|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
@Set: Were you the one who proposed that different classes be able to get more out of weapon/armor enchants? I remember someone writing some in-character examples regarding a kid playing around with the parent's sword, the father showing the kid how he could light the sword on fire, and the mother (who was the owner of the sword and the higher level fighter) being able to wreath their entire body in flame and basically turn into a sword wielding fire elemental.
I've tried to find the post, but have had no luck to date.
My request for all of the new classes in Pathfinder Unchained is that they all be able to contribute meaningfully in all areas of the game at all levels.
This would include
Obviously, some classes will be designed to be better in some areas than others, but it would be very nice to allow players to have a chance to participate (be the main person or be a helper) in overcoming challenges in all areas and not just be a load for their other party members to carry.
As I mentioned above, it is also important to make sure to extend the ability to participate across the entire level range and not just a narrow low-level range. Look for the challenges the players can be expected to encounter in each level range and then come up with thematically appropriate ways for each class to contribute to solving those problems. Otherwise, if you design the class first then every problem is going to end up looking like a nail and you may end up creating something that will result in the players sitting around waiting for a chance to contribute for whole swaths of the game.
Basically, the traditional classes are more rooted in older western mythologies, whereas psionics are more rooted in eastern mythologies, 19th century Europe and America, or have been co-opted by the magic system (clairvoyant and prophetic powers).
My issue with Reactionary is the following
The Dictionary wrote:
None of these meanings have anything to do with a person with fast reflexes.
Yeah, I don't think it's a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but with the terminology being used for a powerful and popular (everyone likes the Blue Mage) ability of the arcanist, I'm guessing the question of enemy/ally and the consequences of how that is ruled on other parts of the game is going to come up more often in the next little while, and as such it's worthwhile considering what those implications might be.
Here's a question, would an arcanist with Suffering Knowledge be able to take advantage of the ability if they were hit by an ally who was charmed by an enemy (but not known to the characters) who cast a spell on the arcanist? Why, or why not and is the answer to that question consistent with how enemies are determined elsewhere in the rules?
I'm not sure that the 50 pound weight limit for teleport should include a monster's normal gear. Look at some other Outsiders such as Star Archon. They wear large full plate and large heavy steel shield which is well above 50 pounds. I don't think the intent was that they couldn't teleport in their standard gear.
I think it is more likely that the designers forgot about that limitation when designing the creature and it's item loadout.
While the summoner already has a lot of a "build your own class" nature to it, the mechanics have all sorts of exceptions from the normal way the rules work in other areas of the game. I'd be interested to see what you can create when working on the Talented system version of the class, and if you could make it mesh better with the general mechanics.
Similarly, I'd be interested to see what you have planned for the Paladin. I could see you potentially creating a holy knight that would cover the paladin, anti-paladin and other alignment based holy knight types all under the one umbrella. My first impression is that you could link certain powers to the codes of conduct, which would allow you to recreate the core classes using the talented system, but expand the class offerings somewhat and make them less linear in nature.
The issue I think you probably ran into, and I've run into as well when doing some homebrew, is how various different parts of the rules interact with each other, often in contradictory ways. In this case, I'd suggest that whole chunks of the system would need to get rewritten in order for things to work clearly. After that work is done, it'd be much easier to write new mechanics. A good example of this is the simplifications and reorganization done for the Beginners Box set.
The flip side of this situation, is: Should you write a new mechanic if writing it to do what you want requires lots of qualifiers and a large amount of text? Or is that an area you should shy away from because of the complexity, confusion and difficulty in writing a clean mechanic that won't conflict with other mechanics and cause problems for the readers.
I just wanted to point out that cleaning up the entire rulebook is more likely to shorten the text rather than lengthen the text as Dr.Deth was suggesting. If you rewrite everything in isolation, then of course you'd have a massive and confusing tome, but I don't know why you'd want to take that approach.
The thing is, the suspension of disbelief breaks down when people in the game world do not behave socially or intellectually the way people in the real world behave. For example, why build a style of ship designed to maximize the offensive power and defsnsive power of cannons (or even particular types of cannons) if those cannons or another form of offense does not fill the same role? Why would people waste their time constructing a type of ship that costs a bunch extra and makes a bunch of other design concessions to a feature that is not included?
The "nonsense" as you call it, is not the inclusion of the old people flinging balls of fire or ice breathing flying lizards, it's how the people of the world react or fail to react in a sensical way to these inclusions in the game world.
As a follow-up, I am really really enjoying reading this. The organization is much better than the previous version and the simplification of many mechanics makes it much easier to play. The skill system is something that really can be ported directly into pretty much any Pathfinder game for a general overall upgrade in both useability and balance.
The other issue, is unless you can find a copy of Office 2007 or 2010 you are stuck with Office 365 which you can only rent from Microsoft, not purchase. That drives a lot of people towards programs like Open Office and Libre Office.
Confirming that Butters from the Dresden Files books is one of the most evil, eviliest evildoers that ever did evil.
