Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Kaleb Hesse

"Devil's Advocate"'s page

1,342 posts. Pathfinder Society character for Beckett.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,342 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge ***

Zach Klopfleisch wrote:


Let's list out some pros and cons:

Pros for GM credit, especially repeated credit
•Incentivizes GMs, especially experienced GMs, to run more games

•The more often you GM a scenario, the better you get at it.

•Allows GMs to bypass those annoying and dangerous low levels. (Don't want to lose that Rat Folk boon to a lucky crit? Have a concept for a Magus that's pretty much unplayable until 4th or 5th level? etc.)

•Makes scheduling easier if you don't have to worry about avoiding duplicate scenarios for your GMs as well as your players.

•Makes it easier for GMs to keep their characters up with the pack, especially when you're re-running scenarios for new players that your experienced players have already played through for the second or later wave of new players.

•GMs don't have to be as strategic about where to apply credits, if they apply them now, they'll still be available later if a character really needs it. (I don't want 15 characters with 1 chronicle on them, or 5 level 2 characters that I've never played. But I might want to apply a chronicle to one character to bump him up to level 5 so he can play in a 5-9 a week later some day but, if I've already run that scenario, no joy.)

Cons for GM credit, especially repeated credit
•Unlimited replay is Bad, we know from experience.

•Incentivizes GMs to farm specific scenarios rather than a broad range of scenarios. (Everybody knows that, after the first time you schedule a certain season 3 trilogy, you'll be inundated with requests to repeat it for at least 6 months.)

•GM credit gets boring: You're not playing your character but he's still advancing towards retirement.

•Paizo gets less money.

•GMs already get enough rewards from stars and the fun of seeing different groups solving the problems in different ways.

•GMs can choose not to take credit when they run a scenario, saving it for later when it would be more useful.

•Lack of repeated credit is only a constraint in a small set of circumstances: GMs who have run a LOT of scenarios, scenarios with boons, venues that only run a subset of all available scenarios.

Some of these are paradoxical or resolve themselves:

•GMs get better with practice|Replay is Bad: First, we have to ask, why is replay bad? Players can spoil plots, or hang back too much in an attempt to not spoil the plot. That's not a problem for the GM, though, in fact the opposite is the case. I don't find this persuasive as applied to GMs in general. GMs can get bored of scenarios and just phone them in, but that's an individual issue and certainly organizers should be able to handle that along with other problematic GMs.

Another problem is farming for gear or boons. I never experienced Living Greyhawk, so I don't know the havoc it caused. But again, from the GM's perspective, we already suggest GMing for exactly this purpose. How many threads asking for a list of boons are answered by "if you want it on a specific character, just GM it?" Frankly, though, I have no idea how much of a problem this would be if there were unlimited credit allowed for GMing it, since we effectively have unlimited runs available due to multiple players potentially wanting to GM something for a boon. I think this would boil down to an individual issue again.

•GM credit allows you to level a character past the boring spots|GM credit gets boring after a while. This boils down to personal preference. Is it more boring to you to play through level 1 on a character that can't really do anything, or is it more boring to have characters spring into full bloom halfway through their career? Limiting unlimited credit to tier 1-5 scenarios addresses this somewhat, but I think the deciding factor really should be "Who am I to tell you what you find more boring?"

Interesting. I'm still not entirely sure about "•Unlimited replay is Bad, we know from experience." How is this based and what is it based on? Is this just your opinion? From another game? I'm actually extremely interested in learning. I think I have asked 3 or 4 times already with no answer. There are only a handful, really, of examples in PFS, and well, they tend to be, as far as I know, the absolute most played and purchased scenarios and modules out there, (even after discounting that most of them have been free).

Zach Klopfleisch wrote:
•GMs have to be careful about taking/wasting credits|Gms can choose not to take credit when they run a scenario. Unless I misremember the Guide to Organized Play, the latter really resolves the problem. If you don't have a character that you want to apply this specific chronicle to at this time, then just don't take the chronicle and you can pick it up the next time you run it. I've almost completely stopped taking chronicles unless I have a specific use for one: The last chronicle I took was in August in order to bump a character up to level 7 so he would be eligible for the 7-11 I was scheduled to play in the next week.

Hum, I'm not sure that's true. If so, nice to know, though. I was under the impression you had to apply it immediately, and a more recent change allowed you to apply it to a 0XP character (getting a max of 500GP, 1XP, and 2PP). Something to look into just to know.

Zach Klopfleisch wrote:
All that being said, I think the last con really is dominant in this situation: Lack of repeated credit is only a constraint in a small set of circumstances. I don't think the situation is generally broken, and this is one change that will only affect a small subset of people in specific circumstances. It's not an unquestionably positive change, so I think we should hold off on making any changes until the issue becomes more general. This, of course, it colored by my experiences so others might be having more problems with it that I've seen.

Again, interesting. I'm not assuming my opinion is the best one, just wanting to hear all the different sides. I'm personally unsure if such a rule would actually make Paizo more or less money overall, kind of thinking it would mostly be about the same, but still thing to consider.

nosig wrote:

Why limit this to Tier 1-5 scenarios?

or
If we adopt this, how long until someone wants to expand it to Tier 3-7 (and so on, and so on...)?

We have unlimited for Tier 1-2. Tier 1-5 is the next (and would it also count for Tier 1-7) in line right?

Not sure if I should read this as "the sky is falling" or not. My intent in limiting the hypothetical proposition to 1-5/1-7 was because in my personal experience matches up well with the overwhelming majority of what I hear from others, that those or the Tiers most played and requested. 3rd -18th, not so much, though it's also a lot more difficult to find GM's for higher level play in general.

