I've participated in every Paizo playtest so far, from the Alpha playtest to the mythic playtest, but I considered skipping this one altogether. For the first time ever, I didn't see anything that inspired me to run a playtest...
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
...an arcane spellcaster that focuses on tinkering with the fundamental forces of magic, tearing apart the bonds and forging new ones...
I really like the concept of arcanists who tinker with fundamental forces. Especially ones who can dismantle magic items and forge the magic they once contained into something new.
I seem to recall some empty design space that could be filled by arcanists who tinker with those sorts of things. If I could just remember what it was, I'm sure Paizo could engineer some relevant arcane talents...
On a completely unrelated note, how does one pronounce "artificer"?
I think SKR once said that the WBl is basically a rule.
WBL is a rule the same way CR is a rule. You use it to (very roughly) gauge what sorts of challenges your character can reasonably expect to overcome.
System mastery is not power gaming.
I use my system mastery to decide what overpowered character builds would be too powerful for use in games with lots of new and/or casual players.
Power gamers, by definition, are unable or unwilling to do that.
Are there any non-joke monsters in this book?
So far, we have a horned bunny rabbit; a big oaf that rips off limbs, Monty-Python-style; a cuddly fox monster; and a fairy that steals teeth using a pair of magic pliers.
I'm starting to worry that Paizo's take on Cthulhu is going to resemble a plush Cthulhu doll instead of a true cosmic horror.
I've had it with all these mythic monsters. I'm trying to run a gritty, 5-point-buy, 1st-level commoner game, and all I'm seeing in this week's preview is an overpowered CR 2 monstrosity.
And if the pipe fox is CR 2, how powerful is the guy who killed the pipe fox's mother? He'd have to be, like, 3rd level or something. This power creep is appalling. The pipe fox from literature could just as easily have been an ordinary fox wearing a Naugahyde belt.
How am I even supposed to run this monster? I mean, it has an ability called compression. Sure, compression is described in full in the Universal Monster Rules, but then I have to actually read Bestiary 4 to run a monster from Bestiary 4.
If all of the monsters in this bestiary are like this, I'm going to have to burn an effigy of SKR on a pyre made from all my Pathfinder books and never again buy anything published by Paizo until at least the end of next month.
I'm seeing lots of expanded skill uses that would make great feats. I'm still not seeing any reason to make a new class. Unless the "skill class" has bonus skill-related feats as its primary class feature, I suppose. But you could do that with the rogue by simply adding a "bonus skill-related feat" rogue talent that can be taken more than once.
Yes, but what does this hypothetical "skill class" actually do? Everyone has skills. Everyone can use feats (and sometimes class features) to get bonuses on skills and new uses for skills. What is this "skill class" doing that can't already be done?
I'm asking because, to me, "skill class" sounds a lot like saying "attack roll class." "I want a class that uses attacks rolls and isn't easily replaced by the wizard." Okay, but everyone can already make attack rolls. So what new thing should this class to do with attack rolls?
Similarly, everyone can already make skill checks. So what new thing should a "skill class" to do with skill checks?
Fake Healer wrote:
Dog, BadDog, Corn
As dozens of forum posters will tell you, Japanese cars are the ones Paizo should never mention in its automobile analogies, because there's no room for Asian cars in their Euro car fantasy. But American cars are acceptable, because Andoran. :P
That is, honestly, the simplest way to implement it.
Actually, the simplest way to implement spell combat would be:
"As part of making a full attack, you can cast a single magus spell with a casting time of 1 standard action in addition to your normal attacks. Resolve the casting of this spell either before or after resolving your normal attacks."
That may sound game-breaking, but it's no worse than a summoner casting a spell while his eidolon makes a full attack.
Will they have a class based on alchemist or summoner?
They should have a class based on the alchemist and the summoner.
As pointed out above by several other posters, an alchemist/summoner hybrid could make a great artificer class. It could have inventions that work like extracts and a construct servant that resembles an eidolon.
