|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
While it is a powerful class, it's also a step below other powerful classes (Summoner, Druid, Wizard/Sorcerer, <Magus maybe>, dedicated archers, etc. . . ) and they get cool new shinny's all the time. So I don't really see the issue.
I flagged it to be moved yesterday. :P
But I have to agree. I'm not sure I've ever seen a part where not a single character (much less most of them) had a Wayfinder. It is a bit pricey for what little it does, but it's also sort of a badge of office, and I can't say how many times I've pulled my cloak aside to reveal my Wayfinder for just a second to indicate discretely what I just said has a hidden meaning or the like.
As for how mandatory it is, not sure. Have not played/read the scenario, but I can say that needing to buy things just to complete a scenario isn't uncommon. I literally just spent almost 2,000 gp yesterday in Glories of the Past 2 for that same reason, and a good portion of that was wasted by the end. That's more on the top end of what I can think of required spending, but there are plenty out there where entrance fee's are needed, specific gear/bribes/items are called for, etc. . .
And while it's probably not fun for the OP, sometimes that's just the way things go. It kind of sounds like between running cold and the party refusing to make a suggested purchase (without metagaming knowing what it meant), they came to an impasse they couldn't cross. Not to be mean, but sometimes this happens. Luckily, in my experience it's not common, and I can say I have only failed one scenario. I kind of felt like there was nothing we could do, and it wasn't really due to poor player/character choices, we just couldn't get past a certain point. So I get it, but still, sometimes failure (or worse) happens.
A lot of the issue kind of comes down to four things, so just take the guide with a grain of salt. On one hand, it is all theory craft, and all of the DPS math is just that, theory craft. It doesn't take everything into account, and it is also based on certain static assumptions. It doesn't really look at non-combat encounters at all, or versatility, but generally assumes that each build's one-trick-ponyness works most of the time and is enough to carry the class through.
Secondly, Undone did mention that his/her normal group almost never allows prebuffing, Surprise Rounds, or the party to get ambushes, which means that her/his play style(s) heavily influence the suggestions here and may not apply to anyone else's. That doesn't make it wrong or bad, but just take it with a grain of salt. As the guide is a group of suggestions, take what applies and leave what doesn't behind.
Another aspect is it's pretty clear that many of the suggestions are more intended for the later level of play rather than so much the path to those higher levels. What works really well early generally doesn't later on, and what is needed to be effective later might not be beneficial early.) Just like with the cleric, the entire paradigm really shifts after about 5th level, so just keep that in mind.
And finally, many/some of the suggestions are based on questionable rulings and interpretations. The overwhelming idea is that many of these are assumed to be in the Warpriest's favor, and also assumed as "how I say until proven otherwise". So, again, grain of salt. Eventually Paizo will get around to answering them, (in theory), but until then it is entirely up to you and your group (and in PFS the DM), to decide what is RAW/RAI/How it's going to work.
So again, take it with a grain of salt. Undone's views are not gospel. There are some good ideas in there and some others that are likely not going to work. Play styles vary.
Id say either under the products page or the GM Discussion.
Something to keep in mind is a Wayfinder is only 250 for Pathfinders. I dont have the scenario, so not sure. Other than that, Id say warn/hint to the players before hand, but if no one is willing to buy one, well, just like any other case where if you do not have the right tool for the job, either find a different way or it might be a failed scenario.
One way to do it is to look at some of the other Classes a bit, and steal. Druid for example, (probably the most powerful class with the Wizard), gets little things throughout, like Resist Nature's Lure, Timeless Body, and Nature Sense. Granting a Cleric maybe a +2 on Know Religion and Planes, Resistance to the Abilities of Outsiders/Undead, or something like that would be very cool.
Another issue is the Cleric is one of the most MAD classes in the game. A few ways to mitigate that would be great, but honestly I'm not sure how to do that. The easy answer is to make Channel Wis-based, but I also kind of think the basic Cleric concept should be charismatic. What might work is to sort of steal from the Inquisitor and let them use Wis for Diplomacy, but that might be too strong?