But, honestly, (and Im not actually "advocating" this, mind you), outside of specials and a certain 4 parter, what would rally be the harm in making everything grant GM credit each time you run it?

Shadow Lodge ***

Hold up a sec. Sending anyone home wasnt even a part of the example. Where did that come in?

The example was, and its just an example, that with all players in, it makes two, (or however many really) tables maxed out, or close to. That is to say there are 12 - 14 players and two tables. Its legal to play, but it would probably be better for everyone to make a 3rd table so that everyone gets more spotlight and fun, and combats are challenging.

No need to turn anyone away, but it would really be better to have an extra GM.

Shadow Lodge ***

Maybe I can rephrase it a bit. I can see plenty of reasons that making all lower tier scenarios, (well, non-specials and the like) grant infinite credit to DM's that run it. Many I posted above in the original, (and interested in hearing others, don't get me wrong).

But what would be some of the actual possible or foreseeable downsides if this where to happen? Not so much that you like or dislike the idea, but why? Why would it be a good or bad thing?

*Possibly a money issue.
*Someone mentioned it's bad for organized play. How? Why? Based on what? (Honestly, want to know. It seems to be, from everything I've heard, at least in PFS the evidence shows the opposite, and the replayable scenarios/modules tend to be the most commonly run and purchased, <not including the free ones>).
* ?

Shadow Lodge ***

Andrew Christian wrote:

I can't speak for all 4 and 5 star GMs, so I'll give you my perspective.

When I first started GM'ing for Pathfinder Society back in May of 2011, I was assigning GM credit to my primary character (except for the scenario I played with that character). Then at Gen Con 2011, I got my 1st star by running First Steps Part 1 and 2 eight times between them. I assigned those credits to 4 new characters.

I have roughly 140 play credits and roughly 192 GM credits.

I have a Druid that I started at 5th level due to GM credits. He is now 14th level, and I would wager I played roughly half the scenarios leading up to 14th level.

I have a Fighter/Rogue who is 2 scenarios from 11th level on slow track. I had played him a total of 4 times prior to 10th level.

I played a Bard at Gen Con this year, and level 7.2. All GM credit.

I have enough Tier 1-5 credit that I could create 2 or 3 more level 2 characters if I wanted to.

I have enough Tier 3-11 credit that once my GM Credit dump character reaches 7th level, he will immediately become 11th level. This might happen all through GM credit, as having too many level 2 characters doesn't make sense.

I only have one character, who is currently 9th level, that has zero GM credit assigned.

At a certain point, assigning GM credit just isn't worth it anymore. I want to actually play my characters.

If you seem to be getting the same scenario assigned over and over, you might ask your coordinator to let you run something different. I know I would.

I guess what I'm saying is, GM credit is nice for when you have 10 or 20 credits to spread out amongst your various characters.

GM Credit is nice so you never have to play a brand new 1st level character and risk their one-shot death to that great-axe crit.

GM Credit is nice when you want a certain scenario on a certain character to finish out a trilogy or for a boon or whatever, but can't quite seem to play it for whatever reason.

But at some point, GM credit becomes boring.

Asking for more GM credit...

Not really sure where people are getting the idea I want more GM credit really. I don't. Like you, I have plenty of characters, many with plenty of levels on purely GM Credit. I run a weekly game and also plenty of online games. I don't really have a problem, myself, but was more looking at the ups and downsides of this, as a completely hypothetical situation, hence posting as Devil's Advocate, and trying to point out that this is not some sort of poll or anything.

I guess the goal is to try to get more DM's to run more often, but more specifically in the cases where it's not strictly required, (like when a table or two are close to or are maxed out), and another table would probably be the better option to make things more fun for everyone. When this happens, I think, and this is just my opinion, is that the largest barrier is those other GM's getting credit or not, especially when a lot of the people I play with have a very limited selection on what they can get credit for and how.

Again, trying to just see the different views for and against. I can see the money, buying scenarios/modules side of it, but, I can also see it being just as likely that this might increase some people's purchasing of scenarios, too. So, I don't know. Between myself and a few of the regulars I play with in homes and stores, we already have nearly everything, and it's perfectly fine to share scenarios for running them, so from my perspective, it's not a huge deal, one way or the other.

Shadow Lodge ***

Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Devil's Advocate, it might help to take a step back and define the problem you're hoping to solve.

No problem really, just wanted to hear different views.

Shadow Lodge ***

Ascalaphus wrote:
I haven't re-run any scenarios yet, although I have no objection to it, if it's convenient; I've already prepared them so it's easy to bring one as a backup game in case of too many players showing up.

I could possibly see this leading to an odd downside, (not you, just the circumstance), in where some GM's might be just want to run a few scenarios over and over. That in itself might not be bad, but it might cut down a bit in how many other scenarios are offered for play, or lead to some specific scenario's being cherry picked for what they offer.

Shadow Lodge ***

Michael Tracey wrote:
I agree with Andrew. There is nothing stopping a GM from rerunning a scenario multiple times. Watching how different groups handle the same challenge is a pretty big reward, more so than GM credit. If it is credit you are after, give Paizo a couple bucks and buy a new scenario.

For me, we have plenty of scenarios. It more that many times we get new players in, usually one or two at a time, and we are already running low on games we can run. But, I've also rerun thing plenty of times. I tend to buy most of the scenarios as they come out, so that's not an issue. $2.99 to $3.99 US every other weekish is not bad. But, that all being said, I was more looking for people's views for and against, and specifically the reasons for those views.

