|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That's annoying. I have one with a 2010 publication date (hardcopy), but it has the statline shown on D20PFSRD.com. That also shouldn't be publicly viewable, since it is a Work in Progress.
I can't find any errata documents either. If you see anything else with issues like that, please send me a PM
The copy of The Noble Wild: Pathfinder version I am looking at has the racial ability score modifiers listed for the PFSRD? What is the revision date in your copy?
Also, I don't think the PFSRD has the Noble Wild content live on the site.
The thing is, and I've written about this before, the game is extremely difficult and unwelcoming to new players if you do not have a more experienced person to guide you through things. From things I've said previously, and I apologize in advance for the walls of text.
Essentially, I was a new player at the beginning of Pathfinder. I was really into it, purchased lots of books, found a group of friends who were willing to try things out. But the system defeated us. The burden on the GM to prevent the basic mechanics of the system not fall apart is extremely high, which leaves less time for coming up with cool stories and scenarios. The Beginners Box is a step in the right direction, but as soon as you progress beyond it you start running into all sorts of problems. Even with the Beginner's Box there are still all sorts of unstated assumptions baked into the system.
As for something like PFS, a quick look at the threads on this forum and the attitude of the PFS GMs will show an incredibly unappealing 'my way or the highway' approach. There's lots of "expect table variation" for what appears to be straightforward mechanics of things that aren't even disruptive to the rest of the group.
So, the TLDR, is if Paizo intended to make the game easy and approachable for new/casual players, they are not succeeding. There are so many unwritten assumptions and conventions that experienced players aren't even aware they follow that the new player will be entirely ignorant of that they can easily derail a game or get it bogged down in confusion over the rules. I really hope there is a cleanup of the rules whenever a Pathfinder 2.0 comes out, because I really like the potential of the system.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
One of the things I've read about the series, is that due to budget constraints they did not have much ability to do reshoots. Towards the end of the series, the actors would come in in the morning, get in costume, do a readthrough of the script on the sets, break for lunch, film the scenes, get out of costume and be finished by 5pm most days.
Depending on the caster's level, it can be better to keep the caster unconscious rather than dead, as dead could trigger a clone to activate or some other way of coming back from death. Then again, incapacitation could be a trigger for some of the caster's contingency... so you really need to have done your research or have multiple redundancies in your methods of restraining the caster. At lower levels, this is going to be less of an issue.
Following this design philosophy is a good way to make the game unfriendly to new players/GMs and groups who do not have a bunch of experienced experts to guide them through it. You'd think that they'd want to at least include a sidebar alerting GMs to the issues the spell might cause and ways they might want to help control those issues. Maybe the lack of that information is a deliberate form of gatekeeping, but it's a decision I continue to be surprised that a business intentionally makes since it limits their playerbase. Note that this doesn't just apply to the Simulacrum spell, it shows up in lots of other areas of the game.
To the OP, if you want a list of how crazy you can get with the spell, check out the Standard Level 20 Wizard thread for some zaniness.
My guess is that Goth Guru meant to use "a" instead "the".
The reason Rynjin said "Next time read the thread." is the point you made above is actually addressed and it turns out your assumptions were incorrect. This leaves your statement looking pretty silly and reveals your ignorance of the conversation.
So, reading the thread would have helped prevent that.
Can the game have passive Spellcraft checks, similar to passive Perception checks. Combine the two and give Detect Magic, Arcane Sight, and Greater Arcane sight some bonuses to the checks for spells without obvious casting visual or auditory effects (why are there no olfactory effects for most casting?) and you can probably put together a decent system. You can then have an entire system of subtle spellcasting feats on top of the silent and still casting feats. Of course, counterspell would still need to be modified to be more usable.
This is all a homebrew modification to the system, but maybe Paizo will decide to fiddle with the entire subsystem when they get around to responding to the FAQ. It's been done before.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Yeah, but the original message didn't seem to be grarrish, just incomprehensible so I'm not sure why it was removed in the first place.