Now, can we all go back to discussing the actual topic of this thread: whether a PF-derived game with no level advancement would be silly, as posited in the OP, or worthwhile.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I searched for e1 and didn't find anything... I thought to myself... it's as legitimate a concept as e6 for the purposes e6 are designed for... I wonder why nobody's talked about it...
You do realize, Meepo, you just pulled a fallacious argument here on the logic.
Shhh. Your logic is ruining my enjoyment of karlbadmannerV2's knee-jerk reaction.
(I don't think anyone in this thread is being intentionally racist. I do, however, think the use on these boards of "Asian/anime" as a synonym for "weird otherness" is both unfortunate and unwelcoming. I intend to call attention to that trend wherever I see it, and make no apologies for doing do.)
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
100% natural ambrosia flavor.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
*Players 1 through 4 roll initiative*Player 1: Blood for the Blood God! *runs up and hamstrings Player 4*
Player 2: Ryuken! *casts fireball, kills Player 4*
Player 3: Aw, man. I never get to kill anything. *loots Player 4's body*
GM: Guys, what the hell? We're supposed to be re-enacting our gaming group choosing a campaign setting.
Player A: We all decided it would be more fun if Players 1, 2, and 3 were Furry Magi instead of Human Gamers.
Player B: Yeah, I'm a Human Gamer in real life, so why would I want to play a Human Gamer in a re-enactment of our gaming group's decision-making process?
GM: Dude, our gaming group's decision-making process happens in Real Life. The entire objective of the conversation we're acting out is to demonstrate a conversation that actually happens. You're supposed to drive away Player 4 and install Player 5 as GM.
Player A: Whatever, dude. This Real Life Re-Enactment campaign setting of yours is a total railroad. We're only playing if we can all play Furry Magi, and we're not sticking to your script. If you want to tell a story about this Player 5 GMPC you rolled up, go write a novel. When we play through "How we Choose a Campaign Setting on the Borderlands," we play it our way: as Furry Magi.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Seriously, if you want to argue with me, that's fine, but have the decency to argue against my actual position rather than someone else's oft-discredited misrepresentation of it.
Sorry, Kirth, but your actual position doesn't fit the theme of this campaign setting. You'll just have to play someone else's misrepresentation, instead. :P
If you ban all exotic races, and they complain because all of them wanted to play an exotic race, this is a good sign they were not interested in a "no exotic races" campaign to start with, but you forced one down their throats because that's what you (and no one else) wants.
The GM "forced" a campaign "down their throats"? What sort of gulag are these players living in that they are chained to the table and only given food and water if they dance for the GM?
The GM says, "Here's the campaign I want to run." Any player who then makes a character for that campaign is willfully agreeing to play in that campaign. (Assuming the GM isn't the "surprise, you're all were-tigers" guy who tricks you into playing by not telling you what the campaign is really about. And even then, you can leave at any time if you aren't having fun.)
There's no gun to the players' heads. Any or all of them can walk away or sit it out if the campaign doesn't sound fun. No one can "force" a campaign "down their throats" simply by offering to run a campaign a given way.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
(c) Everyone at the table is friends, so they've had long discussions about the sorts of campaigns they would like to run if given the chance. Sometime thereafter, the group as a whole asks one particular friend to GM, knowing full well what sort of character options that friend will allow. So there is no excuse for anyone to demand changes to the GM's setting. They knew in advance what limitations the GM of that setting would impose, and chose to play in that setting despite those limitations instead of choosing to play in a different friend's setting with looser restrictions.
Here's something interesting I realized about traps that split the party and dump each PC in the lair of a different guardian monster:
Running four one-on-one fights in four different rooms is exactly the same as running one four-on-four fight in one single room. Have everyone in each room roll initiative, put them all on the same initiative track, and start having characters take their turns in order, regardless of their geographical location.
As long as there is some way for everyone to reunite (or at least communicate) after the initial encounter, players don't have to spend much time at all waiting on one another to do things in game.
