|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Cleric, Magic User, Fighting-man, Thief.
<old man>Bah, you young people and your "Thief"! It's blatant power creep. Also, we used to be able to search for traps, but now they had to add rules for it, and only these "Thieves" can do it. I blame MMOs. Now get off my lawn...
(Spell slots are per adventure! And all weapons do 1d6 damage!)</old man>
More seriously, I've always wanted to try the Expert/Spellcaster/Warrior generic classes from Unearthed Arcana.
One of the many campaign ideas I have has a spiritual system inspired by athroposophy.
There are two superior beings. One is Lucifer, who embodies light, insight, and spirituality; and the other is Ahriman, who embodies darkness, intellectualism, and physicality.
They're both evil. The good path is the path between them.
 Actual anthroposophy is more complicated than this.
Rob Rose wrote:
I don't know your age, but the premise of magic in a high-tech society reminds me of the RPG "Shadowrun" (I think) which was in the 90's. It was set in a futuristic, somewhat cyber-tech society where magic and magical creatures, which had been non-existent for millenia, return to the world. It was a pretty cool setting.
Marc Radle wrote:
I certainly respect your opinion, but I would point out that Deep Magic is a HUGE book and close to 300 pages of it ARE open content, compared to less than 76 pages which are not. That's a pretty big percentage of Deep Magic that is open content.
Not compared to pretty much every other third-party publisher I can think of.
I've been hearing a lot of praise about Deep Magic. And, there's a lot to like about it; after all, it contains the spell burning monkey swarm. Burning monkey swarm! I now realize what I've wanted to do all my life is make a sorcerer specializing in burning monkey swarm.
But, I do want to register my disappointment with how much of this book is closed content. I must admit, I half-expected something like this, but I was hoping for the best. Here are the relevant entries on the credits page:
Deep Magic credit page wrote:
The first paragraph I have very little problem with; some of the sidebars contain "crunch" game material, but otherwise it's all good.The second paragraph leads to disappointment and concern.
Here are some examples:
I'm hoping that most of this is an oversight, and can be rectified at the same time you're fixing (other?) typographical errors. Or maybe all other publishers have to do to use such content is request it, and permission will be freely granted. I guess I'll find out.
Yes. It would make them feel less irrelevant. If you don't see why, take a look at this video.
(Okay, this was mostly an excuse to post a link to the video. I'm kind of surprised no one's brought it up earlier.)
I think I'll join in on the fun this year.
I'll be gifting six (6) copies of the Psionics Unleashed PDF. First come, first served, assuming I can figure out this "wish list" thing.
Note that I have an ulterior motive: I want more people to try out Dreamscarred Press psionics. So, no exchanges for Psionics Expanded, Psionics Augmented, or other products. :-)
Or you could go with 18d1. That would have a really tiny standard deviation.
Humphry B ManWitch wrote:
The American in me recoils in horror at the thought. T'aint nothin' special 'bout no nobles.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Distant, don't confuse not being balanced perfectly with not being random.
In the context of dice, "random" generally implies "uniform random".
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
"Random number generators" are not random AT ALL. They are generated through an algorithm that will generate exactly the same number from the same seed every single time.
I know. However, if they're well-made and used properly, especially in the context of dice, they act randomly enough to be indistinguishable. And technically, rolling dice isn't random, because physics isn't random. Unless there's quantum involved.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
And if you get decent dice, they should be pretty balanced.
Unfortunately, it's difficult, if not impossible, to tell if dice are "decent" by looking at them. GameScience dice are probably the most random, but otherwise all you can do is hope for the best.
Yeah, there are a few online random number generators that do things like sample background radiation to create a seed, which would seem to be pretty random, but you never really know. Those are random enough for me, but I still like the feel of rolling dice.
I'm not trying to talk you out of using dice. If you're satisfied, great! I'd prefer to roll dice, but I don't trust the randomness of my d20s, or any die that tumbles too easily. But random.org constantly tests their numbers for randomness, so I have great confidence in them.
Do I need bona fides?:
This is based on my study while getting both my Masters and Ph.D. degrees in mathematics, including two course sequences in probability and writing a paper on random number generators for a computational number theory course - which included coding said random number generators.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I used to be a programmer, so I know how "random" dice rollers work. Hint, they aren't "random." So I don't use them as a matter of principle.
Dice aren't all that random, either. Most well-made random number generators are at least as random as dice. If you want true randomness, go to random.org.
I have two sets of dice I used to like: one sort of opalescent dark gray, the other sort of opalescent red. I call them my lava dice. Then, I tallied up the results of their d20 rolls after using them a lot: between 2/3 and 3/4 of the rolls were either 1-5 or 16-20. Essentially every d20 roll was a 50-50 chance, with extra crits and auto-misses.
But some souls -- heroes' souls -- can sometimes displace the souls in fully-grown individuals, and retain their skills and memories.
Sorry if this is too harsh, but this sounds horrific to me. What happens to the displaced soul? At best, I'd guess it's the same thing as if they died. If so, the heroes are essentially killing someone else and taking their place. Even if it's not on purpose, and out of the heroes' control entirely ... I wouldn't like it.
If peace, forgiveness, and mercy are part of your character, you aren't coming back as a revenant or poltergeist. But if you're a spiteful bastard? Say hello to new natural weapons and supernatural abilities.
My take on it: When someone "comes back" as an undead, it's not the original person coming back, but a foul corruption of their body fueled by a mockery of a soul.
The evil person doesn't get magic goodies for being evil.
I'm not saying 4th ed was bad. But IMO WOTC designed it as a MMORPG you can play on a tabletop. So it effected the hobby.
I'm not sure that MMORPGs were the video game they were using as a model ....
FIGHTER is evolving!
Congratulations! Your FIGHTER
evolved into SWORDMASTER!
SWORDMASTER wants to learn
STORM OF BLOWS but SWORDMASTER
already knows 4 moves!
Should a move be forgotten to make
space for STORM OF BLOWS?
1, 2 and ... Poof!
SWORDMASTER forgot STEEL SERPENT STRIKE and...
SWORDMASTER learned STORM OF BLOWS!
What about it being a "bundle" makes it a more enticing deal to you than simply putting the AP books, maps, cards, etc. in your cart and purchasing them piecemeal?
Because one has to go to (it seems) five or six different places in the store to track down all those things.
I like ryric's idea, too.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
I could easily see a cavalier build with no mount and no charge, who focused on siege warfare, or being a falconer, or a hound master, or a squad leader. I think the biggest limitation to the cavalier is that it is so tied up in being a mounted combatant, which makes it difficult for archetypes to remove that element without rewriting the class. But the core concept of a knight who is more strongly tied to the nobility, chivalry, and a code of conduct than fighters, without being a paladin, is much stronger than mounted combat in my opinion.
This sounds more like you're doing a Knight class which subsumes Cavalier, rather than expanding the Cavalier. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.