Domains, just need something more. A quick way to do it might be to allow a spell to be added tot he class spell list at certain levels, but doing so might also rob from some Archtypes, and also wouldn't really help fill out the levels. Another Domain ability, or maybe two added to most Domains. The Elemental Domains in particular. It would also be cool if the Domains gave you Specialization in a Skill.
The class really does need some choices to make after level 1. To me the easiest 3 types to identify would be a Martial Cleric, Spellcaster Cleric, or Channeling Focused Cleric, similar to the Ranger's Fighting Style.
Maybe the Martial Cleric treats their level as Fighter levels for the ability to take Feats for the Deity's Favored Weapon, and gets a free Weapon Focus.
The Spellcaster Cleric can Aid Another as a Swift Action a number of times per Day and gets the ability to trade out a new Feat for the ability to add non-Cleric spells to their list, (still must be proper Alignment). Alternatively, maybe an ability to treat a certain number of spells as Silent or Stilled, and to be Prepped even if they are not normally able to pray at their normal time.
Maybe the Channel Cleric ignores prereqs for Channel Feats (any Feat that alters Channel Energy) except for Level, d6 dice for Channel Energy, or Skill Point requirements. So a good Cleric could take Rebuke Undead (Negative Energy), but still could not take Quick Channeling until they had Know Religion 5.
I've been encountering similar issues recently as well. I did post up a topic talking about it a bit ago if you are interested in taking a look (all).
It was focused more on GM's credit vs players, but I'm always interesting in hearing more arguments for and against.
I think there is a lot more that goes towards the lack of cool factor for the Cleric.
Many of the archtypes are just poor, and that's really just because the base class itself simply lacks any features to swap out or trade.
The Oracle, Inquisitor, and Paladin have some many ways to just do the Cleric's job better, where generally the Cleric just lacks a lot of options to branch out.
It's kind of stuck in this odd place where, yes, it is a full caster, and yes, it is both a prep. and spont. caster, but a lot of the times it either can not qualify for feats and options designed for those specific types, or they can, but just do not gain much actual benefit from them.
All choices are made at level 1. They also lack any sort of Bonus Feats, later class features, skill bonuses, and I think most importantly, any sort of ether/or options a little bit later, (like a Ranger's Fighting Style, Druids Pet/Domain, etc. . . ).
There really is very little gear that is tailored towards the Cleric, and it's usually a bit better for other classes.
They don't have a single class feature that multiple other classes do not also get, but generally lack any way to get other class features from other classes that should fit very well for a certain build.
While there is a small handful of good/great Domains, most of them are bad/terrible. They really need to redo the whole Domains concept, probably add in a 2-3 more abilities to them throughout levels, and really rebalance them against all the knew materials and mechanics.
I don't think that the Cleric is uber powerful. It's on the stronger side of moderate, and probably doesn't need a big bump in straight power level, but does need a pretty big one as far as options, cool factor, and shiny things, which is kind of where it falls near the end of the line.
Not really being debated. Also, not sure changing the way that a single 1cp item works, in PFS only, counts as "many things being moved back to Move Actions".
Different people different ideas on what "easily accessible" or how many items can be easily accessible at a given time. Outside of the can you reasonably be assumed to be sleeping in armor thing, it looks like just about everyone kind of agrees.
The Xenomorph evolves based on the type of creature it grows from. The Black Goo, (it not the movies goal to explain the Black Goo and more than any Alien(s) movie has explained how they can survive with molecular acid blood, or survive even extreme environments), from what we can tell, breaks down the body and was used to seed other planets with DNA. Alien Transenspermia is a s real world "theory", not one created by the movie, and I don't think that was the point of the movie, just the lead up to what occurs.
It's not too far of a logical stretch to assume that the black goo could have been used to seal the early stage xenomorphs in, as their instinct is to impregnate other creatures with themselves, in some sort of suspension.
Altering the atmosphere, (or maybe the robot accidentally or purposefully activated them when he opened the door), probably broke that suspension.
