachronistically stick out when its stuck between a nation with a space ship jutting out of a mountain, a nation with an abyssal chasm torn into it, or (my favorite) a nation shrouded in fog and overrun by Victorian zombies, vampires, and werewolves and was once ruled by Sauron?

Last I checked, Golarion is supposed to be a kitchen sink, so claiming that ONE nation is anachronistic when the rest of the campaign setting is taken into account is just silly.

Oh, it's THAT defense again! Kitchen sink is supposed to be a feature, not an excuse.

It's anachronistic given that in the case of the Worldwound & Numeria, there are in-setting reasons containing/limiting the influence of those regions beyond their borders. With Andoran, you have one of the dominant nations in the Inner Sea which is also one of the largest naval powers whose influence extends far beyond their borders.

From a warfare/technology perspective, if Andoran is entering into battle with inferior weapons/armor compared to, say Cheliax, they're going to get slaughtered unless in-setting reasons are presented for why their unarmored armies can go toe-toe with "traditional" armies - and none of the Andoran source material indicates that it's now the dominant firearm-bearing nation of the setting.

Kitchen sink is supposed to allow for a wide variety of playstyles, genres, locales, etc. It doesn't have to mean "anything/everything goes because it's just a game". If there are in-game reasons presented in the campaign setting material, no problem. If there aren't and it's presented just to look different/cool, you're needlessly weakening the setting by weakening the immersion/consistency factor.

I'm a Golarion fan and I appreciate the design & business considerations behind the "self-contained" nation/area approach. However, the biggest issue that I have with Golarion is that sometimes "halfway" approach of integrating elements into the setting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fourshadow wrote:
It has already been established as such, so why change it now?

Because it's needlessly anachronistic and sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the setting, especially given how this nation supposedly grew out of a vassal state of other realms. Also, in a setting where firearms are rare and armored warriors still prevail, they've been set up to be slaughtered in any battle.

While the attire, colonial US anachronisms, etc. would be fine in another setting, given Andoran's prominence in the Inner Sea, just "ignoring it" doesn't really work.

I love the premise of Andoran as a solid "good guy nation", but every time I had to look at the uber-colonial artwork, it killed it for me. Andoran is the nation that I WANT to like the most (I've centered a campaign there).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fake Healer wrote:

3 words-

Elder Scrolls Khajiit.

I never cared much before playing that series, never got into the almost disturbing "furry", manga, toony bull**** that seems to surround people that tend to like catfolk

100% THIS.

Khajiit-style? Yes! Other (but I'm so cute!) - No thanks

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Theorycrafting has a place but in just about EVERYTHING the practical & actual trumps theory. Theoretical and/or statistical analysis is fine but let's not pretend that the scientific method is getting rigorously applied here. In most cases, the "analysis" is comparable to a bunch of sports fans arguing the merits of a fantasy football (insert preferred sport, if you prefer) league and their Dream Team.

And with RPGs, there are multiple, yet equally valid play styles to consider. The majority of the Theorycrafting on these boards that I've read, particularly with respect to playtests, make zero provisions for that consideration. Honestly, most of it comes across as political lobbying for what they want rather than objective analysis. Not all, certainly, and perhaps "most" is overstating it. Perhaps, it's just another very vocal and belligerent minority but it certainly undermines the "statistical sample".

In any case, I've been pretty happy with Paizo's ability to solicit feedback without surrendering the development process or sacrificing design goals. YMMV.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scythia wrote:

Lately it seems like the forthcoming Pathfinder Unchained is being offered as the (potential) solution of all problems. Don't like how X class works? Unchained. Want a rules light/streamlined game? Unchained. Want a secret edition playtest/stealth edition change? Unchained. Are your colours fading in the wash? Unchained. (One of these is facetious.)

When I read the write-up for Unchained, my impression was that it would essentially be like a Dev. brainstorming session, in book form. Equal parts "wish we'd thought of that before", and "here's a cool idea that wouldn't fly in a canon rule book". Perhaps I read it with different desires.

