|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Having run several long running campaigns since the Summoner was released as a class, I really have no problem with them at the table. I did find my life was made much easier by just outright banning Master Summoner. Gentlemen's agreements are nice and all, but the bitterness that can arise when you're picking apart someone's character isn't good for the game.
I most often find that the people arguing to allow master summoner, and saying that there's no issue with it, have never actually run a game. Honestly, that's a pretty important part to discovering how annoying they are.
...It stretches my suspension of disbelief...
Wizards. If you can suspend your disbelief enough that a grumpy old man can basically shatter the world with invisible forces that he harnesses with wiggling his fingers around while throwing a pinch of bat poop, why can you not do the same for someone who so intensely practices with a single weapon, that he's figured out a way to reload said weapon real fast.
That being said, you have to make up your mind. Are you not getting gunslinger because it bothers your idea of a fantasy setting, or is it because you don't see how it works in terms of mechanics? If it's the former, we can't help you. If it's the latter, we can.
Combined with the steadfast refusal to even acknowledge the repeated requests to update old AP's it seems like every time a whole new set of classes or a whole new version of previous classes gets introduced, it creeps my previous purchases that much closer to obsolescence, reducing their collective value.
This line right here made me chuckle a little. I have everything Paizo has released for the core PF line, along with almost everything from the campaign setting and the companion books (I skip APs because I don't want to run another person's adventure.) The most used book at my table? The first Pathfinder book I bought. Core. Next most used? APG. I still value the old books as much as the new ones. I guess I just don't see new options as something that makes my old options irrelevant.
I allow my players to use all of the hardcover material. Haven't had any problems yet. I don't try to memorize every mechanic of every class. Only the ones that my players are using in the current campaign so that I don't have any surprises. I love all of the options. There's classes from earlier books that I'll never play, and some from the later books that I'll never play. But just having those options available (even if I never partake of them) makes me feel far less constrained as a player and a DM.
My players have basically been on a grueling land journey to make their way home. While heading through the Fangwood, there was a huge surge in the blight due to Arlantia offing a few of the druids that were in power in Crystalhurst. My players arrived in Crystalhurst, and were fooled by a Druid that had turned coat and joined Arlantia. He offered to empty the coffers of the town if they could find a way to stop the blight. They spent quite a while in Fangwood itself, and gained a few levels before ever tracking Arlantia down.
And yeah, I know minions can add to the fight. I was planning on having minions with her. But I had players missing that night as a last minute thing and had to do some quick changes.
There's no stat block. I looked for one for quite a while.
My own players just made that same kill. I didn't actually use the blighted fey template. Just pieces of it, along with several levels of sorcerer. I had my players run a gauntlet of fey to get to her, along with a few traps along the way. The final fight with her was solo, but I really wish I had added a pair of shambling mounds with her.
James Sutter wrote:
I thought it was pretty poorly done, personally. Not that this is even the place to discuss such. However I was also afraid to post in the thread about it. Didn't want to get moderated into oblivion or be attacked for being against the popular opinion. But really, more to the point, no one should ever lose their job due to any of their personal... I don't even know the proper term for it. Proclivities?
I appreciate the religious standing of your friends. I also have friends who are practicing Wiccan. That being said, the Witch is part of the Pathfinder rules. Namely a class within the Pathfinder world of Golarion. It's not meant to emulate people who are Wiccan and refer to themselves as Witches. There is nothing wrong with the Pathfinder Witch, and no changes are needed.
However, you seem to have a pretty firm idea of your own envisioning of the Witch class. The Pathfinder rules are great in that you can throw away any part of it that you wish. Or rebuild it how you wish. Nothing is stopping you from doing so. You've got a good list of stuff there that you can add to your own version of the Witch class.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Sounds far more like a design issue that should be fixed rather than something left up to customer service.
