|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Oh, yes, I'm the CEO. :D
I can't bring myself to quite simply avoid coming here because I've been a PF player and GM for a while. I can see why there is bias on a competitors forum but to wholly discount things when it's obvious you either haven't even looked at the competing product, you're lying, or being intentionally obtuse just grates me. In the other thread about trust, people really need to grow up and learn to be accountable for themselves which is another thing that grates on me. Actual age is secondary there which is even more frustrating.
How about you buy it, go to bed, and look to download it after work the next day only to find it not available? Still wouldn't feel wronged?
Nope; I had my opportunity. That'd be when I contact customer service for a refund. Failing that, because the transaction is super fresh, I can call my bank and tell them it was a fraudulent charge because I was denied the product so the business transaction was incomplete and the merchant was unwilling/able to complete it. Like magic I have my money back. I've done this before. It's a matter of understanding who actually works for you and putting that to use.
To the point, as a matter of principle I download my products right away because I don't trust a business. Being a programmer, I'm well aware that business decisions change daily which has sweeping repercussions on tech. I literally see it all the time in emails, in code that I have to ask questions about to find out base assumption has changed, etc. On top of that the random issues that can crop up in tech can also deny you access. Basically, get it while the getting is good.
The concept of trust in business is a PR scam even with Paizo. If they found it expedient to do so, their PDFs would be down in a matter of moments. That's just the reality of business. The only thing in business of import is what you have legal obligations to do so, period. Everything else is secondary. You don't trust companies, or, rather, you shouldn't.
So, I bought the product and had a chance to download it. How was I wronged? Just because it wasn't up the next day? That's immaterial. Unless there was a binding agreement (read: in a legal agreement and not some marketing slogan on the site) that you had with DTRPG then there's zero guarantee. That's a universal truth in business. If there were a binding agreement, then you'd have grounds to sue.
As far as I can tell, the whole "adjustable dials"/modularity thing isn't part of the game. Isn't even really being talked about any more. The only vestige I see is the "Use feats or just get stat increases" thing.
It's implemented. New things are being talked about. There are a lot of sidebars in the basic rules talking about optional variants and the DMG will contain many more. If the feats things is all you know about then you're going based on word of mouth rather than looking into the product yourself.
Optional systems off the top of my head:
alternate ability score generation
It is technically, financially, and practically untenable to expect a resource to exist forever. Paizo and/or Pathfinder won't always be around, and neither will the PRD. I guarantee it.
Anyway, for some comparison here's a timeline of editions:
d&d: 1974 (3 years)
pf: 2009 (5 years)
If the time that a company keeps a product available and supports it determines how much trust that company has, then Wizards is still way above Paizo with an average product lifespan of 6.7 years and two whole editions for lasting over a decade. Since 3.5 worked with 3 that shifts their average produce lifespan to 8 years counting them together. The actual problem is a perception and entitlement one.
The PDF thing sucks, but, and this has become acutely important of late, no company is going out of their way to ensure your individual, personal best interest. Not even Paizo does that. You bought the product and got your copy. To keep that copy in the same place and expect nothing to happen ever is, as I said, untenable. The folks who bought them were responsible for their upkeep. Get a thumb drive, keep a zip file locally, and since I'm doing timelines, Dropbox became a thing in 2008: use it.
The trust argument is blown way out of proportion. The basic rules are available for free and gives a very good impression of the core game. Look at them and see if you like it or not. There have been many, many articles written on the theory and decisions into Next for all to see. You can accurately see where they're going. Whether or not you like their implementation of those ideals is secondary but is where the trust part comes in. But, again, I would point you to the free basic rules PDF so you can see what that implementation can look like.
To me, it's a strength of the system that you can tweak a couple things and accomplish most of what you want without needing a lot of other changes to keep things balanced. The modularty is nice.
For sculpt spells you could say all the allies gain is advantage on the saving throw and be done with it.
Nope. You'll have to make some genuinely hard choices. That's a good thing though. Wizards occupy the top still in terms of the system overall, but that ceiling has been reduced drastically.
It's okay. The game is more lethal overall. It's nice to not have to worry about blasting your friemds.
Preparing them in a higher slot in and of itself did nothing special.