What do you expect Unchained to contain, and do you think it can live up to the expectations being placed on it?

I agree with your assessment. I expect it to be a good book but if it follows the premise of a PF Unearthed Arcana, it'll be a grab-bag and not something taken as a whole.

As for living up to expectations, given how of late a very vocal group of critics deride anything that deviates from their view of how PF should evolve (going so far to trash developers efforts & refer to content as crap)... no, it can't live up to expectations. I expect much gnashing of teeth and wailing about the need for a radically different new edition by that crowd...and a lot of "hey, that's cool stuff" from the bulk of the fans regarding Unchained's content.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1. Pathfinder RPG
2. Pathfinder RPG
3. Pathfinder RPG (yes, it's worth the 1st 3 slots!)

4. Golarion

5. Taking the 3.5 rules & not only improving upon them but proving the lie that the system was done, used up, & had no design space left within it.

6. Varisia

7. APs

8. Modules

9. Campaign Setting sourcebooks

10. 3rd-party support

11. Message board presence & feedback

12. Savvy business acumen

13. Subscriptions

14. Free PDFs with Subscriptions

15. Archetypes

16. Continued support for the kinds of stories that I want to tell within a RPG framework.

17. The Cavalier

18. The Slayer

19. The Witch

20. The Magus

21. The Alchemist

22. Runelords

23. Successfully walking the line between soliciting customer feedback yet refusing to cave into the forum equivalent of mob-rule by vocal detractors.

24. Kingmaker

25. Advanced Player's Guide

26. Ultimate Campaign

27. Successfully conveying their enthusiasm & love of the game in interviews, forum posts, conventions, etc. Regardless of whether it's Lisa, James, Eric, Wes or any of the Paizo crew, their love of the game and the myths, stories, and legends that inspire the game's development, it's clear that their enthusiasm is genuine. It's also contagious.

28. Their continued ability to produce stuff that I want, especially stuff that I didn't know that I wanted in the first place! NPC Guide, map accessories, minis, comics.

29. Their continued ability to develop new and interesting monsters.

30. Curse of the Crimson Throne

31. Not jumping to PF 2.0 just because D&D 5e was released.

32. Not jumping on the GSL bandwagon.

33. For taking what could have been a crippling loss (the loss of Dragon & Dungeon) and producing what is arguably the most successful RPG system and RPG company in the industry -- and never b-tching about it.

34. Their optimism.

35. Stories of games that they run & play in.

36. Auntie Lisa

37. RPG Superstar

38. Giving me a RPG that has reinvigorated my love of the hobby and provided me with the best set of tools I've ever had to run a game.

39. The Beginner Box, to help pass the torch to my kids.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

After two evenings of extensive play, I have to say that I love this game.

First, it's drop dead gorgeous - Bungie has made an amazing universe that I find myself frequently stopping to admire in a reaction similar to when I first played Skyrim.

Second, the game play is tight. Guns have appreciable look, feel, & performance differences. Bungie has incorporated FPS features lacking from Halo without sacrificing Halo-style fun.

Third, the setting & story are interesting. Honestly, these were the elements that on the surface in interviews & trailers underwhelmed me but I was completely sucked in after the intro.

Fourth, it's just FUN. It's not grimdark like most post-apoc and I really appreciate the fact that it's rated T rather than M so my kids can enjoy it. It doesn't have the CoD run-and-twitch gameplay (doesn't force it at any rate) and maintains the positive Halo-style gameplay while adopting a Borderlands-style RPG & loot structure.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1) Azeroth (Warcraft setting)
2) Greyhawk
3) Scarred Lands
4) Mystara/Known World

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path 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 Adventure Path 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 Adventure Path 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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Qstor wrote:

Is the gunslinger class appropriate in "base" Midgard?


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 Adventure Path 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 Adventure Path Subscriber

It's been 5 minutes. WTH? No update?

What, is it We No Work Day again already?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path 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 Adventure Path 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 Adventure Path 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 Adventure Path 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?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path 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 Adventure Path 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".

1 to 50 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.