So, let me give everyone that's not getting the movie a quick run through.
A pair of scientists/archaeologists discover a painting with the same symbolism as other throughout the world, but this one predates them by a long time. The repeated symbolism was a cluster of stars, and particularly interesting, a system that none of those ancient peoples would have any means to know about, but now, in the future, humanity does have a method to travel to. There is a single planet that might be able to harbor life and try to get funding to go explore, believing it will be the greatest finding of all time.
Unable to get the funding the want, they instead get it from the Weyland (spelling) corp, who secretly has an agenda. Or a few really. The guy that okayed it, sadly has passed on by the time they wake up from hypersleep, only to find his less sympathetic daughter in charge and changing the deal. They had also hired a variety of other experts in fields to go too, (in the Aien(s) verse, deep space explorers tended to be the ones that didn't have friends and family, as their career involved them hypersleeping for months to years there and then the way back).
Anyway, they get there, fully believing that they are going to the Engineers home world, and find that something has basically exterminated them, (that's what they think).
Finding signs of construction (Nazca Landing Strips), they go explore.
There are monsters and mysteries.
A lot of people die.
Turns out a lot of people have different agendas and it looks like the Engineers where not benevolat.
Also turns out old man Weyland has been alive the hole time, and has programmed his son, the robot, to do everything he can to find a cure for old age/death.
His daughter, a real girl (and willing to prove it) doesn't like that her father has always cared more about the robot, and has been waiting and waiting to inherit it all.
All the other scientists are there to get paid.
They finally find an actual living Engineer, find out the entire planet was just a weapons storage (for the Aliens), and the caves they are in are actually a space ship. A lot of people die. Engineer attacks. More people die.
The last survivors think they know the true Engineer's homeworld and make their way back to the ship and fly away.
Well, to be honest, it is not how it has ever worked. In 3E source had been more defined and multiple other official FAQs/explanations did explain it. Pathfinder, like many things did not copy over the entire text, but also did not include the many notes on things that 3E did.
So it really matter if by "for many years" you are referring to the d20 system or the not so many years ago Pathfinder rules. There are two issues here. The PF ruling is counter to everything that has been put out on the subject previous to it, but it also fails to use what what is actually written to explain itself, either before PF or within PF up until this point.
Not arguing that the FAQ/Errata is non-existent, but rather that its very poorly sone and implemented, and counter to everything else. This isnt an interpretaion issue, but rather one where A is used to justify B while A and B are two different and unrelated things. It would be better to leave out completely any mention of either Type or Source, remove the FAQ/Errata, and simply state that unless it says otherwise, you can not double-dip ability mods. No confusion, no possibility of screwing up other things, it sets a clear presidents, and basically it covers what looks to be the actual goal of answering the FAQ.
True, but its not that is in the Magic Section. Its that it a part of the section talking about how magic and spells effects work when combined or used against each other. You actually need read what comes before and after that and not take a single little part out of context, like it applies to everything. There never was a general rule in Pathfinder about sources, except for spells, just like there is actually no rule saying a suitable mount must be larger than yourself. Look through the Skills section, or the Feats section, or any other section and find a reference to not stacking due to the same source. There are rules about Types, but not a single one about Source, its not even mentioned. Instead what you will find are that some can be taken multiple times. Some of those will even stack, but only if it says so.
It's actually referring to this, I believe: (sort of a fix for Humans of Golarion that was expanded upon in Varisia but forgot to actually reference where it's was really found).
At 1st level (for clerics) or upon gaining a domain as part of Nature Bond at 1st level (for druids—a druid who instead opts to take an animal companion cannot use the Shoanti shaman archetype), pick one of your Shoanti quah's totems. You can use an image of this totem you carry or wield as your divine focus in addition to using the normal divine focus you might utilize (such as a holy symbol). In addition, you add that totem's domain choices to the list of domains you may choose from when picking a domain. If you are a cleric, you must still choose one of your domains from those normally granted by your deity. If you are a druid, your totem domain options replace the standard domain options granted by nature bond.