Liz Courts wrote:
Removed some posts and their replies. Calling someone dishonest does not help the discussion, nor does telling someone they're wrong for liking playing rogues. Please be civil to each other.
I couldn't find a PM button or an email address to send this to you, so I'll put it here. I noticed my message asking for clarification of the meaning of a message was removed? Did I do anything wrong, or was it just filtered along with all the other messages and was no longer relevant?
I always figured that Detect Magic or Arcane Sight was required to see spells being cast that had no stated visual/sound effects and that had been silenced/stilled. I looked them up and they do not have that stated ability. It strikes me as though there's probably a fairly good way of writing the spellcasting system that would allow for concealment of spellcasting with the proper measures taken and some possible countermeasures as well.
The Harrow Deck of Many Things looks like a lot more fun than the classic version. There are more mid-range things that can happen and even many of the negative things that may be drawn can be mitigated in one way or another.
The deck of many things wish card is just the normal wish spell:
Moon: This card bears the image of a moonstone gem with the appropriate number of wishes shown as gleams therein; sometimes it depicts a moon with its phase indicating the number of wishes (full = four; gibbous = three; half = two; quarter = one). These wishes are the same as those granted by the 9th-level wizard spell and must be used within a number of minutes equal to the number received.
One of the better ideas I've seen for the Fighter class, is to allow them to get additional effects, scaling with level, from weapon and armor properties. At a simple level, it could mean that in a progression of weapon effects, the Fighter treats a lower level/cost property as a higher level/cost property. It would require a more detailed look, but it does provide for some interesting conceptual space for a non-magical character being able to make better use of the tools that are available. I could even see it being expanded to other magical items in some way (more uses, longer duration, etc.)
It also has the effect of making a Fighter's gold stretch further for their personal item/equipment and allow them to be able to purchase all sorts of non-big 6 magical gear to give them other things to do.
It isn't a cure-all, but I think there may be some potentially interesting things that can be done with the design space.
Similarly, rogues used to get the Use Any Item feature at high levels in previous versions of the game (and also Baldur's Gate: Throne of Bhaal). This functionality was rolled into the UMD skill, but I think there could be some really interesting things done with giving some parts of the Use Any Item functionality or scaling UMD bonus to the rogue as they gain levels. Or allow them to use UMD to do things that the skill would normally not allow.
I actually found most of the monsters this year fairly derivative and boring. There's nothing there that we haven't seen before in one fashion or another and none of the visuals really grabbed me. Even the top 3 shown above only manage to get to the level of 'decent monster you might find in a bestiary'. At first I thought it was just an effect of having seen so many bestiary entries over the years, but I went back to some older stuff and looked at some other newer stuff I picked up recently and discovered that wasn't the reason.
I hope the surviving contestants can up their game for the following rounds.
It looks like your problem was an issue with opening .rar files. Back when I first uploaded these files, Google Sites limited downloads to around 20MB. That limit seems to be gone from Google Drive and you can get all the PDFs as well as the photoshop card templates at the following link:
I'd recommend downloading the .pdf files rather than trying to print them directly from the google drive pdf viewer.
One other thing to note, is that any errata that was created since I made these cards (2010) will not be on the cards. I have no plans of updating the cards either, so what you see is what you get. Sorry, but they were a huge amount of effort to create and my interests have moved along elsewhere. If you are really into them and want to update certain/all of the cards, let me know and I might be able to provide the originals.
I'll send you a link to where you can download the full set later today. I'm not sure where you can get the sleeves for the cards. The set I printed out, I used a lamination machine after cutting out the individual cards.
I am a little disappointed it didn't manage to include the bit about katanas cutting through tanks as an example of martial superiority.
You probably want to create some sort of engine that will accelerate the castings of create demiplane. I'm not sure if there is some way you can do this with simulacrum, planar binding, and crafting, but my guess is there is a way to do so.