Shadow Lodge ***

Andrew Christian wrote:

I disagree.

You can look up any argument for or against replay. The overriding anecdotal evidence is that unlimited replay has actually hindered and/or ended other organized play campaigns.

The same can be said for unlimited GM credit.

Can you elaborate on this more? I was really looking more for the reasons why or why not rather than yes or no.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, let me first start by saying this probably isn't going to happen, nor is this any sort of official topic/poll/whatever. It's just an idea I was thinking about, and wanted to present to hear different sides on it.

I was thinking, why not make all 1-5th level (and 1st-7th for some older scenarios) scenarios open for infinite DM credit "replay". The idea is, that the lowest Tier is generally the most commonly run Tier, as more new players join in different groups. I personally don't mind running something I've already gotten credit for, so this is really more of an attempt to garner thoughts, though sometimes it does get annoying trying to remember if I've run something or just prepped it, did I play it and run, which character, etc. . .).

I've also noticed, on my part, that the more I run a scenario, the more he players tend to enjoy it, as I have more experience with things, a little more willing to make on the spot calls, knowing what that might lead to down the road, and for the multi-part scenarios, or those that lead into others, it makes it easier to blend the experience in together.

Another thing is that there are a lot of requested scenarios, and sometimes it's harder to find a DM to run them, especially for a new crowd coming into the scene, (home games or games store). So the idea is that if all of the low tier games allowed the GM to still get credit, while also getting better at running some scenarios and thus making the game that much better for the players, it might help to make more GM's willing to run more games.

Something I have encountered is that when it comes down to a situation where it would really be better to split a table into two groups, but not required, a lot of the time other possible DM's would rather play and get credit rather than DM and not get credit, (both because everyone wants to play, but also because for smaller groups, probably between 8ish to maybe 20ish people), it can start to create a gap where the various player's levels just don't match up, which begins to cause a problem with being actually able to play at a table with other players.

So, a few assumptions about what I mean with "all 1-5th level (and 1st-7th for some older scenarios) scenarios open for infinite DM credit "replay"."

This would only apply to the GM who ran, not be infinite credit for everyone. You can still not apply it to a character that already has either Player or GM Credit for that scenario. Like normal, the DM would get whatever Sub Tier would normally apply, but, in the cases of the 1-7 Tier Scenarios, the infinite credit can only be applied to a Character between 1st and 4-th level. Sort of like the 1st-2nd Tier games, where it's infinitely replayable by 1st level characters, but only once for a 2nd level character, you can only get credit for early levels, as the point to promote more DMs and games of the 1st - 5th ish level play (or 1st - 4th). This would not apply to Specials, Exclusives, Modules, and scenarios that already have their own rules for Replay. And this would not be retroactive, but (hypothetically) start at a specific date and then continue on from there.

Thoughts?

Shadow Lodge

Warpriest says:

"Bonus Feats: At 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, a warpriest gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement. These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats. The warpriest must meet the prerequisites for these feats, but he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats (in addition to base attack bonuses gained from other classes and racial Hit Dice). Finally, for the purposes of these feats, the warpriest can select feats that have a minimum number of fighter levels as a prerequisite, treating his warpriest level as his fighter level."

1.) Was this supposed to be intended to only apply to the few bonus Feats they receive, or was it supposed to be all Feats?

2.) It indicates that "use BaB for these Feats" as opposed to the later treat warpriest levels as Fighter levels "for prereqs only". Do you get to retain that pseudo full BaB when using you Bonus Feats, or was that supposed to read more like "for meeting prereqs only, the warpriests act as if they had full BaB for their warpriest levels and also those warpriest levels as if they where Fighter levels but only for meeting prereqs of feats such as Weapon Specialization.

3.) If it only applies to Bonus Feats, then it's kind of pointless, as the Bonus Feats do not line up with the levels for such Feats, requiring you to retrain into them at later levels. Or to multiclass with Fighter, which is basically the exact thing the entire class was supposed to do for you.

Feats wrote:

"Weapon of the Chosen (Combat)
The influence of your deity guides your favored weapon.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus with deity’s favored weapon, must worship and receive spells from a deity.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can call upon your deity to guide an attack you make with your deity’s favored weapon. On your next attack in that round with that weapon, your weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction or striking an incorporeal
creature. If your attack misses because of concealment, you can reroll your miss chance one time to see whether you actually hit."

"Improved Weapon of the Chosen (Combat)
You gain even greater favor when you use your deity’s favored weapon.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus with your deity’s favored weapon, Weapon of the Chosen†.
Benefit: This feat acts as Weapon of the Chosen, except you gain the benefits on all attacks until the start of your next turn. Your attacks gain a single alignment component of your deity—either chaotic, evil, good, or lawful—for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. If your deity is neutral with no other alignment components, your attacks instead overcome damage reduction as though your weapon were both cold
iron and silver.

"Greater Weapon of the Chosen (Combat)
Your deity guides your hand when you fight with her favored weapon.
Prerequisites: Improved Weapon of the Chosen†, Weapon Focus with deity’s favored weapon, Weapon of the Chosen†, worship and receive spells from a deity.
Benefit: When you use your deity’s favored weapon to attempt a single attack with the attack action, you roll two dice for your attack roll and take the higher result. You do not need to use your Weapon of the Chosen feat to gain this feat’s benefit."

1.) These Feats where specifically intended for the warpriest. Was it then intentional to specify that they only work with a deity's favored weapon when that class moved away from that idea long ago?

