|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Paizo Pathfinder® GameMastery® Planet Stories® Paizo Games | |||||||||||||||||||
| About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
What's your Ptolus number, Lisa? (I bet I have you beat. Although I don't think I have a lower number than Erik Mona...)
1. I would subscribe - as long as, like the other subscriptions, the .pdf is free with subscription. 2. Rules bloat is a big concern. If there must be more "rules" releases for the Pathfinder RPG, I'd VERY MUCH rather Paizo concentrated on monsters or sourcebooks that are more setting-based in nature (such as books on the inner planes, outer planes, fiends, and the like). We already have so much with regard to rules with 3.5 that nothing else is needed (unless, of course, it's something that helps you tell better stories in the Adventure Paths). No new races or classes, unless they fill a Gollarion niche that the 3.5 books couldn't fill. 3. I don't know if I'm tired of prestige classes so much as I'd rather they be phased out. Pathfinder started down this road with enhancing the base classes, so if higher-level feats can be created that allow greater class flexibilities at higher levels (11+), I'd prefer that be the route that's taken, rather than develop new prestige classes. Also, regarding feats, making feats that evolve over levels might be the way to go.
I would think that Dead Man's Chest and Glades of Death were about as far as they'd likely want to go with any kind of environment books. That is, a book which provides a setting and includes adventures in certain environments rather than an all-environmental sourcebook like (for example) Frostburn.
I, like Theocrat, would love to see some environment books. Besides a woodland one, perhaps one for settings in the sky. While I think Necro could do a great environmental product if they wanted to, it really doesn't match their style, IMO. They are about old-school, kick-ass adventures and settings (with the occasional spell or monster sourcebook).
I would hope that any 3.5 product can be pretty much played AS IS using the Pathfinder rules. The Pathfinder-created characters may be different, but any "conversion" should be able to be done on the fly, and be generic across all 3.5 games. In other words, I hope we don't need any conversion info that's product-specific.
D'oh! EN World is down... I'll have to check later....
One of the strange things about "epic" right now, is that you get a different character if you go Wizard 20 then Fighter 20 than if you go Fighter 20 then Wizard 20 (BAB/attacks are WAY different). Whatever rules are developed should fix that. The highest I have played to is level 26, but I would be curious as to the highest anyone here on the Paizo boards has played to. I think that the rules should not be finite (i.e., there should be no level cap). The best way to design the epic rules might be to pick a CR 33 adversary (e.g. Demogorgon from Dragon #357) and figure out what's needed from PCs to make this a good 30th (and also 33rd) level challenge. As stated (if I figure correctly), Demogorgon will do an average of 160 points of damage (plus energy drain and rot) on a full attack, and have a 95% chance to hit with all attacks on someone with AC 35 or lower. Therefore, a fighter going toe-to-toe with this baddie should probably have an AC of 45(ish) and, considering Demo's 59 AC, an attack bonus of +44 to +49 (ish). Oh, and if he's going to last 3 rounds, he'll probably want at least 320 hit points, and the ability to make a Fortitude save with a DC of 46. Etc. In other words, "beginning with the end in mind" (i.e. what we want combat to look like) is probably the best way to proceed.
Maybe he put it on them to go 35 and it doubles or something if they double up on that. OU's defense may be suspect, but I can't imagine that they're that suspect. Guess we'll see to night. Go Sooners! I have a feeling that the Gator plan will include a LOT of running plays (and potentially long drives) to keep Bradford off of the field, but if the OU defense ends up being terrible, then those running plays will lead to short drives. I think the "worst" Florida running back averages about 7 yards per carry. :)
Clark has been in touch with Scott Rouse and from his post on Necromancer Games' site, I'd be surprised if Clark didn't get what he needed to make 4E products. (If not, then this process will have been a colossal waste of time.)
Who knows? The new GSL might not make it possible for Necro to publish what they want to for 4E, and if so, they might go all-in with Pathfinder. When the Iron Tower Adventure path was first announced, Clark had not seen the 4E rules, so I'd bet the plot would work in 3.5 just as easily as in 4E. However, it has been made clear that Clark really, really wants to support 4E if he is able to, so I'd expect that he'll find a way to make 4E stuff. And hey - if that's his passion, then I'd rather he do that in 4E than do it for 3.5/Pathfinder without that passion. Uninspired adventures tend to suck. :)
You're welcome. :)
Wow!!!
Maybe it's a matter if DM and/or player immersion, though. If the focus of monsters is combat only, one might tend to view the game (and thus the campaign world) as combat-only. If the monsters are shown to be a part of something bigger, with their ecology and culture explaining how they fit into the magical campaign world, maybe the feeling that goes with it enhances the enjoyment of the participants. (Maybe not for everyone, but I think for some the immersion helps their emotional fulfillment from the game.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