He comes with a +10 skill bonus to hair stylist.
One of the nice things about Pathfinder 3pp is the Endzeitgeist.com resource. Hundreds of high quality critical reviews by a reviewer that uses the entire review scale. The reviews are in depth and explain the what and why behind the conclusion and score. It makes it much much easier to sort the wheat from the chaff and lets the consumer know exactly what they are getting. There's lots of great stuff out there and it has never been easier to find all the best of the best. I'd suggest that it's actually easier to figure out what are the best 3pp products than it is to find out what are the best Paizo products as there are no reviewers who consistently provide the same breadth and quality of reviews for the Paizo products.
For me, bloat is the publishing of non-options. Basically stuff that you will never want to take because the opportunity cost of taking it is too high and you wouldn't even want to take the material if you were hyper specializing in one area.
Play experiences are used to determine the framework for your model.
If you want to check if the mathematical underpinnings of a system have issues, it is probably best to use math and theorycrafting. There can be lots of problems in how this is applied, most having to do with the design of the model and the assumptions used to construct it.
If you want to determine the impact on the flow and nature of gameplay, game experiences are what is important. There can be lots of problems in how this is applied, most having to do with assumptions made and biases in the participants.
Most items are not politically active and do not make any objections to political change. My take on this is you'd need some sort of intelligent magic item, though the backstory would need to take into account why the particular magic item has strong opinions one way or another against rapid/radical social changes.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
It is a martial ability more powerful than what is available to the class in the Core Rulebook. Under the balance paradigm as outlined by the Paizo design team in other threads, this means that the ability to rage cycle at earlier levels is something that should be removed or severely toned down to achieve the same end.
My guess, is many players come up with a character concept and how that character engages in combat. What they forget, is that they will not always be able to dictate the terms of the engagement and that their opponents will also want to control the terms of the fight.
The common sense part of gear selection, is recognizing that combat will not always go according to plan and to make sure you have equipment to help cover these scenarios. In this situation, asking yourself "what if the enemies try to stay out of reach or attack from a hard to reach/unreachable location?" leads to the fairly obvious response "I better find a way to hit them back even when I can't walk up to them".
I recently made a post related to this issues as it relates to the Skill System. One of issues with the Skill system is most uses are firmly in the mundane level range, which generally the 1-6 and maybe a few in the heroic range (6-10 or so). The skill system starts to fall behind with what is possible outside of these levels and this means that characters that depend on skills for non-combat participation in the game start to become marginalized.
So, looking at the skills situation and how it doesn't manage to keep up with the magical capabilities at higher levels I was wondering if any thought had been put to the following.
Have specific skill rank requirements for certain tasks, and keep these requirements separate from the DC's.
For example, using the heal skill, you might have Raise Dead as per the Raise Dead spell, but requiring 5,000 gp in exotic medical supplies per attempt, as a possible thing doable with the skill provided you have at least 12 skill ranks. The DC for this task can be whatever the designer wants, but they need to have at least 12 skill ranks to attempt it. You can fiddle with the number of skill ranks required, but you'd generally need to decide when you want the different more powerful skill uses to come on line and design around that.
Under this system, you can keep the skill system relevant at the higher levels, while preventing people from pumping their skill checks and being able to perform deeds at levels divergent from their intended target level.
Nah, for me the larger concern I have with the future of the game is not this one instance of a nerf/buff to an ability, but the comprehension and competency of the people designing the game mechanics and system behind the particular instance. The errata of Crane Wing broke or made very ambiguous a follow-up feat in the same feat chain. This speaks to me of either poor QA/QC on the mechanics side of things, or poor QA/QC on the wording and review of the errata and it's knock-on effects. This isn't the only time this has happened in the last year either.
The second concern, is when Crane Wing is compared to other similar capabilities and their effectiveness in a normal game. If they were to have limited Crane Wing to a # of times per day, or made some other modifications that toned it down, but didn't render it useless in a significant number of instances it might be used, then I would have been reassured. That they instead pretty much removed it as a useful option while not touching other abilities like Snake Style, Mirror Image, and other methods of preventing a character from being struck, speaks to me of this being a knee-jerk or tunnel-vision limited reaction rather than a thorough review of the design space and concept behind the feat.
To conclude, the way this was handled and the stated reasoning behind the changes causes me to doubt the competency of the design team, which makes me, and probably others more hesitant to purchase additional rules/mechanics material from Paizo.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
When you are issuing an errata for a feat that is changing how it functions, would it not be an appropriate time to add such a line?
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Don't feats that let you break the rules (not an addition or expansion) have a
Normal: This is how the rules normally work.
Well, the important thing to remember is that people who push the caster vs. martial disparity are people with agendas. It's also important to remember that magic is supposed to be better and balance is done under this paradigm. Keeping these facts in mind, the only surprising thing is that an overpowered option for monks has lasted as long as it has. I feel that the nerfing to the point of uselessness and the breaking of Crane Riposte is the correct course of action and should not be a surprise to any forumgoers.