|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It really depends on how many new fans Starfinder can create.
For me, I will probably end up buying the Starfinder core rules, I will play maybe 1-2 sessions of Starfinder (out of 9-10 sessions during a convention) if it has organized play. But that's about it. It's a diversion for me and Pathfinder is where it's at.
For me, you can create great stories and interesting PCs in almost any setting, so it's not really necessary for me to learn a new ruleset just to make new stories.
Most importantly, it was also banned because you could use it for a move action and then get your full round action.
It can't be used like this anymore, it can only be used once every 24 hours, so perhaps they will consider removing the ban on it. I'm not sure it's a must have item anymore, but it does occupy a slot that is often unused.
I'm also curious.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
What if I were to pop in here and suggest that there is no real solution to be found in rules changes? The real problem is much bigger than the woes of one little hat, and it lies in the intangible culture that has developed, which is far more powerful than written rules - the problem in particular here appears to be, let's call it the "powerless power gamer" culture (or "slave to the beans," which I like even better)
No no no. We can still comment on stupid rule changes (or weak/powerful items or whatever) whether we use the rule in our game or not, or whether the item is ever used or not.
And for those of us that play PFS, we don't really have a choice of whether to adhere to the rules or not. So yeah, the PFS commands me, lol.
Yeah, I think some customer feedback would have made some of the errata better. But maybe they don't have time as someone else mentioned.
Some of the other items that were nerfed aren't even worth using at their current price. That is the exact opposite of a "must have" item. Honestly if Paizo produced books where items aren't even viable to use compared to others (under any circumstances), people wouldn't bother buying.
Home games can ignore errata, PFS can't.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE GMing. But having said that, as GM:
2) If you're going to prepare properly, you need to invest a lot of time, time you could spend elsewhere.
3) It's often a thankless position. Even after an awesome game, how many players tell you "Hey man, thanks for the awesome game.". How many players at your home game buy you pizza or help pay for stuff? Sometimes, but not often enough.
4) And you're often blamed when something goes wrong or there is a grievance.
5) People often don't want to (or are unable) to share the GMing duties.
6) For me personally it's physically and emotionally exhausting. I can play slots a day as a player, no problem, but I am pretty dead after 2 slots as a GM. It's just easier being a player, it's like being on vacation.
So yeah, GMing is fun but it is time consuming. And when there is negativity around it or no appreciation, people would just rather do other things with their time.
Pink Dragon wrote:
My point is you're trying to fix a problem for people that might not exist. I'd be more interested if you had real experiences with new players that quit the game (and why).
The biggest problem I see with the game at conventions is that we often don't do a good job introducing new (and young) players to the game. There should be more tables with 1 hour demos to quickly introduce as many people to the game as possible, especially at conventions that don't cater to tabletop games. But that's another discussion.
My point is that thousands of people have been introduced to the game successfully without easy mode.
My point is we've implemented systems like hard mode, core, and slow XP progression that are rarely used.
I suppose World of Warcraft did something similar to retain and expand their player base. They converted their normal mode to "hard mode" and made their "normal mode" a dumbed down easy mode to appeal to the masses. Easy mode had slightly less rewards however. And it somewhat worked.
You could also argue that system mastery has made people stay in some games (Eve Online). You could argue that Pathfinder is somewhat about system mastery, because if it wasn't then Paizo couldn't sell additional books, which are essentially catering to players with system mastery.
But yes, of course they also want to introduce new people to the game.
If there was an "easy mode" in every scenario (whatever name you call it) and it gave the same rewards as normal/hard mode, it might cater to the masses. But it could possibly make most of the existing player base leave.
I guess that is my point.
Pink Dragon wrote:
As I said above, I am an optimiser and easy mode won't hold much appeal for me beyond a few characters. Most of the current player base may think the same way. But other people like to play role playing games differently. Maybe Paizo needs to reach out to them too. Easy mode for PFS is one idea, but the overarching idea is to be more inclusive of those dastardly unoptimizers that seem to be so unpleasant for at least some of the people on these boards.
So your entire post is... hypothetical?
Pink Dragon wrote:
a blanket reduction of 2 on every DC, attack roll, damage roll and crit threat range in the scenarios.
I just want to point out that this adjustment has not worked out for the 4 player adjustment in a lot of scenarios.
Pink Dragon wrote:
I think everyone at the table should agree to 'easy mode' for that mode to be played.
Unless you have a group of friends that all want it, I doubt that you'll get agreement. There is rarely 100% agreement to play hard mode.
And since this is still a niche game, of course you'll have a mix of PCs at the table.
So what will happen is the players playing the weak PCs will make the players with the reasonable or optimized PCs unhappy, and vice versa.
