|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I expect that if I take a dump stat that every now and then it's going to bite me. I don't expect it to be the primary target in almost every encounter, or an albatross across the neck of the entire party for an entire campaign.
Pay attention to minor names (including place names) from historical, fantasy, and sci-fi novels you read. While most people remember the names of major characters, most won't be able to remember characters and places that only get mentioned once in the book.
It really only needs 3 simple fixes.
One, bloodline spells become available once the spell level is reached instead of the one after.
Two, bloodline powers come from a pool of abilities that the player can pick and choose from similar to oracle revelations.
Third, an addendum that states these powers can't ever be taken by a wizard and any future feats or magic items that would do so are to be ignored as obvious editing errors.
I've known too many GM's who if they saw a tendency for a person to play super characters with an Achilles heel would ruthlessly exploit it whenever they could. Often for weeks of real time on end without any breaks to play to the character's strong points.
What I started doing is a random d6 roll and then boosting the corresponding stat by 1d3 (or 1, if the stat is either the highest or a dump stat) for any characters in games I run.
I missed seeing things like the stronger wizard, smarter priest, and characters with bonuses in stats that would otherwise be low. We haven't gone back to the full rolling since we don't want to have the equivalent of a 15 point buy character in the same group as a 35+ point buy character due to wildly different dice rolls.
I was referring to such things as final training including sneaking out and killing someone while returning uncaught, as well as the notion that being exceptional in any way as something reserved for the elite more than the warrior part. Sparta was a hellish place when you start looking at it.
(Of course, the fact that the Earth Bender guy whose name I can't recall was able to take out Zuko is a little surprising.)
Not really, sadly. I don't think Zuko has ever won a single fight that was actually important against a quality opponent.
Disney needs to cast Kathryn Winnick as Ms. Marvel Capt. Marvel NOW.
And on a game related note - the Skald looks badass. I was originally kinda 'meh' on both the Skald and the Bloodrager, but now I want to play one of each and soon.
Quark Blast wrote:
Feats look like they've been mostly fixed in 5th edition. While the Feats system from 3.x looked like a good idea at first glance it rapidly (and naturally by the rules) devolved into a Min-Max feast, because to "roll up" a less than optimal build meant your PC was superfluous to the rest of the party by 6th level or so.
The deliberate inclusion of 'trap options' probably exacerbated this.
Step 2 is to wince painfully at the poor monsters that just got turned Into a paste finer than that pink slime from the news a few years ago....
Generic Dungeon Master wrote:
I used to think I was a really great DM, like 38 years ago, then the internet came along and proved me wrong
According to teh interwebz you are either the Greatest of All Time or a complete loser.
Chuck Wright wrote:
Hmm. Even without that, earlier editions had...
Putting two things you have already done together doesn't sound like swiping from someone else, especially if they follow the cambion/alu-fiend route of making the subrace more dependent on the specific type of fiend rather than the plane of origin.
Some things certainly look interesting, I'll give it that.
They look like they are willing to kill a few sacred cows but not the point of wanting to slaughter the entire herd merely for being there.
From a business perspective, it makes sense. If you spend a million dollars to earn two million dollars, that's basically free money right? Why mess with that? But what if you could instead spend that one million dollars to earn ten million dollars? Wouldn't it be financially irresponsible to not pick the second option?
Personally, I would take half of the 2 million dollar profit and invest it towards the potential 10 million dollar profit, and hopefully come out an additional million ahead. The lower paying investment seemed stable, and such things can help during lean times if they happen. But then, I'm not a business exec.
Honestly, expecting several millions of users in a monthly payment MMO is not a reasonable threshold any more. And if you don't do that, you won't have luscious graphics, and recruitment suffers as a result. It is a sad situation, but it is difficult to say what would change it. There SHOULD be a market for smaller MMOs. City of X was a unique one, and it was pulled too lightly.
It's that last part that bugged me. Apparently it is no longer enough to be making money, the product must be making a whole lot of money. (IIRC CoH was still turning a profit, but only a modest one)
Comic book geekdom was a huge part of it. That's what pulled me in. The lack of the standard MMO's 'great equipment chase', especially the lack of the standard 'play full time or always be second rate' so prevalent in other games kept me there.
<crosses arms in X>
I still miss it.
This is not me making this up, in the episode 'Dirty Works' I believe it was, it's even mentioned that Air Nomad Avatars have always had issue with Earth Bending because the mind set needed to earth bend has always been contrary to air nomad teachings.
