|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It's an issue of world-building and one that most kitchen sink settings try to pretend does not exist. It isn't an unfixable problem, as shown by the many settings that manage to deal with the issues, but it is something that if any sense of verisimilitude in a setting is considered important, needs to be addressed. Given the popularity of quasi-European medieval fantasy settings that use the rules as presented in the Core Rulebook, it's pretty obviously not a problem that enough of the playerbase cares about to prevent such settings from selling very well.
If you are looking for spells that reference other spells for how they work, and all the gaps/unintended consequences, the "Hand/Fist" spells are full of fun and inconsistencies.
So, to address the point brought up earlier in this thread. Yes I believe that Seebs has probably done a closer critical read of the spell text than the developers have. I choose to believe this, because evidence tends to indicate that the developers are competent when writing mechanics in English, and slip-ups like the ones shown in this thread are probably due to inattention and not incompetency in writing clear and consistent mechanics.
Do people really think Paizo writers and editors are incapable of writing clear and consistent rules with at least a high school level of competency? The interpretation that some seem to be pushing would require elementary school level writing mistakes in a pretty simple couple of sentences. To paraphrase the developers "this doesn't need a FAQ as the rules are already clearly written".
I know there's been a few things that have given rise to doubt, but I'm surprised how widespread the belief seems to be that Paizo's writers are incapable of writing a clear and consistent mechanic, as shown in this thread.
I think LazarX has made a pretty strong argument that you should cancel your subscription and stop purchasing items through Paizo, as Paizo is unlikely to change their shipping practices. Amazon is probably a cheaper option and can bundle things together like you want.
Amethyst: Renaissance does a decent job of creating such a world. Albeit, a number of world changing spells are made unavailable or modified in the pursuit of such a world.
I know I'll regret this.... but I believe that the argument is if your group assumes a bard and a rogue, then the central question of this thread still applies: why take a bard and a rogue over two bards?
The world as per the spells and capabilities of characters/npcs does not match the world as typically presented by world builders. Any issues are generally glossed over with half-hearted justifications.
Reincarnate (spell) uses the D% dice:
Yeah, the swordmaster is a great example of how you can give a martial class more combat options without needing to go super natural or a uses/day or uses/combat mechanic. I really hope the design catches on more widely, because it does a lot of things well.
I understand your concern. From Endzeitgeist's review (Thilo G.), it seems that the book is basically a rebuild of the rogue class, which involves a slightly altered base rogue and a whole bunch of additional content. I'd put it closer to a rebuild class rather than a simple splat book with more options for rogues.
So I have all Rogue/Super Genius Games products listed as Super Genius. I know SGG has control of some stuff and RGG has control over other stuff. Anyone wanna untangle that Gordian's Knot?
From what I've been able to tell, anything by Stan!, Owen, or Christina Stiles Presents goes to Rogue Genius Games, anything by Hyrum stays with Super Genius Games. I'm not so certain about other stuff that might not fit into those categories.
Nathanael Love wrote:
You answered YES to an OR question. Which of the two were you referring to?
1. Doing lots of damage; or
Death Knight is an alternate class (which I think you said you were including)
The Mushakemono, Bone-Breaker and Hishoken are all 20-level racial paragon classes.
If you are excluding core class rebuilds, you might want to not include the Alvena Publishing Gunslinger, the Schooled Bard from 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming and probably a bunch more that are already on the list. You are also going to run into issues of when Paizo and a third party publisher both go to the same design space (see Advanced Class Guide and how it treads on the toes of a bunch of existing 3rd Party Classes).
Regarding the Talented classes, how would you categorize them, if not calling them full classes? I agree that they are a redo of the core classes, but they are at least at the level of an alternate class. Note that a bunch of Super Genius Games credited classes are now Rogue Genius Games classes.
Also, here are a few more:
Aquanaut - Alluria Publishing
One thing I've always wondered about, is what is the the checklist designers go through when sitting down and doing the initial prototyping and concept level design, prior to putting actual mechanics down. I always figured it would be something like the following, but I am beginning to suspect that they might be following another procedure.
Caedwyr's imagined design procedure wrote:
@ Ashiel: You might want to take a look at Rogue Genius Game's Talented Fighter class link1, link2. It may not have all the things you are wanting, but it is reported to offer a superior chassis that allows a broad range of mechanically viable builds. Where it might still be lacking is in some of the non-combat more narrative type capabilities.
