Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Angvar Thestlecrit

Kolokotroni's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 8,370 posts (8,398 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 8,370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Assuming I am limited to my real life skills and abilities, and assuming I expect physics to still work on the other side

1. My alice pack, with it i can pretty comfortably hump about 130lbs of gear over miles, Max load would probably be around 160-180lbs i think, never really went over around 120lbs.
2. Camel Pack, portable uv water sterilization system, and portable filtration system.
3. A leatherman and a survival knife
4. One man tent
5. Bedroll
6. Cold Weather clothing/boots
7. Warm Weather Clothing/boots
8. Hatchet
9. Solar Powered charger
10. Heavy duty tablet loaded with as many reference texts as I can fit on there
11. First Aid kit stocked with antibiotics
12. Binoculars
13. Entrenching tool
14. A couple weeks of MREs
15. One of those self charging flashlights
16. Modern Fire starter (flint and steel basically)
17. good pair of gloves
18. Hammer, wood saw, hacksaw, wood plane, chile, hand drill
19. 2000 zip ties
20. Large supply of vitamins and nutritional supplements
21. camp stove, pot, cup/bowl combo.

Now the fun stuff
1. Dragon Skin Body Armor and kevlar helmet.
2. MP5 sub machine gun 10 magazines
3. Glock 19 handgun with detatchable suppressor and 6 magazines
4. As much 9mm ammunition as i can carry.
5. Compound bow with 100lb draw and quiver full of arrows
6. fletching kit
7. hand pumped air gun and tranquilizer darts to fit it along with a spare resevoir of strong tranquilizers

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Throne wrote:
LazarX wrote:
137ben wrote:

Anyone who plays Pathfinder is using third party rules. Those who claim otherwise are deluding themselves.

By what leap of logic are you making that statement? If you're using a Paizo product to play a Paizo game, then by definition, you are using first party products.


Is it that hard to see?
I mean, I don't agree with it, but he's pretty obviously espousing the view that Pathfinder is just 3rd party 3.5.

Its not just that its 3rd party 3.5. Its that its the same people. The same company. The same process. Did james jacobs magically become a better developer, writer, editer etc when paizo switched from publishing adventures in dungeon magazine and publishing under the pathfinder brand? Do you gain game design super powers when you put a stamp on something and call it 'your game'? In 2007 James Jacobs wrote 3rd party products for Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. In 2009 he was writing 1st party products for pathfinder. Both were while working for paizo, under the same leadership, in the same building, maybe even on the same computer/desk (speculation on my part) Is the simple fact that he put the pathfinder logo on the cover instead of the ogl logo of 3.5 the driving force behind the quality of his work? Where did the magical 3rd party to first party switch happen?

Is the stuff that Owen Stevens writes in his capacity as head of the module line somehow vastly superior to what he writes in his capacity as head of his 3rd party company Rogue Genius games? What about the freelance work he and many others have done for paizo on paizo products before he begame a permanent paizo staffer?

The hard line in the sand some people draw is absurd. There was no knighting ceremony by the game design lords of creation for Lisa when she greenlit the idea of creating pfrpg. She and the rest of paizo's staff are the same people they were when they were publishing dungeon and dragon, and when they published those first few aps under the 3.5 ogl, and when they released pathfinder and council of thieves, and now when they are publishing pathfinder as an industry leader.

Paizo was 3rd party then, they are '1st party' now. It doesn't alter the quality of their work, or the nature of the creative team themselves. So where is the difference? If Kobold press released a Kobold RPG system revolving around the primary races of the game being kobolds and goblinoids using the open gaming liscences of pathfinder, will that magically transform them into a different company? Assuming you started to play KRPG, would you consider their products any differently then you do now other then the fact that they would specifically suite your kobold themed adventure?

Does it make any sense at all to asses those products differently then say if you were running a kingdom building game, whether or not you wanted to use ultimate rulership or ultimate battle by legendary games?

The divide of 3rd party vs 1st party made sense in the WOTC era where they did everything in house and churned out more material then you could possibly use. With paizo, that divide is barely there anymore if it is at all.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Okay, so sorry to give preemptive information, but...upon showing her the description of Erastil and his church in page 66 of Rivers Run Red (or rather, copying and pasting a lot of it, but you get the point), she pretty much dumped him.