The typical thing is the Avatar having trouble with the opposite element to what they were born into. Aang had trouble with earthbending, Roku had trouble with Waterbending, and I believe Kuruk had trouble firebending. Korra having trouble with air instead of fire is a bit of an anomaly, but makes sense considering what she is like.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
I am currently playing a SGG Fusilier, which has good reflex and will saves (with feats and traits spent to shore up fort) and am doing quite well with it. But covering one weak area is much easier than covering up two of them, especially when the weak area (fort saves) is already slightly boosted to be in effect a moderate save rather than a poor one.
I believe several of the founding fathers were deists, so that can't have been responsible for his ostracism from them. But he had been involved in the French Revolution as well, taking him out of the American public eye, and when he reappeared, not only was Agrarian Justice out, but so was his blistering attack on Washington (it's a big no-no to go against a guy they were willing to make a king, at least if you want to stay in good graces with the public).
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Yes, I know Paine was anti-slavery, to his eternal credit. I'm just not sure he qualifies as "rabid[ly] Abolitionist." Unless you radically alter the meaning of "rabid."
He was credited for a while with writing the very first abolitionist article, African Slavery in America. While scholars no longer think he was the writer of that anonymous piece, they still believe that his anti-slavery stance is largely responsible for his marginalization after the American Revolution. While not radical by the standards of later years, it certainly was at the time.
I'm looking forward to making Claymore-like characters with this class.
That was my first thought. I'm the only one in my gaming group to have seen the anime so chances are good I could even call the character Clare and nobody would get it.
Forever Slayer wrote:
I think the problem people see is that without a strong save in one of the two, the swashbuckler is going to have trouble covering the weaknesses of the non-full BAB characters. Back in 3.5 my group had a player try the old Knight class out, and despite being able to dictate that enemies pay attention to him rather than the softer people, he never could do it for very long (despite the d12 hit die) before he was stopped by a failed fortitude save.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
When I think of "rabid" abolitionists, I think of dudes like John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison. Who was a "rabid" abolitionist among the Founding Fathers? I don't think even poor Tom Paine qualifies as "rabidly" abolitionist.
Well, Paine did call out Washington on the hypocrisy of being considered a champion of freedom while owning slaves. It didn't go over very well. On a totally unrelated note, Paine is the only founding father to not have a major monument. He has a couple busts and life sized statues that are somewhat obscure, but no huge building.
The ability to move and make multiple attacks handles some of that, the lack of a nerf for two weapon combat combined with the lack of a mega-boost for two handed weapons takes care of the rest, IMO. Weapon speeds aren't needed. My group never used them, although most of us played with GM's who insisted on it, and almost all of us decided it added nothing.
Oddly enough, while I liked the fact that the bow wasn't the only intelligent choice for missile combat like in Pathfinder, I think they were too far the other way in 2E. The bow started stronger than most other missile weapons, but really couldn't be improved without magic. Attacks per round never increased, and specializing really didn't increase damage.
The good parts of 2E are...
Warrior classes were more on par with magic using ones. Only warrior classes ever got multiple attacks until the supplements granted it to a few others. And they could move and still make all their attacks. And at high levels they could make saving throws too.
By being less fleshed out you could describe things and have a reasonable chance of doing them, now you need to have the feat to have a good chance of success.
More effective multiclassing if one of them was a spellcaster.
The things I disliked....
Wizards outright sucked at low levels. There were no bonuses to spells per day for a high casting stat, meaning a specialist wizard at level one had one single spell per day, and cantrips took the first level spell slot if you wanted those. Spell resistance was a flat roll, meaning a 20th level archmage had the exact same chance to blast that drow as the 1rst level apprentice.
No multiclassing between similar classes - the paladin/ranger was not an option.
Race/class restrictions. Paladins were human only, and there were no dwarven wizards.
Arbitrary methods of restricting leveling, such as forcing druids and monks into duels to get the next level, level draining monsters, and so on.
ThacO was a minor quibble really. I didn't notice it until the edition changed to be honest.
Weapon speeds. God, I hated this rule due to the idiotic enforcement one GM had for it. By his logic, a guy could cross a field and eviscerate a halberdier before a reaction could take place.
Niche protection. No thief meant stay out of the dungeon in many games, period.
Corporations are most effectively controlled by denying them the right to keep secrets. The bottom line is merely priority 2.
It's a matter of perspective I suppose. I always felt the reason for the secrets was to prevent the bad publicity that would hurt the bottom line.