James Jacobs wrote:
Would you categorize them in either broad strokes laws like the Ten Commandments or more like an Asmodean contract that has so many caveats that it takes a god to work with it without shooting themselves in the foot? Bit of both? Some Commandment main course with contract garnishing, maybe?
A better question might be if you guys have ever directly, seemingly contradicted yourselves with the gods so as to create some real head scratchers. Have you?
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Well, Pathfinder lost me. Customers come and go, absolutely. But, some little things lead by some huge recent moves just ended my enjoyment of the system. Primarly, I can't escape the feeling that PFS is dictating the future direction of Pathfinder at large more and more. Many genuinely unique things got trashed like Crane Wing all because of PFS complaints. The two should be separate. The thing with spells known also smells of the same situation. It all seems to work toward a generalizing of the system skewing towards more of what 4E was.
Also, the manner of sweeping nature of those changes by way of errata rather than making them really work with a new system with staff comments here and there makes me think Paizo will evolve Pathfinder rather than releasing a new edition. Thus, there is no permanence or sense of mastery of the system since what the system is can and will change based on the needs of the moment rather than what works with the system overall.
A minor nitpick has been the recent book styling. Part of what drew me in to the aesthetics of the CRB was that 'old tome' page design. The new style isn't bad. It's just not what hooked me. In relation to the above points this is incredibly minor.
Anyway, I hope you see this as I've thoroughly enjoyed Pathfinder since beta. My introduction was literally during a 3.5 session with my DM dragging our characters through a portal into Golarion where we then made Pathfinder versions of our characters with beta rules. That was cool. I'm sure you do get tons of feedback how awesome Pathfinder is. It really is. The shakiness is something I can't accept from an expensive hobby. Looking at 5th presents a system that is flavorful, concise, and feels genuinely evolutionary in its concepts. I understand that Paizo has a lot invested into what Pathfinder currently is, but I hope you find the courage to really create your own niche and try to solve all those pesky problems that make you feel like you need to change the base system to cater to a vocal minority of your customers.
All the best.
The advancing cantrips ties in to preparing spells in higher level slots conceptually. It also takes a spells effects and creates the paradigm that who casts it matters almost as much as the spell itself. That's an awesome feature to have. I expect classes like the sorcerer to really capitalize on it and can't wait to see what the PHB has in it.
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
For instance, I'll probably start my adventurers pretty poor and make adventure a while to get the money they need to upgrade mundane gear.
Because of the base change that magic items aren't assumed, I'm heavily thinking of changing the economy further. Change the base trade payout to sp instead of gp per day, adjusting the ratios of cp to sp and so on to something more realistic, and adjusting lifestyle costs to work with these as well. Item prices will be tweaked as well. You can finally do something about these issues and not feel like you're screwing over your players.
Outside of my current campaign, I'm done with Pathfinder. The last 6 months has left me with the distinct notion that Paizo is leading Pathfinder with PFS more than anything else. As a system, to lead your development by majority input from the most conservative arm of your player base is just bad, and recent rulings on system wide erratas have no place. PFS should be distinctly its own thing probably with its own CRB equivalent. Until that changes I probably won't be coming back.
5th ed makes a lot of right decisions in that you can spring board so many concepts and gives players and GMs wide latitude to dress things up with just the basic rules. You can say what you want about GM fiat in PF but it's one thing to adapt a system to your game and another entirely to have that kind of flexibility written into the core assumption of the rules that gives you many variants, advice on what affects what, etc. and leaves things open yet mechanically inclusive to give them meaning from within that system. It feels like a more inclusive and overall more robust system from the start rather than putting on a dress of GM bolt ons.
I agree with the line of thinking that 'martials' should get, essentially, feats for free and probably the equivalent to multiple of them as class features. But, to keep the mechanical rules changes as minimal as possible I invented a Combat Tricks rule. It said that all combat feats were renamed to combat tricks. All creatures gain a trick at each BAB increase, including an additional feat a level 1 if that gets you a BAB of +1. Class features that award combat feats no longer do so, and trick prerequisites that depended on a class of a certain level instead have a BAB requirement that class would have at the equivalent level.
Mark Hoover wrote:
The reason elves don't sleep
In Pathfinder, they absolutely do sleep.