I don't want your Medieval European stuff in my generic fantasy game. Compared to nearly every subsequent, prior, and contemporary culture on the planet, Medieval European culture was stagnant, derivative, and boring. It contributes few, if any, tropes to the game that couldn't be derived from other, more interesting times and places.
People who belittle Spelljammer and say that giff and giant space hamsters were ridiculous, and yet defend to the death Planescape and it's silly slang and ludicrous modrons make my eyes roll right out of my head.
The only Planescape campaign I ever ran was a Planescape/Spelljammer mash-up. I regret nothing.
When I walk on by, I hover like I just cast fly
Girl look at that stat block (x3)
When I walk in the dungeon, here's what I see
I've got XP and I know it (x2)
When I'm back in town, my party just can't fight 'em off
Girl look at that stat block (x3)
When I walk in the dungeon, here's what I see
I've got XP and I know it (x2)
Level, level, level, level, level yeah (x3)
I'VE GOT XP AND I KNOW IT...
Girl look at that stat block (x3)
I agree with the point Kolokotroni is making. I've always felt that crunch should be self-explanatory, even in the absence of fluff. When you read crunch, you should immediately know what's going on in-character without having to consult a bunch of explanatory fluff.
Can one create an explanation for a mechanic that lets you instantly heal an ally within 30 feet whenever you hit an opponent with a melee attack? Sure. One could probably also create an explanation for a mechanic that allows you to make a Disable Device check to open a lock within 30 feet whenever you hit a living creature with a melee attack, or one that allows you to make a Spellcraft check to identify a potion whenever you make a success Reflex save.
But the thing is, without the fluff to explain them, none of those abilities makes any sense. Each is a pair of unrelated subsystems being attached to one another with no apparent chain of cause and effect. If my first response to reading a mechanic is, "Wait, why is doing that?", I don't find it to be a very compelling mechanic.
Compare these two mechanics:
1) "Whenever you damage an opponent with a melee attack, you can choose to have one creature within 30 feet heal 1d6 points of damage as a swift action."
2) "Whenever you you damage a living opponent with a melee attack, you can choose to have your weapon gain 1 point of life drain as a swift action. This point of life drain lasts for as long as you hold the weapon, up to a maximum of 1 minute. As a standard action, you can touch a willing, living ally with the weapon and expend any number of points of life drain to have that ally heal 1d6 points of damage per point expended."
Mechanic (1) is a random combination of game mechanics that makes no sense unless you create a bunch of explanatory fluff that isn't included in the crunch. Nothing about the mechanic provides any justification for what it does. It just happens to do what it does, and you can explain it (or not) however you see fit.
In contrast, mechanic (2) makes enough sense on its own that no explanatory fluff is required. Your melee attacks are draining life from living opponents, and you can use that drained life to heal allies. That's not fluff; that's hard-coded into the mechanics so everyone who reads the crunch knows exactly what's going on, no guess work required.
Is there any reason that you can't have a custom spell list that also references existing spell lists?
For example: A white necromancer casts arcane spells drawn from all necromancy spells on the wizard spell list and all conjuration (healing) spells on the cleric spell list. Existing spells that meet these criteria are listed on Table X.
If you do it that way, you have your custom white necromancer spell list (Table X). You can also add newly-published spells to that list without explicitly calling them out as white necromancer spells (since every new cleric healing spell and wizard necromancy spell is automatically a white necromancer spell).
Well, I've always been of the opinion that a monster should fill exactly as many pages as needed to explain the concept, no more, no less.
If it's a CR 20+ creature with lots of abilities and a huge campaign footprint, give it a two- to four-page spread.
If it's a lower-level creature with a complex ecology or society, give it a two-page spread.
If it's a beastie whose mechanics are interesting but whose role is self-explanatory, don't waste space tacking on fluff just to meet a minimum page count. Add a second short monster, instead.