As for threatening the universe/material plane the following might work. In the Pathfinder cosmology, the Astral Plane surrounds the Material Plane and demi-planes can also exist within the Astral Plane. Since the Astral Plane is not infinite in size, you could run into a situation where the demiplane is crowding out the Material Plane. In order to have this happen on some realistic timeframe, you would need to have some engine/method of accelerating the growth of the demiplane. A single individual won't have a chance of doing so unaided before the heat-death of the material plane.
Liz Courts wrote:
Actually, the floor design would be extremely easy to reproduce for a flip mat, since it would have been generated by following a specific set of steps for drawing arcs/circles/lines and then colouring in certain areas based on the patterns. I drew lots of stuff like this when I was 9-10 years old and they are surprisingly easy to do once you know the procedure.
Something to keep in mind if you want to spice up your BBEG sanctum flip mats.
Here are a few that I've found enjoyable and which can probably be adapted for another system fairly easily. As always, check out the reviews and product descriptions.
These are all pretty good and can probably be modified to work in other systems. They all have a lot of RP opportunities and ways for players to achieve success through non-combat approaches. They also tend to allow a greater degree of player initiative. They are more expensive than the Four Dollar Dungeons adventures, but are cheaper than normal right now because of the sale.
It isn't Paizo, but all of the 4 dollar dungeons are very well crafted adventures that taken together cover most of the various adventure types. They are also all highly detailed and contain about 99% of the material you need in order to be able to run them without any other resources.
Thanks for the copy of the compiled Anachronistic Adventures. I'd purchased a number of the individual pdfs that went into this compilation and the complimentary copy of the compiled version makes me happy with my early purchases.
Also, did any of the Anachronistic Adventures design/concepts get used in the recent Vigilante playtest and accompanying book? Looking through Anachronistic Adventures again, I saw a fair bit of conceptual overlap.
If I get the time, I'll put a review up. The short version is, this is a quality product with decent subsystems and I can recommend it for use in all sorts of games. The classes can be made to work in more traditional dragons and knights games with a bit of reflavouring.
Congratulations Richard. I'm glad to hear that so many people have picked this up. All of the 4 Dollar Dungeons sound like excellent adventures and I will check them out when I am in a position to run a game again.
For new players coming into the game, it might be a good idea to include some text in there indicating why they are evil or what type of evil acts are required or even typically required for the transformation into a lich. Right now other than being spooky there isn't really anything called out in the Bestiary entry that sounds intrinsically evil. Not even the insert the soul into an item, since there are other examples of not-intrinsically evil ways of putting a soul into an item.
I've looked up the 2nd edition entry on liches and it had some extra lines explaining the evil things required to become a lich. Not all players have that background and as such it shouldn't be surprising to see people asking "why exactly is this evil based on the information provided." Without rationale for something being good or evil, the labels become substitutable with Team Green and Team Purple.
James Jacobs wrote:
As an amusing corollary to this with respect to being dead not preventing a player from taking actions, is that the Great Beyond's section on the life-cycle of a soul presents some good evidence that a player could be allowed to take actions for what their soul does/experiences while traveling from their location to Pharsma's realm via the astral realm.
There's some interesting games that could start with a TPK instead of the group meeting in a tavern.
For your reincarnation scenario, what about the situation where a person has been reincarnated (which gives them a new body as per the spell). Can a person then animate dead on the old body?
I actually wasn't thinking about the Deathless and non-open content (which I didn't know about, since I came to D&D around the time of the Pathfinder Alpha), but instead was referring to things like the morality of creating Golems vs undead and the various inconsistencies pointed out in Tactic Lion's and Ashiel's very long posts.
Anyways, thanks for the responses and the peek behind the screen.