2.) Weapon of the Chosen requires a Swift action to activate, for a class that is already extremely strapped for swift and other action types. It's a pretty mediocre benefit for how many class features it makes you loose in order to use it.

3.) Greater Weapon of the Chosen requires you to A.) make a single attack, and B.) doing so while using the Attack Action, which is a specific form of Standard Action. As written, that precludes you from using this with other feats like Vital Strike, (which can not be combined with others that require a specific action type). This really makes this entire chain a pretty bad Trap Chain of Feats, and a really poor option for warpriests who it was designed specifically for.

Feats Wrote:
"Divine Protection
Your deity protects you against deadly attacks.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings†, domains, or mystery class feature.
Benefit: You gain a bonus equal to your Charisma modifier on all saving throws. If your Charisma modifier is already applied as a bonus on all saving throw (such as from the divine grace class feature), you instead gain a +1 bonus on all saving throws."

Probably the single more contested option in the book. Would it be possible to rewrite the prereqs to something like

Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to prepair 2nd-level divine spells; blessings† or domains class feature.

It's actually a pretty nice new little toy for pretty much everyone except the Oracle (where it's pretty clearly broken as heck). For the Oracle who is so SAD and Cha focused, it's a no-brainer Feat choice that offers benefits that are better then all of the other Save boosting Feats (possibly combined). For pretty much every other Divine caster class though, they are MAD, generally very strapped for Feats, and not likely to have a Cha over 14 or 16, which means it may be a nice boost, but not a must have.

Shadow Lodge

I find it amazing how all those folks that gave this book a 4 and 5 star review did not actually seem to have read the book.

Shadow Lodge ***

I didnt. I said things like a "reoccuring NPC" rather than gave names. Also the mission in question is given out right up front. No spoilers given. The complaint is rather things that it entails and the, in my opinion at least, likelihood of causing PvP. With anyone, but particularly S.C and L.E. characters.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't particularly like the new Factions, but I don't particularly dislike most of them either. Hate the new symbols. I'm really disappointed with what I've seen in play for some of the new Factions. 6-02's Darkive, in my opinion was very bad. Both in that it was not what the players wanted from a certain NPC in the bland player handout, and the mission goal and theme seemed to be the opposite of the Factions supposed intent. It also seemed like it was trying to force PvP, have the Darkive characters enslave/rob a well-liked reoccuring NPC, (and one that's, from past scenarios in the line become a strong ally and friend to the Society). WtF!?!?!?

I feel the Sovereign Court is just too vague to care bout right now. And the change basically ruins any sort of motive I had for building Taldor characters from before now.

Liberty's Edge, while I kind of like changing from just Andoran, the Faction has just been a terrible, terrible hypocritical mess since Season 2 or 3. And perhaps the most of any Faction, it has the coolest nation based vanities that just don't fit now with the nationlessness of the new Faction. Silver Crusade has basically taken everything cool and interesting from the Andoran/Liberty's Edge Faction outside of the Eagle Knights.

Really the only thing I have against the Scarab Sages is how much I just detest the name. I like the flavor, and of all of the new Factions, it probably has the most in depth and believable flavor, both as a group and as a transition, but that stupid name is bad enough to turn me off, and the symbol does not help.

Its really time to get rid of some of the Faction leaders. I don't care for the Taldor/SoftCourt leader. She strikes me as boring and just doesn't really fit well. Andoran's/Liberty's Edge's Faction head is such a corrupt hypocrite it basically invalidates the entire Faction. He really should have been at the top of his own list last Season, and the fact he did not assassinate or remove himself from power from the start just kind of makes it a big joke.

Shadow Lodge

I think the point was to try to see if a Warpriest actually matters or not rather than to exclude the Inquisitor.

Shadow Lodge ***

David_Bross wrote:

The last part was overstated, but generally PCs hate status conditions, and real threats of death. Besides Bonekeep, can you think of a particularly deadly scenario that reviewed well?

Most negative reviews for scenarios come from PC deaths and/or being unable to contribute to a fight.

I would say that players generally like the real threat of death, but hate status affects that either remove their control of their character like charm/dominate, or ones that remove the from play, particularly for an extended time.

Severing Ties seems to have reviewed pretty well, despite it being considered deadly on two separate accounts. One literally comes down to a single good or bad roll.

The Confirmation likewise seems pretty deadly at a certain point, and looks to be reviewed well.

I'm sure there are plenty of others, too, just the ones I recall of the top of my head.

The God's Market Gamble's BBEG if you have a lot of Humans or lack a great deal of ranged combat.

The Dalsine Affair. BBEG

Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment. Ridiculous BBEG and suggested rules mess with players a lot.

The Glass River Rescue with it's Drake with infinite Damage breath Weapon.

Weapon in the Rift.

The Green Market for one particular encounter that's huge and basically immune to everything, just because.

Fortress of the Nail's final plane hopping environment + enemies.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of me is just hoping that there was such a backlash against the new Factions, Season 6, the new symbols, and the like that they have reconsidered the whole thing.

:)

Shadow Lodge ***

While I do agree that I wish more people would rate scenarios, particularly with honest feedback in mind both good and bad, one thing I really wish that was an option for Scenarios is the ability to review it as a Player and as a DM separately.

When I run a game, I try to ask the players opinions on things afterwards, allow them to ask questions, and explain things I wouldn't while playing, then incorporate all of that into a review I give. Or if I'm a player, to listen to other peoples complaint, and keep an eye out during the game to wee what others are thinking. I then try to read up on the actual scenario afterwards, either to run it myself or to see if there was an issue if it was from DM mistake or the scenario itself.