The classic example of a monster that doesn't need two pages is the displacer beast. It's one of the most iconic monsters in D&D, having inspired multiple spells and magic items. But at the end of the day, it's just a cat monster with displacement. A detailed, full-page write-up of the displacer beast's habitat and life cycle would add next to nothing to my enjoyment of the creature. It's a cat monster. With displacement. I can read about the ecology of cats online and I have the mechanics for displacement. Monster finished. Next monster.
I take an alternate approach to exotic races:
In my campaigns, all of the following "races" are human: aasimar, changeling, dhampir, drow*, duergar*, dwarf, elf, fetchling, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, halfling, human, ifrit, orc, oread, samsaran, suli, svirfneblin*, sylph, tiefling, undine, and vishkanya (*usually with reduced spell-like abilities). Even the most exotic of these human races won't be seen as any more monstrous than a druid who regularly transforms into an animal or a sorcerer with a weird bloodline.
In fact, in my campaigns, all humanoids are human. (I usually convert animal folk, giants, and reptilians into monstrous humanoids; goblinoids into fey; and wayang into puppet-like constructs.)
I adopted this "every humanoid is human" approach after reading accounts written by various Real-World ancient scholars describing the inhabitants of distant lands. Historically, humans have ascribed all sorts of weird appearances and powers to other groups of humans.
Ross Byers wrote:
First World fey. They're a highly magical immortal that is not from the material plane. Why fey and not Outsider?
The First World is Golarion-specific. In many existing d20 settings, fey are from the Material Plane. Making them outsiders by default would hurt backwards compatibility.
Also, the game introduces new sub-types all the time. Why can't it introduce new creature types?
As someone who has designed lots of monsters, I can tell you that having a very short list of creature types is a good thing. If anything, I think the list of creature types should be condensed, not expanded.
A creature type is a shorthand way of saying X features and Z traits without endlessly repeating yourself. If you broke outsider into dozens of creature types, you're going to have to devote wordcount in each new Bestiary to multiple copies of the following:
A [not outsider] has the following features.
• d10 Hit Dice.
• Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (fast progression).
• Two good saving throws, usually Reflex and Will.
• Skill points equal to 6 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for [not outsiders]: Bluff, Craft, Knowledge (planes), Perception, Sense Motive, Stealth, and [four other skills].
Traits: A [not outsider] possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
• Darkvision 60 feet.
• Unlike most living creatures, a [not outsider] does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When a [not outsider] is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don't work on a [not outsider]. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. A [not outsider] with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.
• Proficient with all simple and martial weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
• Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. [Not outsiders] not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. [Not outsiders] are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
• [Not outsiders] breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native [not outsiders] breathe, eat, and sleep.
That's a lot of text to reprint every time you want to make a new category of extraplanar monsters. In contrast, a subtype inherits all of the above text with no need to reprint anything. Just add a few lines of subtype-specific rules and you're done.
Good catch, +5 Toaster.
You know who I miss, though? Obvious Troll is Obvious. I haven't seen a post from that guy in ages.
I bet he'd have a lot to say... about the collaborative monster book announced in this thread, what with all of these talented third-party publishers and Paizo freelancers coming together to design crazy-awesome monsters with minimal editorial interference. :)
I'm shocked. Shocked and appalled. Louis is a danger to everyone around him, and will one day lead to the senseless deaths of a minivan full of orphans and nuns. And when he does, he's just going to laugh maniacally and tell us all that his marketing plan is working perfectly. This man is clearly a sociopath with no regard for human life.
Also, he spells things wrong on the internet.
D&D Next is going to crush Pathfinder; the Mythic playtest was a sham; I'm growing increasing concerned about rules bloat; I'm sick of all these Asian classes; SKR couldn't design his way out of a paper bag; Paizo needs to stop making rulebooks and go back to making adventures; they abandoned the spirit of D&D when they created rules for guns; we need more PFS events tailored specifically to male gamers, with no girls allowed; I'm rage quitting this messageboard because I'm tired of being attacked by overzealous Paizo fanboyz; Razor Coast!