-Aet- Charlie wrote:
On that Note - Lisa Stevens doubled down on low reputation characters, doing what low reputation characters do. The initial consequence of participating in non consensual pvp is the reputation dump. If you continue to that thing and become an issue for the less pvp enthused players they will refund your money and ban you from the game.
I had a good hard laugh at this. I wonder how long it'll take me to earn my refund.
Right, well, LAUGHABLE CONDESCENSION and random CAPITALIZATION aside, I'll disagree with a point or two here.
A) It may be "Reasonable for a Company" and "Dirt Cheap for a Settlement", but ultimately these items aren't owned by a company or a settlement. They're owned by a person. Even if said person is using it for the benefit of the company or settlement. And that then also runs the risk of having money pooled to someone for a large purchase, and said person skips away with the item.
B) Well, you never really put a "B" point anywhere. Yes, I know 50 and 200 is just the start. I've heard the spiel that they've put out regarding cash shop items. But that really has no bearing on the points I made.
This is going to be a case of agree to disagree, I think. But in the future, you don't need to MAKE YOUR POST in SUCH A WAY to come off as being PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE just to make your point. As fun as it may be. =)
Kindly don't partially quote just to attempt to make a point. What you quoted was a direct reply to an assumption Decius made regarding me. Stop that.
My major issue with this is the price tag attached to the personal structure. Sure, given a choice I wouldn't want any to be available in casg shop form, because its more than a cosmetic feature. But if they have to be buyable, I'd rather not see them grossly overpriced.
Hardin Steele wrote:
I'm not familiar with summersnow. But despite what you're getting at, I don't see all negatives in this game. I just see this instance as being a negative.
I will ask you this one time to please not comment on what I will or will not say in the future. Do not guess to what I think or will do when you know nothing about me. In an ironic twist, if these were available through in game currency only, I wouldn't mind one bit. Even if they were hugely expensive. I came from a game where you couldn't buy in game structures with anything but in game currency. And some of them were incredibly expensive.
Alternatively, I believe 200 is an absurd amount of money for a cash shop item, making it a money grab. And the only people able to buy it for some time will be people who have already put a large chunk of money into this game. Thus the sticking too.
Hey, it's nice that some of you have questions and all that jazz. But this entire thread was posted because of angry happenings within a settlement. This is not the NC policy thread. If you have questions or "confusion" about the NC and how parties therein interact with one another, direct it to the NC thread.
I've found my players using save or suck spells a little less. Front line characters aren't wary about wading into combat quite as much, and the Oracle has had time to get up and actually heal during combat (I know, blasphemy) instead of just blowing hold person all over the place. From my GM perspective, I don't use save or sucks any more or less often, and they're still painful when landed on multiple people.
The one thing I have noticed is that this HP system has allowed some of the d8 classes to feel like they're more able to take the place of a d10 class in toe-to-toe combat.
I tried a bunch of different. Things. Average roll rounded up, normal rolls, roll and reroll if you get a 1... But it all felt kind of off to me. I've finally come to the point where I just have my players gain their max every level. The game finally feels right where the Barbarian has double the HP of the Wizard. Plus, I can throw fights out there that are slightly harder since everyone in the group has a larger HP pool. Level 2-4 critical hit deaths have become far less commonplace as well.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This is where I personally disconnect with what seems to be a majority of people that regularly post on these forums. As far as I'm concerned absolutely NOTHING right now is in character. There are no characters. Just people sitting at a computer (or holding a phone/tablet) posting on forums, and saying things themselves. Characters don't come into play until characters exist in game.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Last I checked, it was any company with at least 5 members would have a seat. For the moment, free agents do not.
During Wildstar beta, they had some fairly free-form targeting. Most abilities seemed to be either a small area, or a cone, or a line effect. It put a big area on the ground that you had to aim to hit someone. I think I remember a couple of tab-targeted abilities also, but it's been a while. Either way, they seemed to have a good alternative to FPS style aiming and normal tab targeting.