It really bugs me to see a lot of the 5 Star Reviews, and to a point the 1 Star Reviews of products as, at least it seems completely BS. More like they where either a friend of the author or didn't actually play or run the scenario, and just didn't or did like a concept, theme, or special rule in it.

It's also pretty clear with some that a given scenario is awesome, from the DM perspective, but players generally (in my limited experience) hated it. Mostly because the nature of the beast is that GM's get a lot of the backstory and explanation that many times does not make it to the players, and can leave the players confused and annoyed.

I'd really love to see this sort of thing done that differentiates between Player and GM perspective.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Shouldnt that apply to every sort of trap they have never specifically encountered before?
Gabriel Smith-Dalrymple wrote:
Not really. Let's look at mathematics:

I think you took my response out of context. The idea presented was that, as a logical explanation for the Feat and Skills change, it makes sense that a character that has never seen a robot or technology should have a penalty to rolls interacting with it. But, by that logic, unless a character has specifically interacted with a given type of trap, dragon, golem, or whatever, shouldn't they then also take that same penalty?

It also falsely assumes that technology and robots and stuff are rare, unique, and unknowable, (but wait what if my character is from Numeria or whatever), but that other things in the setting, lets say Dragons, (which according to the setting are extremely rare), which is covered by the Know Arcana skill, any character with 1 Rank in Know Arcana has a chance to know every fact about a dragon that there is. But it's a robot, something that's probably not as rare as an actual dragon, and for some reason, they can't use their skills, which are intended to be non-specific in application.

But, if that's the logic, then shouldn't a character that wants to use Disable Device on a trap they have never themselves encounter, then take a -5 penalty and not count as having the right tool for the job too? Well, unless they take a Feat that lets them get around that?

Shadow Lodge

Lady Redfield wrote:
It's a good time to be a World of Darkness fan!

I certainly sounds that way!!! :)

Shadow Lodge

memorax wrote:
Too bad White Wolf is still going ahead with a new edition and rereleasing the core with the GMC stuff inside and a whole new set of core books. http://theonyxpath.com/the-world-of-darkness-second-edition/ Notice that nowhere do they mention that the new edition is backwards compatible.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here? The article does mention hat it has been altered, so maybe you read the original one and it was different. But from the article:

"It’s been ten years since the new World of Darkness debuted at Gen Con 2004. With a decade of experience creating and running these games, we’re in a great position to improve them."

"the difference between the two was academic, and the success of that book proves there’s demand for updates."

"No rules or setting will change, and Blood and Smoke won’t be outdated."

All sound pretty amazing to me. And this is coming from a company that is actively supporting two fully separate gamelines at the same time.

The nWoD doesn't really need to be "backwards compatible", per se, as the nature of it's system is extremely kitchen sinky and filled with optional rules already. From he looks of it, though, it's seems to imply pretty strongly that it will not invalidate older material, and will simply incorporate 4 books down into 2. But, with the nWoD, the base assumption is that there is a single core book for all the basic rules for all games, (the "blue book") and that each individual game, (Vampire, Mage, etc) also has it's one main book that builds upon the basic rules for that particular game line, but within the main system.

Both the "blue book" and the Vampire line had a major book come out that gave new options and mechanics to bring them more in line with the other game lines, (the God Machine Chronicles and Blood and Smoke). This is somewhat similar to maybe the APG for the "blue book" and then Ult Magic and Combat for VtR. The main issue is that, Vampire is the most popular of all the WoD games, and it came out first. As the other lines came out, they had the opportunity to learn from the mistakes and advantages of VtR, and incorporate new ideas, (many of which really work very well for VtR, but as it came out before those new concepts, had not been included).

So nWoD 2E seems to focus on finally incorporating the newer smoother rules from the later books into the core system for both nWoD blue book and VtR. Something that fans have been asking for for a long, long time.

Disclaimer, I'm not actually a fan of the nWoD, but to me, this sounds freaking amazing, and something I will absolutely give a shot, and might just become one finally.

Shadow Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:
The CRB is in its 6th printing. The revisions are a by-product of that, not a cause. The printings 1-5 sold out.

I meant in the sense of original +5 new printings. The important part is that they include all of the new errata and rules changes, so are not just "reselling the same book with no changes". I guess the difference is that Paizo has decided to do this, incorporate their errata and clarifications into the next printing rather than issue them as an attachment sort of PDF like WotC and other companies tended to do.

The point being really that it depends on what you view as a new edition at to just how much of that we have already had from Paizo. If you mean it more as a completely new game and system, then little to none, and I think almost everyone here agrees that it's not what they want.

It however you take a new edition to mean the same system, but updated, streamlined, and fixed, but all in all still the sameish game, I think a lot more people might be on board.

Particularly if you remember that it's probably going to be a whopping $9.99 US, (or $40-50), and not $100s+.

Shadow Lodge

memorax wrote:
Gamers don't like buying the same rpg twice with no changes. With apps and the SRD it's going to probably be the first time imo that 0the PFcore is not going to sell as well imo.

I'm not sure we have an example of a selling an RPG twice with no changes. We do have plenty of examples of reselling an RPG with moderate to heavy changes, and from the looks, they tend to do very well. 3.0 -> 3.5, nWoD -> The God Machine, oWoD (which was out of print and no longer supported) -> the 20th Anniversary editions, WotC rereleasing the 1st-3rd Edition core books, which as I understand all sold pretty well. Even Paizo and Pathfinder have rereleased their Core book in what 5 different "printings" editions, and by all accounts their fanbase and sells keep growing exponentially.