In the Human section of the preview document, you probably don't want to use the phrase, "oriental features," when describing a character's appearance. People and their features are "Asian," not "oriental."
+5 Toaster wrote:
What? No! Catch him before he runs off with all of the Necropunk books.
At high levels, traps are the best counter to scry-and-die tactics in the game.
Want to teleport into the middle of the villain's fortress? Go for it. Just expect to eat a bunch of traps you could have easily bypassed had you walked in through the front door, because you can't disarm a trap through a scrying sensor.
And don't count on using your previously-cast buff spells in the combat that follows, because there's a good chance that one of those traps you set off cast mage's disjunction. At CR 10, mage's disjunction traps are some of the most efficient traps villains can use to defend their lairs against teleporting, high-level spellcasters.
(If you're worried that creatures living in a villain's lair might accidentally set off these traps, give the traps proximity triggers, attach them to immovable rods, and use a gate spell to walk them over to the section of the Astral Plane immediately adjacent to the lair. The Magic chapter of the Core Rules explicitly states that conjuration (teleportation) effects are travel through the Astral Plane, so this astral mine field will hit everyone teleporting into the villain's lair the instant before they arrive without affecting anyone already there. As an added bonus, the mine field also hits everyone teleporting out of the villain's lair.)
Another three weeks, another progress report:
Slowly but surely, I'm approaching my goal of 64 pages of content. As of this post, I have roughly 52 pages of content in various stages of completion. The sections I have yet to write should easily be able to round out the remaining 12 pages.
I'm currently working on the text and the page layout in parallel. It would probably be more efficient to finish the text in full before doing any layout work, but I like being able to adjust my word count goals in response to page layout issues as they become apparent. In most cases, that means adjusting the word count to accommodate stat blocks and tables.
I've decided to organize things into two-page spreads as if this were a print product. Independent one-page spreads seem to be the industry standard for third-party PDF publishers, but I want my pages to appear as part of a cohesive whole even if the reader zooms out to look at pairs of pages side-by-side. Laying things out on that scale is probably unnecessary. (After all, who actually zooms out to view PDFs two pages at a time?) But I'm doing it anyway, just for kicks.
While I still have lots of work to do before I'm ready for launch, I've reached the point in development where I can start announcing specific content with a fair degree of confidence. So, without further ado, here are some troops whose stats I plan to include in this product:
Standard army troops (archers, cavalry, cavalry steeds, and infantry); boggard colonies; bugbear warbands; centaur tribes; drow war parties; duergar troops; dwarf troops; elf war parties; ghoul packs; gnoll bands and hyena packs; gnome troupes; goblin warbands, goblin cavalry, and goblin dog packs; half-elf clans; half-orc berserkergangs; halfling troupes; hobgoblin warbands; kobold broods and kobold gangs; lizardfolk bands; ogre gangs; orc squads; skeleton hordes; svirfneblin squads; tengu bands; troglodyte squads; worg packs; and zombie hordes.
Included with these troop stats are reprinted and updated rules for the troop subtype; rules for mounted troops and troops of steeds; commentary on the interaction between troops and teamwork feats; and army recruitment rules that allow powerful individual monsters to fight against or alongside troops in mass combat encounters.
Use these rules to build armies for mass combat campaigns, to assemble competitive PvP warbands, or to challenge adventuring parties with fights against overwhelming odds.
All of that and more is scheduled to appear in one of the chapters of The Lazy Gamer's Guide to Wealth and Power. Because lazy gamers shouldn't be required to design their own rules for these sorts of things.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
If they released Pathfinder 4th Edition tomorrow...
If they released Pathfinder 4th Edition tomorrow, I'd wonder where the other two editions went. :P
Despite the fact that PaizoCon 2013 is within walking distance of my house, work commitments have prevented me from attending any of the events being held there.