His misogyny is pretty much way too much for her, and it'd be too hard roleplaying someone who worships a guy she personally would wholeheartedly disagree with (at least on the get-in-the-kitchen-and-make-me-a-sammich-in-between-popping-out-chillun department).

I'll let you know when we get a new choice.

Many groups sort of rewrite the whole get in the kitchen part, even paizo seems to want to diminish it. So I would talk to her about changing it, family, hearth, hunting etc is a good kind of deity for kingmaker. Just need to remove the blatant mysogeny. You are after all the DM, you are welcome to just do that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:

A balance tweak? Wouldn't one of those be accomplished by rewriting and rereleasing the Core Rulebook? This isn't an MMO where the developers can magically erase and replace the text in the Core Rulebook as a part of patching the system. That takes a new edition.


A new edition is more extreme than what Paizo wants to do and a total rewrite of the core rulebook is simply out of the question. The screaming and hollering people would do if that $50 they spent five years ago were to be obsoleted isn't worth the effort, so instead Paizo releases new books with content designed to patch old content (the Qinggong Monk being the most obvious example).

Indeed, and Paizo want an effectively static core in order to maintain backward compatibility for all the adventures. Remember, the adventure sales are what it's all about for Paizo and I don't have a problem with that.

That said, I'm still desperate for a monk that can actually do what monks are meant to do. The brawler was just salt rubbed in the monk's wounds as far as I can tell.

It's 3rd party, but Meditant Psychic Warrior is everything I ever wanted in a martial artist type character. The language that makes Flurry of Strikes count as Flurry of Blows in particular is a lifesaver.

Another option is the rogue genius games product, the talented monk. By being able to pick and choose things within all the options available with the monk and it's archetypes, you can actually make a pretty effective monk in the classic (core rulebook) style, without having to bang your head against all of it's issues (unless you want to ofcourse).

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you define power creep as any option being better then any other option that does something roughly similar. Then certainly there is power creep. But thats sort of an insane standard unless the game was perfect to begin with.

Certain concepts (mostly those that lack magic) were relatively weak in the core rules. What can be created now, and what can be created then has become more even when considering all concepts, instead of limiting your comparison to just one.

For instance, the poor always maligned rogue. Core rules, very limited, sort of dull, and often are very difficult to make work the way you expect them to. Now, you can make a character that works alot like that, rather easily. Just pick one of the classes that does it well. None of them are better then a core rulebook druid though. To me, that means its not power creep, its power balance. More concepts are closer to equal then they used to be. To me this is a univeral good thing so long as the very top of the heap stays about the same.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:

I do want to point out that Jails or Prisons for common criminals was not a medieval thing. Whipping, hands cut off, branding, banishment, work service or large fines were.

Prisons are expensive.

They werent the most common punishment, but they definately existed. Granted being a prisoner generally meant a short life as a slave, gladiator or via starvation, but jails certainly existed. In say roman times usually they were of the 'hard labor' variety as prison camps near mines, or mills or what have you. But that doesnt mean they werent used.

In medival europe they were less frequent but that was because government was less central. Local lords had their own dungeons and their own justice.

While the modern concept of 'rehabilitation' didnt exist, imprisonment as labor, or forced indentured servitude did. And it generally revolved around some location where the prisoners could be securely held when they were not working. Or they were sold as slaves. Either way, you were still conceptually imprisoned.

Any good kingdom in kingmaker is going to likely scoff at such ideas, but then again good kingdoms never existed in the real world, making it hard to judge.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thegreenteagamer wrote:

It seems to me that Erastil would be in favor of working off your debt to society in the form of community service. Justice in a method that actually benefits the people, no?

I pretty much told her, based upon what I read so far, that killing guilty surrendering bandits won't make her fall, but neither will giving them another suitable punishment, such as the aforementioned community service. Letting them go free with a simple "go and harm no one else", however, is a no-no.

(Also, I don't know why, but I picture Erastil as what would happen if Hank Hill attained divinity. I am probably going to whisper "that boy ain't right" in my best impression when she detects evil.)