Mark Hoover wrote:
What would you do for a forlorn elf who's been raised by humans or simply not been 'raised as an elf.'
Which is perfectly fine if they're particularly intelligent.
Yes, I am frustrated by this. I definitely think there is some favoritism going on too. As a LN warpriest i broke a law (I broke into a house). My GM forced an alignment change from LN to NN. But then allowed me to regain my LN status after !2! Sessions of Lawful play. But the antipaladin can rescue a little girl and become motherly towards it and follow the laws of all towns she enters and never even gets a second glance... And this is not the only complaint I have about my GM. He does crap like this all the time. Like. Introducing my character. He told me to come over a little before 2. I showed up at 2, took a minute to get situated. The group was prepping on how to get to their next location and I sat down, ready. Then my GM proceeded to skip directly to when they had arrived at this location and I asked if he was going to implement me. To witch he replied"oh, I didn't know u were ready". But made no changes and the party went through a !4! Hour dungeon crawl that I wasn't able to be involved in... Which is completely dumb. He had predicted the crawl to only take 3 hours, but still!
Next time leave and tell him to call you when he's actually ready for you. No joke. Your time is no less valuable.
So, you help. Help is never a guarantee of results. Just look at any junkie who gets an intervention but still relapses or even ODs. Help is also subjective. You can intend to help by merely presenting yourself to parley and if they still get their throats cut by you merely showing up because their captor has something against paladins, your faith, your hair color, etc. that means you fall? Hardly.
The Paladin won't fall in this case because that's not quite a lie of omission, but don't expect to get a positive response. You might very well be putting your friends in danger. If the BBEG also happened to make it a threat like, "Tell me where the artifact of ultimate evil is, or my minions will kill the prisoners", well you're pretty much screwed then.
No, you're not. You just have to punish others who threaten innocents. So, they kill the prisoners and that pretty much gives you license to go Billy Badass on them. Plus, them merely taking prisoners can similarly be used to do the same.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Except that when RAW is law... then the Paladin's Code become an issue. House-ruling and such are fine, but by RAW the Paladin can barely exist without falling. Oh and god forbid the party have to go to a place like Cheliax... they would fall pretty much upon entering the city...
Paladins are fine in Cheliax. Something else that might break your preconceived notions is that Cheliax is actually a major center of the Iomedean faith. You know... with bona fide clerics... AND PALADINS!
K177Y C47 wrote:
A Paladin cannot lie. A Lie of Ommision is still technically a lie.
Keeping your mouth shut is fine, though. If you take a lie of omission to an extreme and can only give a full and accurate recounting of all things ever, then nothing would ever get done. Paladins are fine. People judging them are the problem.
I'd wager you just need the right GM. Since quests are often about a great evil, a paladin works in most groups as a class. I don't see it as a matter of 'can' working, though. They do work, but they're easy to be put in seemingly impossible situations and then GMs cry foul and force them to fall if they try something inventive.
That's more color theory than anything. Complimentary colors and colors that, when side by side, give different effects are key depending on the document. I'd recommend doing some research into it and then looking at what you'd consider to be 'pretty' and tear them apart. Note what elements are where in relation to each other, what colors are used, which fonts, think about why that font, and so on. Do this a few times and note patterns between them.
I just think people need to step back and put their presuppositions to rest about alignment and the code. Look at Paizo's examples of holy warriors and read about the good gods actually do and build their paladins based off that rather some bland view that somehow needs to apply to each and every one. That's the boring factor. Not all LG people get along and that applies to paladins interacting with other paladins even within the same religion. So, grow a beard and paladin like no other. GMs that would restrict this are the ones asking for one dimensional paladins and have no room to argue.
What gets demagogued about most often on these forums is what I'd call a mix between the Ragathiel and Shelynite paladin. They're a person who simultneously has to put down all wrong doers but simultaneously can't harm a kitten. That's assinine.
My comments on optimization guide worship is that they all espouse roughly the same ideals. You hit hard, are hard to hit, etc. Looking at that kind of character sheet leads to very few gut responses and they're all pretty much along the lines of being the hardass of the group. Your build should reflect your roleplay ideals because if that's what your character is really all about then you should be putting time (i.e. build resources) into making that actually a part of your character.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.