But PaizoCon's proximity to my residence makes the PaizoCon Store the closest brick-and-mortar game retailer to my house, by a wide margin. So it was that I spent my lunch break this Saturday afternoon strolling over to PaizoCon to purchase a copy of "Rasputin Must Die!"
Unfortunately, after setting out, I forgot whether PaizoCon was at the Marriot hotel or the Hilton hotel just down the hill. Not carrying an internet-enabled smartphone, I devised an ingenious scheme to locate PaizoCon: I would count the number of fellow geeks in attendance at each hotel, thereby triangulating the location of PaizoCon.
Sure enough, as I walked past the nearest hotel, I witnessed the emergence of three cosplayers, several forty-something gentlemen matching the description of a stereotypical IT professional, and no less than three groups of younger geeks with name badges and backpacks. I had located PaizoCon...
Or so I thought.
As I entered the Hilton hotel, I discovered that I was surrounded not by fellow gamers, but by Bronies. That's right, folks. While attempting to locate PaizoCon, I discovered a convention for My Little Pony fans being held in the adjoining hotel.
Having discovered my error, I promptly exited the Hilton, strolled up the hill to the Marriot, and crashed the second geekiest convention I would attend that day. I headed straight for the PaizoCon Store, made a single purchase, and then returned home.
But despite spending a grand total of maybe three minutes in attendance at PaizoCon 2013, I suspect I have just had one of the strangest PaizoCon experiences of the year. All courtesy of My Little Pony.
What Joe said.
And if you don't have time to create your own troop stats from scratch, I'm putting together a PDF which includes ready-made troop stats for a several dozen humanoid creatures. As of this post, it will be several weeks before that PDF is ready, but I'll keep you posted.
Twenty-four hours later, I return to a thread on the brink of becoming a flame-coated political shouting match only to discover that the thread is somehow back on topic again...
Internet, you have failed me.
Jessica Price wrote:
If I were the father of a young girl in Colorado, I would find that objection very plausible for the following reason: if, according to the law, it's discrimination to exclude someone with a penis from a girl's bathroom, is it not also discrimination to exclude someone with a penis from the showers in a girl's locker room at my daughter's school? For that matter, is it not discrimination to exclude someone with a penis from the women's locker room at any gym? What about a women's-only gym? What about facilities at a women's shelter for rape survivors?
To me, the Colorado "bathroom of choice" ruling seems to be setting a very bad legal precedent that tramples on women's rights. If there is no expectation of freedom from the presence of a penis in a women's bathroom, how can you legally argue that there is an expectation of freedom from the presence of a penis in any space, anywhere?
And, for the record, I do not believe bathrooms are not categorized by the genders of their users (or else there would be more than two categories of bathroom). Bathrooms are categorized by the biological sex of the reproductive organs of their users. "Men's room" and "women's room" are just euphemisms for "room for people with penises" and "room for people with vaginas". The only possible grey area I see involves hermaphrodites; everyone else should have no choice whatsoever as to which bathroom they get to use.
Hello, Paizo boards.
Eric Morton here. Some of you may know me from my freelance work, my two appearances as an RPG Superstar finalist, or my many pages of free online content.
Today, I would like you to know that I have also started work on a short-term publishing venture. My plan is to release a small selection of high-quality, fully-illustrated PDF products on par with those available from other small publishers.
It will be a few months before I am ready to contact online stores and arrange the release my first PDF, but I would like to take this opportunity to let you know what I'm working on. As usual for a product in development, the exact content of this PDF is subject to change.
The working title of my first release is The Lazy Gamer's Guide to Wealth and Power. Designed for gamers who lack the time or patience needed for tedious bookkeeping, this product presents new, streamlined options for downtime, kingdom building, and warfare. Use this content as a simplified, stand-alone system, or use the new options it presents in conjunction with previously-published mechanics, as desired.
The rules being developed for this upcoming product include:
All this and more is being designed for The Lazy Gamer's Guide to Wealth and Power. Coming soon.