If you play the easy scenario, the non-weak PCs will destroy everything, leaving the weak PCs with nothing to do.
If you play a normal scenario, the weak PCs still can't contribute and the strong PCs can't carry the entire scenario on their own, possibly leading to character deaths and definitely leading to non-max gold and prestige.
Really, the only reasonable solution is for everyone to make reasonable characters, some people need to stop breaking the game, and others need to make interesting characters that are reasonable.
Bottom Line: No easy mode please, just continue to keep tier 1-5 as our easy mode.
Pink Dragon, you have to consider that there are only a few "hard mode" scenarios every season (out of 25+). If we did a similar thing with "easy mode", PCs would need to survive the normal mode, and if they can survive the normal mode, what's the point of easy mode?
So I'm assuming the OP would want "easy mode" in every scenario. The problem with that is:
Most tier 1-5 is easy mode. Most roleplaying scenarios are easy mode. If that's what you want, then play those scenarios. High level is supposed to be hard.
I've introduced lots of new players to the game and they've all been interested in getting help to make reasonable characters. And like I said, tier 1-5 has been easy enough that pregens have been good enough.
You could always ask the GM for their easy mode, most would accommodate to a certain extent.
I've been to dozens of conventions and I've seen ridiculous optimization and guys who still do 1d6 damage at level 5. It comes down to this. If optimizers are bored, then they need to tone down the optimization. If "non-mechanical" players want an easier game, they need to have reasonable characters and save their special PCs for campaigns with their friends. The scenarios are "play as written", it's impossible to accommodate every play style when the play styles are vastly different, it just won't work.
The character's actions are evil. Not enough for a shift but enough to be noted and a possible shift later.
But more importantly the player is being an azz. Like others have mentioned, needs to be talked about as a group.
I'd like it if more missions were good aligned. But I like the neutral or even slightly evil aligned missions as well (Race for the Runecarved Key), they all have their place.
But in all the PFS I've played, I haven't seen many cases where being good is punished. Being a Paladin can be tough in infiltration missions (as expected). But good? No.
I have a number of good characters, so I should know.
But if you fought something before, how would you magically forget that you fought it and forget important things such as, I don't know, what it's weaknesses are?
Your GM is correct, but he should have given you a bonus on the roll (honor system). Just because you remember doesn't mean your PC remembers.
Having said that, the Pathfinder Knowledge skills in general need to be streamlined and simplified more.
I have a fighter that sunders; he is level 11. I found that as you advance levels, there are less opponents to sunder/disarm in general, and that your toughest opponents don’t have anything to sunder/disarm. So you're making already easy opponents too easy, and your feats count for nothing against the challenging opponents. Also, I find that it's actually better to just kill mooks instead of sundering them since it's faster. So if I could go back, I probably wouldn’t have wasted feats on this tactic.
Spellcasters don’t need all their spell components in one pouch, it can be all over their body. I think sunder/disarm/steal in general would be too powerful if that were the case, with or without feats.
No, this solution would break Organized Play, making it impossible for new people to ever play older scenarios and claim full rewards. As an event coordinator, it would mean that I would only have season 6 and 7 scenarios to choose from, or that I would have to tell my players, "See that neat boon on your chronicle sheet? You don't get it."
It's an option. And to use it would depend on a number of factors.
Just because a boon isn't available doesn't make a scenario unplayable. Boons shouldn't be such a strong factor in whether a scenario is played or not. Last year I played "Way of the Kirin" and there were no special rewards involved (Ex-Lantern Lodge gained +1 stat and the boon was later removed after having 2 months to play, making this scenario unplayable apparently). Seriously, who cares, it was a good scenario.
Anyway I guess we have a difference of opinion and my suggestion would deter boon hunting. The last thing I want when I sit down at a season 4 evil boon scenario is to be at a table of 4 guys who have already played it.
I'm sure these GMs would still pick the perfect character for these scenarios (during the 2 seasons they'd be available), would burn stars to replay, so I don't feel bad about it at all.
If you're going to add a powerful boon, whether it's evil or not, it might be a good idea that a PC can only gain the boon if the scenario is played in the current season (or perhaps season +1).
I'm sure there are people that replay (or play illegally) certain scenarios to gain an extra feat or +2 ability score. They become "must play" scenarios. It would be nice to have a statute of limitations on it, like the Shadow Lodge/LL boons.
I don't like evil boons because:
1) They are too powerful.
2) They are more like a powergamer indicator than anything else, since all PCs will take them, regardless of character alignment. I guess everyone roleplays character alignment until the prize becomes something that is too good to refuse?
For example, the Krune boons. When I played one scenario, my barely non-evil CN half-orc was the only one that refused the evil boon, the rest of the party was "good" and took the boon immediately. How messed up is that?