Shadow Lodge

True, it doesn't, (mean you will get the changes you want), but IF there was a decision to make a new edition, there would no doubt be a lot of talks and interaction with the fans before hand, and there are a lot of topic that keep coming up.

*Alignment issues/Paladin basic code of conduct
*Reach, and how PF changed it in regards to diagonals
*Monk issues
*Fighter issues
*Rogue issues
*Cleric issues
*That the Core game and classes need the APG treatment
*Light and Darkness
*Stealth (and Concealment removing Sneak Attack)
*2+Int skill points
*Far too many Traits (and other things) that either do the exact same thing, or are just worse than another Trait
*Feats with Prereqs that really don't help with the Feat you want to take, are unrelated, etc. . .
*Feat Chains that are not really worth a Feat, and would be better served being a single or a fewer number of Feats in the Chain that naturally upgraded
*CMB/CMD being a kind of poor system that doesn't scale well with levels, (even maxed out, combat maneuvers become worse at higher levels as monsters CMD gets much higher than CMB)

So there is no promise that if they did a new edition it would fix any issues, it's probably pretty safe to assume that that would be a main focus, at least for some. It's also pretty safe to assume that such a book would focus on not invalidating older material, particularly story and setting material (although the setting is doing a great job of that on it's own). And based on Paizo's history of such things, with the possible exception of the ACG, it's likely that A.) they would do a really good job, and B.) most would like it, and C.) it would bring even more fans. Personally, I would be very interested if they even looked at trying to improve even half or a quarter of these things, or however many that are often brought up that I didn't list.

It wouldn't split the fanbase any more that Unchained (or the announcement of it) has, not any other books like the APG, UC/UM/UE, or ISG. I kind of think it's ridiculous, at this point where it's just a hypothetical to assume otherwise unless you are of the opinion that most of the PF books since the CRB are garbage.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shouldnt that apply to every sort of trap they have never specifically encountered before?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, some folks think a New Editions means something more like from 3E to 4E where it's a completely new game that would also invalidate the vast majority of setting material, forcing you to rebuy everything, while others take a new edition to simply mean an update to the existing system.

Others think that a new edition in a few years is a good idea, while others think that one far off day might be ok, but not now. When you do a yes/no sort of Poll, it leaves a lot of things in the middle, and gives odd results.

So, for me personally, the category I would say yes to would be the one that said "YES, a new edition that did not invalidate other material, but updated some of the core systems, fixed things that are most commonly discussed issues (on these boards) such as Alignment, Paladin Codes, Fighter/Monk/Rogue/Cleric/Monk/Monk/Monk/Fighter/Monk/Rogue, Reach, etc. . ., but did not require someone to rebuy the Inner Sea World Guide or Bestiary's , well maybe 2-4, but not Bestiary 1, didn't require any single AP to need to be reprinted, (well if we can get Age of Worms non-Golarion edition, that's just a win for everyone, rpger or not that makes the world a better place, because lets face it, it's the absolute best AP Paizo has ever created, not that RotRL crap they keep pushing), and if they literally started today, even without a public playtest, (regardless of your or my personal opinion of them based of the ACG), it wouldn't be our until likely 2016 at the earliest, thus giving the PF Unchained, (but not PF Unearthed) book plenty of chances to fail to be what we actually wanted (damn it, did I say that out loud) to do it's thing, as well as everyone the chance to play through the AP that b%#*!slaps Cheliax and House Thurne or whatever, and fixed some of the few issues that 3E as a system sort of created", my answer is that one. But if particular aspects of that are not true, my answer might be no. But, that exact option was not presented in the Poll.

Shadow Lodge

If people wouldn't mind, bout half way up the page, I tried to break up the poll into a few more, and hopefully more clear and neutral categories. It's not official or anything, I'm just interested.

Shadow Lodge

Doubtful. Paizo has said multiple times that the Paizo message boards are not at all the majority. What harm is there in posting a link to the poll in other places for people to take a look and maybe give their opinion, either here or there.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
There politely disagreeing and then there shouting people down so they don't get heard while telling them to go elsewhere. Which happened during the playtest of the core. Which I don't want to see happen again. In a playtest everyone should be heard. Not a very select few very vocal posters. I'm surprised that you would think it was a bad thing.

I think that the problem with that idea that they are sort hinting at is that everyone is going to have a different idea on who "those people" are. So it sounds great in theory, but in practice it's basically just using a different method to over shout other people whose ideas one might not agree with.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

5.) I DON'T CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

Shadow Lodge

4.) NO, at least not in the near future. Maybe 2025 or later.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

3.) NO, as in never.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

2.) YES, but more like an update, or a Pathfinder 1.5 that would not invalidate older setting/story material or be a mostly new system.

Shadow Lodge

1.) YES, a totally new Edition.

Shadow Lodge

How about changing the poll a little bit to, (and I don't mean to take over or anything) some thing like:

Shadow Lodge ***

Imbicatus wrote:

We almost lost our second Prestige point yesterday in Scars of the Third Crusade because of this.

** spoiler omitted **

I really hate gaming with chaotic players.