I think the answer is much simpler. Paizo chose to make a thematic decision on how undead would be treated in their setting, but didn't take a thorough look through all the game rules/mechanics/flavour outside of the areas that were immediately obvious to them and thus we are left with the contradictory mishmash of rules and flavour. If I were the one in charge and had made the decision, I'd probably want to track down those contradictions and make them consistent, or write in some wriggle-room to help explain away the contradictions. There's all sorts of fun interactions between setting neutral material and setting specific, and since these interactions can have significant metaphysical and moral implications, it'd probably be great to have all of the areas where the Golarion setting differs from the setting netural material highlighted and discussed. Maybe in the intro section on Golarion so it is up front and visible to those coming to the setting. They could even go into greater nuance in sections Pharsma or some other Alignment/Death/Undeath related topic.
James Jacobs wrote:
Sure, but previous designers also included non-evil undead and Paizo has gone on to change most of them to be always evil in Golarion. This isn't levied as a criticism of the game, setting, or designers. I'm truly curious about the behind-the-scenes decision-making process.
From what you've posted, it sounds like the always-evil undead position was something that had stronger internal proponents of the concept and the issues around Golems/elemental souls or other areas were not topics that received as much attention or had people arguing as strongly for.
James Jacobs wrote:
As written, yeah, creating golems should be an evil act. I would prefer instead to revise them away from using soul enslavement to power them up, frankly... but it is what it is. House Rule as you wish.
So, for the obvious follow-up question, why Flavour errata in one case (making all published undead options evil), but not for the other (golems should not use enslaved elemental souls/creating a golem should be evil)?
Huh, always thought it was 'baited'
Nope, bated comes from the word abated, which means "lessened or diminished or held". So waiting with bated breath, means "temporarily holding one's breath or breathing shallowly while waiting"
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
Makes sense in a twisted sort of way.
Incidentally, if Paizo ever decides to do a cleanup of their rules language, this would be a great spot to look. One should not have to look at unrelated feats for the "normal" text to see how a mechanic operates. Also, if feats can normally only be selected once, it should probably say that in both the character building section and at the beginning of the feats section. Thirdly, if a feat was selected and a bonus feat replaces it at a higher level, the player should be able to select a new feat to replace their old one (meeting all the per-requisites at the time the original one was selected). This would all make the game much more new player friendly and not substantially increase the power of the game for people who spend more time building their characters.
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
I'm curious why the quoted text was included if you cannot select a feat more than once unless it specifically tells you so?
If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
If you can't select a feat multiple times, why include this text indicating it is a possible scenario?
This is what Owen Stephens did in the Anachronistic Adventures series of classes, which actually covers a lot of similar topics/thematic space as the vigilante in addition to a wide range of additional concepts.
A game mechanic is not automatically a "bad idea" just because someone can bend an extreme corner interpretation of the RAW text to get a result that's clearly spelled out as not intended in the context of the whole.
Or if it is an entirely valid interpretation of of the text as written that a new player could read and not realize that Paizo meant something entirely different.
Since the discussion has turned more to the game design, I figured it might be useful to repost some observations/rants I made in another thread from the perspective of someone who started playing D&D around the time of Pathfinder's Alpha and how newbie unfriendly the game actually is if you don't have someone more experienced doing the heavy lifting of introducing the game to you.
And a follow-up comment:
And a final follow-up
So, the long and the short of it is, the game is hard enough to get into for new players given the size of the rulebook and the organization. On top of that, you have to deal with loads of traps and additional work to balance the game and keep things from falling apart. This is extra hard when your whole group is completely new to the game and doesn't know all the "obvious" things to do to balance the game. Rules are written with little to no wording standardization and a review of the forum thread/FAQ shows that something might be intended to work or not when the meaning appears to be the same, but the wording is just slightly different. All of this together means that a new GM is going to be overwhelmed quickly and they will spend most of their time dealing with balancing/rule issues and not acting as the creative person helming the game.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Thanks, I'll try to send something later.
Mark actually did some great community engagement in the ACG errata threads right after they came out. I noticed that the tone in the threads was much calmer and more accepting of some of the changes after Mark explained the reasoning behind them.
It's okay. He gets a free pass at such things.