What actual goals/effects can the fighter produce/do that other classes can't?
I believe Ashiel has made the case in the past that if you are going to restrict a new player to a more martial class, you are better off using the Ranger instead of the Fighter. The Ranger starts off as a functional martial with some direction as to what type of fighting they will want to do, adds some class features the player can customize in that direction, while still not ruining the ability to contribute if they make poor choices. It has a decent skill list and a fair number of skill points to spend on them, with some class-based support to their skills. Later on, it adds a lower powered companion and fairly simple, thematic spells, to provide an introduction to those parts of the game. After playing a Ranger, the new player has been slowly introduced to a wide range of the different areas of the game, but not all at once. They are also easier to build a functioning character with low levels of system mastery than something like a Fighter.
So, if there are two rules and one rule creates something that fits the CR guidelines, while the other produces nonsensical results, choose the second? That seems like blindly following the wrong set of rules because you saw someone else doing it rather than using a bit of common sense.
From Cerulean Seas Campaign Setting:
Since Tome of Horrors (2002) is listed in the Section 15, it is likely that this was pulled from ToH.
SWIM-BY ATTACK (COMBAT)
I'm guessing it was from d20pfsrd.com which did not have the new proficiency list. I don't think most of the rest of the class there has been updated to the revised Magister, but I did go in and fix the weapon and armor proficiency section.
(also, I noticed that in the revised PDF, the spells known table says "Magus Spells Known" instead of "Magister's Spells Known".)
From the Magister PDF (Revised version)
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Mastering two sources of magic leaves little time for weapon training—a magister is proficient with only the club, dagger, light crossbow, and quarterstaff. A magister is also proficient with light armor, but not with any shields. Due to her mix of arcane and divine power sources, a magister can cast class spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance (even if casting a spell from an arcane spell list). However, a magister wearing medium or heavy armor incurs a chance of spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component (even if casting a spell from a divine spell list). A multiclass magister still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells she casts as another class.
Talented monk probably is the version closest to Paizo's version of the monk, while still allowing for multiple builds with similar power levels to that of the Zen archer or the other couple of decent monk builds.
You might also want to check out Ashiel's psionic monk, which is available for download for free and has had a number of people praise it.
If you want your game to be accessible to new players, then where confusing wordings/interactions of different portions of the rules or other such issues arise, you need to address these issues. If you are not interested in expanding your playerbase or making the game accessible to non-grognards, then you can just keep on keeping on.
I imagine because some players are interested in making the game more accessible to newer players.
What I tried to raise upthread, is that while common sense and experience with the game is great for all the long-time GMs, GMs and players new to the game do not have all the experience or calibration of common sense that allows them to identify what is disruptive and what is not disruptive. If you want your game to be accessible to new players... you might want to clean up landmines such as Simulacrum.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
The problem with leaving all sorts of things in the game because they can be "rule zero'd" away is that it makes it much harder for a new group or new GMs to pick up the game and not hit all of the various landmines of broken or unbalanced rules. This is fine if you aren't planning on adding any new players to the game... but not so great if you are trying to make your game more accessible.
So, it's kinda surprising. Many people keep pointing these out as issues of why "wizards are OP', but few seem willing to come here and hit the FAQ or make suggestions to fix these?
Most people won't even see this thread or read it as it is located in the House Rules/Homebrew sub-forum.
Threads like this make me realize that the morality of the Pathfinder world is nothing like the morality of our world and trying to draw conclusions based on the morality of our world is a fool's errand. It seems that many operate under an orange/blue system of morality.
I found a rather ranty review of the original Magic of Incarnum that you may be able to glean some useful critiques from. You may be aware of it, but amid the various frothing of the thread there's some decent insight into what was on the right track and what some of the problems were with the older book.
As I stated early in the thread, Rage Cycling, if intended was to be a level 17 ability for Barbarians. New splatbooks allowing them to rage cycle earlier than level 17 is a clear example of power creep and takes the barbarian to a different balance position than is intended by the core rulebook. Since Paizo has said that they want to maintain the balance of the core rulebook, to be consistent they should nerf or remove the option for barbarians to rage cycle earlier than level 17. Otherwise, their entire balance/limitation to what was in the core rulebook rings hollow as a justification for other recent balance decisions.