Well, in their defense, (and I can totally feel for you), a great deal of Season 5 and that scenario is a prime example, leave a lot of players/play styles/character types out in the cold. I've had two groups in face-to-face games ask me and the other DM to avoid running these as most players find them unfulfilling and boring, and it encourages them to do stupid things (half way through the dialogue "Ok, I don't care, I attack him just for something fun to happen", followed by over half the party, "I move here, me too."). A lot of the issue is, (from what I've seen) is the lack of fulfilling and well rounded scenarios lately and the abundance of ones that require players to be highly invested in a particular story and love RPing, not so much other aspects of gaming.

They tend to do a bit better in PbP games, maybe because it's harder for some players to steal the spotlight as much in dialogue, I don't know.

Shadow Lodge

Pan wrote:
Amino acids? You got to be kidding?

She/he said they where into a lot of anime. . . :P

Shadow Lodge ***

For you. Clearly for many others it is.

Shadow Lodge

captain yesterday wrote:

i don't get why people get hung up on the "Undead are always evil" aspect of Golarion.

last i checked Paizo staffers weren't knocking on peoples's doors saying "those Zombies Better be evil m&!*%$!@+~!$s!"

if you don't like a rule dont use it, house rules exist for a reason:)

For me, because Id love to be able to play a cleric that raises the fallen to to fight the good fight once more (with their permission). And to have that in PFS or whatever game where the GMdoesnt default to Golarion canon.

Its also a wonky idea (that all/most Undead are auto evil just because they are undead). Personally, in my opinion, it stifles options and creativity rather than invites it.

Shadow Lodge ***

I want to say that last season they released it a week or so early for people to prep, but I cant recall.

Shadow Lodge

GM Xabulba wrote:
Skill ranks are based off of hit dice, you need three ranks in intimidation to get boar strike, an ECL3 character can put 3 ranks into a skill thus allowing them to get the Boar style feat at class level 1.

Don't want to go to far off:
What you are saying is a bit confusing. If you had a Level Adjustment (and thus an ECL), and where also (ECL) level 3, that means you did not have 3 character levels, (and thus couldn't put 3 Ranks <or 5 Ranks in 3.E>), and the DM was correct. Your ECL is your Class Level/Racial HD + Level Adjustment.

-
If you mean that you where a 3rd level character (class level plus racial HD), then that's fine, assuming those all added up to 3rd level. But since there is no LA, there is no real reason to say ECL, because you don't have a different effective character level than your actual character level. Does that make sense? It's the + LA that makes the ECL important, and that LA does not allow you to increase Skill Ranks, it just treats you as a higher level for XP needed.

Shadow Lodge ***

andreww wrote:
The problems with rogues are pretty well known by now. They are a primarily melee class with only 3/4 BaB,

I would say that you summed up the actual problem with Rogues that plagues the forums perfectly, in that people continue to mistake the Rogue for a primary melee class. Rogues are not Fighters with a crapload more skills. Rogues are just fine, and still a pretty commonly seen and fun class.

Shadow Lodge

It's kind of a throw back. In 2E, a Ranger had to attack their favored enemy to the exclusion of others unless it was completely impractical. In 3.0, you had t be evil to select your own race as a Favored Enemy unless they where normally evil (like Drow), (I think it was something like that). In 3.5 that mostly went away and a bit more social effects where added in. It still retains the Favored Enemy rather than something like Favored Target/Subject.

Shadow Lodge

Xabulba wrote:
Playing a ECL 3 character with 1d8 unarmed attacks The DM's own creation; two-weapon fighting doesn't work with unarmed attacks. When I try to pick up the Boar fighting style, you need to be 3rd level for that and I don't care what ECL means.

That's actually the way that ECL works. Level + Racial HD + LA = ECL, but only the Racial HD/Level count for qualifying for Feats. So if you are playing a +2 LA creature with 1 Class Level, your an ECL 3, but you only count as a 1st level character for anything but XP purposes.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And just outright false for others.

Shadow Lodge ***

WiseWolfOfYoitsu wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Battle Phases:

The rules for mass combat in this adventure are broken down into four major phases: the Movement phase, the Tactics phase, the Ranged phase, and the Melee phase. Completing all four phases (as applicable) represents a full day of campaigning, after which the phases repeat the following day.

Movement Phase:
During this phase, each unit commander (PC and NPC armies) moves his or her army up to its speed in hexes. To determine the order in which the armies act, each army rolls 1d10 and adds its Speed and commander’s Charisma bonus to the roll. Armies act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. When one army enters the hex of an enemy army, those armies are considered locked in combat and cannot move until the next day. If any armies are in combat, proceed to the Tactics phase; otherwise the day ends.

Melee Phase:
The armies finally clash with melee attacks. Each commander selects a strategy using the Strategy Track, then each army makes an attack against another army. Repeat the Melee phase until one army is defeated or routs, or some other event ends the battle.

My understanding is that once combatants are locked in a combat, they must continue to fight until one is Dead, Routed, or Withdraws. They only get one Melee Phase (normally) a day, but it doesn't put everyone else not in combat on hold. It just generally means actively fighting combatants get to advance to the Tactics -> Ranged -> Melee Phase each day, while everyone else only gets their Movement Phase in a day.

My understanding, and the way it was played with our group was you follow initiative to conduct the movement phase. Once all units have completed their movements, all units select their Tactics. Once base Tactics are established, resolve Ranged combats in order of initiative. After this starts the Melee phase, which repeats until an army is defeated, routed or withdraws. Until the Melee phase can no...