Let me point out again, that singular mention of "Sources" in Pathfinder, is actually in the stacking magic spells section, not the general stacking section, and is referring specifically to how the special affect of spells work with each other.
So you can't cast a spell that gives a +1 Dodge Bonus (which would normally stack, even with itself) and then cast that same spell again to get a total of a +2 Dodge Bonus.
Outside of spells, in Pathfinder, source is irrelevant. It's all about Type.
jon dehning wrote:
There are store owners, other venture officers, and people who care about the environment who have all sided against unlimited replay (or for this argument, re-credit, for lack of a better word). There is a reason we feel this way. From Drogon's perspective as a store owner to mine own as an organizer and VC, there is one common thread to all of our thoughts and reasoning. We do not want to see PFS be undone by replay.
Again, where is this coming from? Not the fear of it, but the idea that replay, or more specifically to this GM "recredit" is a bad thing? Or would ruin PFS?
Actually, that's exactly how I remember it being marketed. A direct link to the original Alien movie, but not really focusing on the "aliens" monsters.
But, with that being said, I was deployed at the time, so I didn't watch any previews or anything. From what I do remember, and is pretty true, is that it is very tied to the original Alien movie, but not any of the sequels.
Anyway, I liked it well enough, and would watch a part 2. I don't really care one way or the other about the cast.
Yah, I'm not really sure what didn't make sense? Throughout the Alien movies, it has been implied and then expanded upon that the "aliens" basically mutate based on what life form they develop in, and where designed to be the perfect creature.
It's pretty clear that the Engineers "transenspermiated" other planets, creating life from themselves, and specifically human life.
For some unspecified reason, they decided to destroy them afterwards, and created a bioweapon, (the alien), which would spread, kill, reproduce itself, and then when there was nothing left to kill, basically go dormant.
The planet they go to in the movie was literally a weapons cache that they lost control of, (and is also a set up for the original Alien Movie). The weapons cache was a space ship that should have been sent to earth to release the black goo on earth and kill everything. But it never left, and has been sitting there for thousands of years.
When the team gets to the planet, they reintroduce an atmosphere to an area that had been sealed, which awakens the "face huggers" in their original form.
It's not specifically revealed, but the "zombies" I think are supposed to show a evolution of the Alien, from disease to parasite to the later "queen" reproduction, to the various other incarnations later, with the end result as them having their own sexual reproductive system.
In a lot of ways, Promethues is actually extremely similar to the original Alien movie, almost to the point of being a reimagining.
Personally, I thought it was pretty good. 3/5 Stars, and I've watched it again Not my favorite, but not bad either. I just don't understand where the confusion comes from about it?
The only thing I was confused about was why the Engineers wanted to kill everyone, but that was also purposefully an unanswered question of the movie.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Right now, a 2-star GM can re-GM two games for Chronicles. (And if she has multiple copies of the "Extended Narrative" convention boon, that privilege resets every time she runs 3 games.) That seems satisfactory to me.
Just wanted to point out that every single attempt to trade for one of those Boons has failed, and I haven't been lucky enough to get one myself. Most of my GM Star Replays are gone before I found out they would not renew. Not that it really matters, (to me) as I'm perfectly willing to rerun ones I've already run for no credit.
It does seem like the above mentioned, not receive GM credit until you want to idea is a bust, as you must in fact apply credit immediately, even if you don't have a character that can use it.
Rereading what you posted a few times, I do understand you are against it, but I really can't seem to find a single reason why it would be bad. In fact it seems kind of the opposite, that a lot of what you say is shows some of the benefits for the idea being a good move.