Not saying this idea should be implemented. Just that those of you looking for other styles should look into it (I haven't touched it since early beta, so I don't know what its like now) and see if there's anything there that may be worth suggesting for PFO.
<Kabal> Questis wrote:
In the end, alignment doesn't matter. You guys will get whatever spot you want with the numbers you have regardless of what anyone below you thinks or feels. Discussion on whether what you're doing is good/evil/chaotic is irrelevant.
Although, if there was a master fisherman alignment, Kabal would fit nicely there.
What? How does that penalize TWF classes? I mean, yeah, 3/4 BAB classes don't get it at the same time as the full BAB classes. But aside from Rogue and Monk all of the 3/4 BAB classes have tools (spells mainly) that make up for it.
What I outlined just means that you get another 5' of move the same level that you get another iterative attack. TWF has no bearing on that at all.
The latest gem from one of the games I'm playing in: All heals have a gold requirement cost. You -MUST- have a focus worth 25g that essentially has charges built into it. It erodes 1g in value per heal. These focuses are extremely rare, and can often only be found in large cities (which there only seems to be 2 of in this persons homebrew world, and they're over a months travel apart.)
In most games this wouldn't really be a problem. But in this game, loot is something that is rarely to be had.
Then again this was also the game where we had 6 players, all floating around level 2-3 with a single 4 fight 8 Worgs. So a roughly APL 4 party had a CR10 fight. It was exciting, except for the whole multiple death thing.
I'll retract my question, because it doesn't look like it's getting answered. Best of luck on getting traction for your idea. Even if I dislike it, and will fight against it, maybe GW will see things differently.
PS: You'd make a fantastic politician.
And failing to break the rules is still insufficient to demonstrate a commitment to positive gameplay, because supporting positive gameplay means taking positive action in support of a goal, not just abstaining from a subset of actions, most of which are contrary to that goal.
Just for clarity: The ONLY way one can support positive gameplay is by actively doing something about positive gameplay? So if you're not ACTIVELY making the game better for others, then you're no longer supporting positive gameplay?
I'm really confused here. My question didn't need any more clarity. It was about as straightforward as I could make it. Still kinda hoping to hear an answer.
I've been wanting to try out a house rule that allows for sneak attack to basically turn into a precision type attack. Usable so many times per day based on X + Int and giving them class level as BAB for it. Or giving them a built in feint that can possibly last multiple rounds. Also giving them some of the ranger traps as per the trapper archetype every 3 or 4 levels.
There's no hint of P2W
I'm going to stop you right there. You used Werewolves as an example. But also referred to vampires and liches. These are things that, yes, come with drawbacks. However they also (straight up looking at Pathfinder lore and mechanics themselves) are far more powerful than their normal Human/Elf/Dwarf/short people counterparts. Far more powerful. If you want a simple reskinning of characters into these various monsters, that's one thing. But what you're talking about is an entire mechanical change into these creatures. These more POWERFUL creatures. That people PAY to have. And that's where I draw the line. That is 100% P2W.
Star Citizen is a bad example to bring up, because that is in fact paying for advantage. The more you pay, the bigger advantage you have. P2W. If I'm getting this all right, the grand idea behind all of this is that you want people to be able to pay money to be able to decide what PFO adds to their game next. Which I can't see happening without being a huge financial investment. I'm sure if go you go GW with a million dollars and ask them to make playable vampires, they might humor you. But letting an incredibly small portion of their market make those decisions without huge financial backing? Probably not. But that's why the subscription model exists. It allows for steady revenue and the ability to continue to add content to the game.
It was already said several times in this thread what the UNC policy would be. You have a bad habit of selective reading. Do a re-read for some clarity, reading everything.
If what you want is mechanically no better than what is available to subscribers, then fine. But the minute you introduce mechanical advantage for money, you enter into a flawed system. You'll end up with a game where the only people who are left are the ones that can pay to win. That is not the equivalent of a subscription model.