I dont believe that is right. Reading through the Ult Camp, it looks like there is no Movement Phase, its only Tactics, Ranged, and Melee. But an army only gets one of those a day, (which all resolve at the same time). But Mass Combat itself is Day by Day, (so just like a normal basic combat round, one standard, one move, etc which is Round by Round),you only get one turn. You just cant move away, or shift location without special rules. I

There are also rules for extra combatants joining the battle in progress, so it can not put everyone else on hold while each individual one isresolved between DM and 1 player.

Shadow Lodge ***

Battle Phases:
The rules for mass combat in this adventure are broken down into four major phases: the Movement phase, the Tactics phase, the Ranged phase, and the Melee phase. Completing all four phases (as applicable) represents a full day of campaigning, after which the phases repeat the following day.

Movement Phase:
During this phase, each unit commander (PC and NPC armies) moves his or her army up to its speed in hexes. To determine the order in which the armies act, each army rolls 1d10 and adds its Speed and commander’s Charisma bonus to the roll. Armies act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. When one army enters the hex of an enemy army, those armies are considered locked in combat and cannot move until the next day. If any armies are in combat, proceed to the Tactics phase; otherwise the day ends.

Melee Phase:
The armies finally clash with melee attacks. Each commander selects a strategy using the Strategy Track, then each army makes an attack against another army. Repeat the Melee phase until one army is defeated or routs, or some other event ends the battle.

My understanding is that once combatants are locked in a combat, they must continue to fight until one is Dead, Routed, or Withdraws. They only get one Melee Phase (normally) a day, but it doesn't put everyone else not in combat on hold. It just generally means actively fighting combatants get to advance to the Tactics -> Ranged -> Melee Phase each day, while everyone else only gets their Movement Phase in a day.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I would think the best option would be to have GM Star Replays renew each year on Jan 01st. Or at east maybe 1 - 2 of them. 3 and 5 GM Stars (or maybe 4-5?), might work well as a special Con Boon, allowing those GMs that go to Cons to still get a reward that they are more likely to need anyway, but allowing everyone else to still be rewarded for DMing.

If it's on Jan 1, for one it's a hard date, and it allows DM's that go to large conventions to plan for using their stars nearer the end of the Reset date, and also to start to use them for a good bit of the next season as well. Particularly on the newer scenarios that a lot of players are going to want to get into, (likely the newest 1-5s and 3-7s), continuing to reward all DMs for DMing for others and not playing themselves.

I personally also feel that this should not be a "lets reward Con-goers at the expense of everyone else" sort of deal. This is not something I would like to receive for going to a Con or GameDay or whatever, but it is something I would like to be able to use for being the main DM in my local area and for all the online games I run. I still think that (at least a limited) automatic reset is the best option for everyone. I'm holding back my stars just because there are things I specifically want to replay, but as I usually GM now, they have not come up and well, I'm usually the GM. When I do play, I have enough characters that I can usually help make nearly any party, but I would rather get no credit for most scenarios than use my Star Replays at this point, not knowing for sure that certain scenarios I want another crack at may then be out of reach. I want another go at Midnight Mauler (story) and In Wrath's Shadow (chronicle Item), for instance. I'd also love to have a single character with all of the Blakros Museum scenarios (but not Blakros non-museum), including the coming Season 6 one, which is probably going to require one of my mostly unplayed DM credit characters to fit all the levels in and be legal.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there a such thing as a Non-Combat Druid? Wha. . .???

:P

Shadow Lodge ***

The Fox wrote:
Jewelfox wrote:
...
One small correction: the Core Rulebook is required for all players. (See p. 5 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.)

Further small correction. The only books that are required are the ones that your current GM asks you to present when there is a question. In practice, this is generally none, including the crb. (At east in my experience, it's never happened with the single exception of brand new books that not a lot have had the chance to read through yet, and even that is rare.)

Personally, and no offense to the fury's out there, but I am glad the Kitsune are not generally legal. They are just one of those races that smacks of "special rare snowflake character". I've had two players with the boon in my games, and both stated beforehand out of character something to the effect of "Hey, I'm a Kitsune, but your not allowed to know that in character unless I tell you (or you can beat my disguise, which I should get all sorts of free bonuses and stuff to, just because)." It leads me to believe that they, as players, are expecting to receive special treatment and special spotlight regardless of anyone else at the table, which in turn is a really good red flag for not something to encourage in an organized play setting. Just my opinion. Everyone's free to their own. I'd much rather see something like Ratkin or Grippli more open, myself. Less balance issue involved as well as less of the above.

Shadow Lodge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Peet wrote:
But of course, if you are using the Christian god as real and Christian theology as true, then the paganism of those periods is essentially a form of demon- or devil-worship.

Which, as the demonization of a real-world religion, is way more problematic and potentially offensive than the mere inclusion of real world religions in a positive context.

For the record.

So much for inclusion, right.

But anyway, it really, really depends on to what extent you mean "as true". In the setting, the various faiths all have creation stories that "are true", but also contradict and falsify other deity's creation mythology. Now, on the other hand, you could go the inclusive route or trying to get something for everyone and have the Christian/Jewish/Islamic/etc. . . god as an option without automatically jumping to the conclusion that doing so would invalidate or demonize others (and why is that ok one way, but not the other?). Golarion isn't RL, and it's pretty clear that Golarion was basically cut-off from the rest of universe to limit outside forces from interfering much, (as we can see in the Egyptian pantheon in Osirion's history, particularly in how they sort of stopped really being a presence for a long, long time). One of the setting's basic ideas is that deity's do not require worship or followers to exist or to gain/maintain power, (that is they do not loose their divine status or weaken if their worshipers all go away, they just have no tools to use indirectly on the mortal plane).

1 to 50 of 1,342 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.