3) Players cry (or cheat and avoid) if they suffer any repercussions for taking these boons. In the example above the other players already knew everything about the boon and whether there would be any drawbacks, and told me it was OK to take it.
I'd prefer that you don't include evil boons, but it really depends on how flavorful it is, how powerful, and how badly people will cheat to get it or avoid the consequences behind it.
Also, it needs to explicitly say that it cannot be taken by good characters. Conversely at some point you need a boon that says it can only be taken by good characters. Fair is fair. In this case you don't need to have any drawbacks behind the evil boon, besides flavor.
Depends on the challenge, depends on your character optimization. I ran 16 (easy/quick) encounters in one 4 hour slot. That was the upper limit and it was insane. Normally it would be 2-4 encounters in a 5 slot, which is must more memorable.
Your GM sounds like he's trying to make everything "epic". Every encounter/fight doesn't need to be a slog and you don't have to roleplay every item acquisition for the game to be entertaining. I had a GM like this once, where everything we did was "wrong" and everyone was better than us. This may or may not be the case, but you should talk to your GM and if the game isn't to your liking, I wouldn't waste your time. Find another group or play Pathfinder Society.
10 Con is fine for a backline character if you're conservative. You'll still get hit with AE sometimes. Personally I'd go with 12 Con.
Higher caster stats often mean everything, especially at high tier. 5-10% is a lot when it's save or die.
A 12 Dex compared to 10 Dex is meaningless, especially at higher tiers.
If you have no front liners it's a real problem at low levels period, even if everyone has 16 Con.
Often dying in scenarios has nothing to do with your Con, it has to do with crits, bad luck, bad decisions, or a combination of the three.
Am I missing something? Will I even enjoy running PFS games? Am I misunderstanding how PFS works?
I recommend that everyone play PFS as a player before GMing it. There is a lot to learn about the campaign, let alone the rules.
Pathfinder in general is not a system you just pick up and GM, there is work and research involved in making a game run (properly). Even veteran GMs need to review old rules and learn new rules. In home games, often the rules aren't important, you can just add or subtract hit points on the fly, add in new mobs (even in the middle of the encounter), reduce/increase the damage a boss does, but in PFS you play by what is written, which means actually knowing the rules. It's tough for some GMs.
There is lots of creativity involved in PFS as well. You are welcome to change or interpret a lot of the fluff. Sometimes it can make a scenario completely different when GMed by different people. Having said that, you cannot change the mechanics at all. I find that it actually enhances the game and makes it fair.
Paladin has alignment restrictions and if you make a new player fall, could be the last time they play RPGs. I agree with others, in some ways it's one of the more complex of the core classes.
A ranger without a pet is not a bad idea.
The fighter is the best class for any player who isn't 100% committed to learning the game or spending time levelling a character. That's the trick really, to get a player invested enough in the game. The unchained rogue is also not bad right now as well, maybe it's a better suggestion because there's more going on.
I wouldn't allow it to be used 2H, Crane Wing has a drawback and you're not respecting it. The round concept is only that, for game purposes everything you do happens on your turn, but in actual fact you're acting during the entire round.
If you allow this, you'll need to allow Deflect Arrow to be used with 2H weapons as well. You might as well remove all requirements from all feats that say you need to use 1 hand.
What do you think about Rusted chainmail?
I'm not sure Rusted chainmail is meant to be a good card, or at least a card you don't want to upgrade. It is what it is, beginner armor.
In Runelords, armor is a non-desirable card, so this more so. This is an OK card in Wrath.
Glad the game is coming out soon, will buy an Android tablet just to play it. I'm a little leery of the demo being free, hopefully each AP isn't crazy expensive or I'll just stick to the actual card game.
I prefer to go through Paizo to get singles, but if I have to wait an extra week or two for subscribers to get their product, then deal with a rush of people all trying to get limited quantities of the rare minis that people will tend to need to fill out their sets, I'd just save myself the hassle and purchase elsewhere, and end up cutting Paizo out of my minis purchases altogether.
The thing is, the bar dressing minis are all in high demand and are rare, and the worst problem is that customers want *multiple* copies of each bar dressing. There will be no single to purchase the rare bar dressings you are missing anywhere, or to get multiple copies yourself (unless you want to pay $40-50 in the aftermarket).
The real problem is that the bar dressings should have been uncommon, not rare. Stuff like Frost Giant Mage, Bugbear Tyrant, Flesh Golem, and some of the ghouls should have been rare.
The price of the single rares are also too low, at $6-8, especially if you are breaking open cases to get them.
Might need to do another set where some of these minis are revisited, they seem popular.