The only thing really was the idea of giving more favor to 1-5 scenarios over 3-7, but I'm not really seeing how that would be a problem. As in care to explain? If the idea is to encourage more GMs, the assumption is there is already a game being run, (which may be 3-7 or 1-5, or 1-7, who knows). The only real factor then should be if the players have played it before or not. I just am not sure that one would equate to the other in any real way? On the other hand, as far as I have ever heard, 1-5th is by far the most requested area of play, which would probably be a much bigger factor than anything for favoring 1-5 over any other tier, but really doesn't have any impact on infinite GM credit. In games with random players, it's going to be purely on what the players want/need, where as in a home game style, infinite GM credit is going to go away pretty fast or the entire group is going to be making a lot of new characters just to play in that range.
I find it silly that people refuse to DM ANY scenario more than once. If there is a scneario I can make entertaining I love running it over and over again. I do not enjoy the extra chronicle, but I do love sharign the great expereince with people.
I'm actually not against it at all. I've done it plenty of time, and in fact just volunteer to do a few in the coming Game Day. Most of the time I do run, I actually go out of my way to ask what everyone wants to play, and really don't care if I've run it, played it, or not, myself.
I agree with most everything you said in your post Chris. I think unlimited replay/rerun would be an overall negative for the campaign.
How so? Honestly, I'm interested in hearing. and exploring this. Much more so by far than if someone does or does not like it, why would it be good or bad for the game? I keep hearing here that it would be bad, but no one really seems to have a reason why. That's doesn't really make them wrong, but it just doesn't really show anything.
You do realize that you replied to my post specifically discussing 3.0. 3.5, and PF?
We may get a bit sarcastic or whatever with our posts but its all good. I spend 90% of my work time at my desk so a lively rules debate helps the day go faster. For me at least it is all in good fun.
No, you and many others claim that it has always been the case. I and a few others, apparently including BNW, been arguing since 3.0 that this interpretation is wrong. That when something says "you add your <insert ability> bonus to X" that the ability, i.e. str, dex, con, etc... is the source.
I'm sorry, but it has never been that way. But, I'm not going to argue with you about it.
So don't keep telling me it has always been that way. That is what we (not you and I personally but the 3.0-PF communities) have been arguing about for all of these years. Here you are saying that those holding to my position were wrong all along and your view was correct until the PF dev team came along and changed the rules. Because it seems to be just unthinkable to you that those of us saying that the claim "Source has always been the specific thing, (Feat, Trait, Class Feature, Spell, etc. . .)" is wrong were actually correct and the dev team has just confirmed that.
Ok, you are right. Everyone, including the guys that actually wrote the rules is wrong, (ie, not Paizo), and everyone is happy you and Paizo where here to set them straight. Good job. :P
Actually, no. We are speaking about 3.0 - PF here. Until now, Source has always been the specific thing, (Feat, Trait, Class Feature, Spell, etc. . .) that altered or granted the modification. Remember, Paizo didnt make the rules, they took them, but even in PF, there is no indication that anyone was changing this aspect until the FAQ/Errata, (again specifically about what a Source is). So its not that everyone, majority or minority, that said differently than what the current ruling is was wrong. Its that it just now changed, if that makes sense. In the practical sense doesnt really matter, as we have a ruling now. It may change, it may not.
Actually, if you read through most of those on the PF site, its usually BNW and a small grip of others saying no, because everyone else is a munchkin.
On the 3E CharOp boards, the arguement was never over if they could stack, but rather if the specific instances would stack based on the bonus types or the sources, and methods to achieve prereqs for it. Source has always referred to the specific spell, feat, class/racial ability, not the some undefined broad category. So two Enhancement bonuses to the same thing (Type) would not stack, but two castings of Bull's Strength (Source) would also not normally stack, regardless of if that specific source gave the same or different bonus type. The exception was if a Source could give multiple different choices, like with Bestow Curse, if they picked different options each time, they would stack, because all of them would affect the target at the same time.
Zach Klopfleisch wrote:
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.
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?
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.
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.
Andrew Christian wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Can you elaborate on this more? I was really looking more for the reasons why or why not rather than yes or no.
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.
"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.
"Weapon of the Chosen (Combat)
"Improved Weapon of the Chosen (Combat)
"Greater Weapon of the Chosen (Combat)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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+.