The secrecy is still something that easily goes bad. Keeping the recipe the company is built upon a secret is one thing, keeping pay rates a secret in order to stiff people without them realizing it is another, to say nothing of keeping studies that might hurt the new product rollout a secret because they could reveal the new product is actually dangerous. The first I understand, the second is wrong, the third deserves a lengthy jailing.
Personally I'd consider changing the tax codes. First, income is income, whether earned through wages or gained through the stock market. Second, reinstate the estate tax. Third, tax corporations via the earning rate of their employees and independent contractors. If the majority of them are working yet still on the welfare rolls, the company gets a high tax rate with all loopholes closed. If the same company has an overwhelming majority of the people working for it at middle class wages, they get taxed at a low rate. Corporations are always most effectively controlled via their profit margins rather than any other means.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Fox may indeed have the movie rights to several Marvel characters. Do they also have the television rights?
From what I heard the television rights are effectively dual-owned in a way that gives both Fox and Marvel (now Disney) veto rights over the other one. So effectively no-one has the rights to make a television show.
I could easily be wrong though.
I expect to see a couple players dip right in and play ACG classes. Two will likely not, as one is old fashioned and dislikes trying things that were not in 2nd Edition D&D, and the other prefers a 'point and smite' style of play.
I expect to see the rogue become more rare, as the combat rogue is now better covered with the slayer and ninja, and the skill rogue will be less needed if 2 skill point classes become less common among the rest of the party. The knife master archetype is still likely to be safe, my group loves it after seeing it be one of two martials that made a GM surrender the campaign rather than finish it out (the other was a small cavalier).
I also expect the fighter to become a little more rare, except for certain archetypes that people have been wanting to play.
I think there will be the illusion of power creep, as most of the GM's can be pretty willing to allow new things while not having the time to fully prepare for them. Some are likely to be taken off guard when the group optimizers are finished pulling off something odd.
"This hacker girl we've known for a month in trouble, kill people to save her! She's special!" is pushing it but acceptable for the main cast. For people that haven't even met her to find that thinking not even worth mentioning is taking her mary sue powers to Franklin Richards levels.
Wasn't that person Garrett? The guy who would later be revealed as having gone through a lot of nasty stuff in order to get his hands on what was in there?
I especially love the concept of putting magic and warfare under a single deity. I like seeing some stuff that isn't the fantasy standard. Especially when it isn't connected to a need to make sure nothing is a fantasy standard.
You need as many as fits the narrative you are trying for.
If you feel something has been left out, or a player feels something has been left out (and is able to make a convincing case to you), then you don't have enough.
If you think everything is covered, and no one in the group can come up with a convincing reason why there should be more (note: Not having a deity with the falcata as a chosen weapon and all the strongest domains is NOT a convincing argument) then you have enough.
Freehold DM wrote:
So you are telling me he is the glorious leader HEAT has always desired?
Well everyone pretty much agrees that DC's taken a nosedive. I wonder what their sales look like?
IIRC the well established 'brands' do well (Batman, Green Lantern, Superman, and the titles directly related to each), and the other stuff not as well.
On a completely unrelated note (or so DC management would have us believe), the Batman and Green Lantern groups were the LEAST affected by the new 52.
Despite all the talk of power creep, I have only seen one thing (from 3.0 to Pathfinder) more broken than players custom-fitting all their magic items, especially if they transform the WBL guidelines to 1/2 cost due to crafting the stuff themselves. (That one exception was an Eberron PrC that granted shapechange with the SLA's attached to the form, made even worse because almost all other Eberron PrC's were very well done)
Lord Fyre wrote:
Registration of some kind would be the Government's best compromise.
The problem with that in the Marvel Universe is that mutant registration is a stand-in for things like the Nurenburg Laws. Not every mutant is a walking engine of destruction. Some just have a couple of faces, or maybe never need to charge the batteries on their cellphone.
Any foreign language name dictionary, especially if you are trying to capture a specific feel with the setting (or character, these things work well for players too).
If you want a Tolkien-esque game, I'd suggest the elven language dictionary at the back of Lord of the Rings. I've mined it for a few character and weapon names in the past.
Prestige classing is not multiclassing in the classic sense. Prestige classes in 3.0/3.5 were just refocused versions of the base classes most of the time, with the occasional 'multiclass-fix' class thrown in. If multiclassing worked, the fix PrC's wouldn't have existed in the first place.
I agree that the 'new and shiny' syndrome is likely the main driver though.