The problem with community service is how does one enforce that until the group establishes themselves? Otherwise I think erastil would be in favor of that, but again, consider the traditions of the riverlands. They have extremely harsh punishments for oath breakers in this region by tradition and custom. That would factor in for a servant of Erastil.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So a few responses in context of the character being a paladin of erastil.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
....I figured it would be a good idea to point out to her ahead of time that I believe killing those who surrender who have not actually attacked you, regardless of racial stereotype, is justification for falling.

Depending on the laws the group eventually sets up, you should be cautious here. A paladin of Erastil would be respectful of both the law and tradition.

Tradition of the River Kingdoms:

"While many inhabitants of the surrounding kingdoms think of the people of the River Kingdoms as back stabbing curs they are wrong as one of the codes of the River Freedoms is that oathbreaker must die (usually in a very painful manner), as a result most people from the River Kingdoms would die before they broke their word but are also very cautious about giving their word in the first place."

The law, it will depend on what is established, but currently banditry carries the death penalty. A legal execution or respect for the traditional code of ethics probably should not be fall worthy for a paladin of erastil.


What else do you think is pretty basic Paladin code stuff?

Not lying, cheating, or using poison are pretty much spelled out for me and don't seem open to interpretation (I will totally be okay with pulling a Carrot Ironfounderson and not actually lying while sending across a message contrary to the obvious in the form of a bluff).

I would be a little cautious here. Does this mean that your paladin is simply not allowed to decieve someone? That could be a major problem in a certain part of the end of book one of Kingmaker no? I think lying for personal gain, is an issue. Decieving someone to achieve a good on the other hand, probably not an issue, particularly when trying to 'go under cover' or something similar. I dont think you should endevor to exclude the player from those types of encounters, which potentially could come several times in kingmaker.


"Helping those in need" and "punishing those who harm or threaten innocents" seems to interpretation.

I think bob's post covers this one rather well.


I don't think she should have to refuse payment for good deeds, but is it wrong to ask for payment even though you're willing to help them even if they can't pay?

Thematically that might be nice, but again remember this is pathfinder, and money is power. I dont think you need to deliberately handicap the player in terms of wealth in order to keep in theme. She might want instead to insist on practical rewards (weapons and other equipment) or to make a point to spend reward money on such things, as a paladin of erastil would 'live simply' so lavish homes and clothing would be out of style, but a very fine bow, armor and other tools would be completely appropriate.


The PCs charter states that unrepentant banditry is punishable by the sword or the rope...but what about repentant, or supposedly repentant? Is it okay if she lets them live? I'm guessing yes, as long as they get some kind of punishment. More importantly, is it okay if she doesn't let them live, considering a. they were bandits, b. she's the legal authority in the area according to the charter and c. they're pretty much guilty.

I think that becomes very tricky until at the least the group has built a jail. What is a suitable lesser punishment? Remember the traditional punishment would certainly be death in the area regardless of punishment, and until a jail is built there is pretty much only execution or let them go free. There arent other choices. Once the kingdom establishes its self encourage them to actually write laws (it makes a huge difference in roleplay interactions like these), but mostly, this should be a character choice, but not one that results in a breach of the code.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I treat 3rd party material pretty much the way I treat paizo material, not in the core rulebook, its on a case by case basis. I want to engage in a conversation with my players so I know what they are taking and why. As others have mentioned, its really hard to know EVERYTHING, so having players come to me for a soft approval helps me narrow that down to just what they are actually saying.

That said, stuff from rogue genious games almost always gets a quick approval, as does dreamscarred and kobold press. Others, I review a bit more carefully, mostly because I am less familiar with them, and I trust those companies. To be honest, in many cases they have been better about restraining my or my groups inner munchkin then paizo has. Then again most of the big 3pps write for paizo, so its weird to make the distinction in material based soley on the logo on the cover of the book.

The whole 'official' rules only is sort of rediculous. Paizo itself was a 3rd party company just a few years ago. Heck the main person for rogue genius Games Owen Stephens is now leading Paizo's module department (while still running Rogue Genius). Is he somehow magically better at his job when he has his paizo hat on?

That isnt to say some 3pp stuff isnt problematic, even in the more prominent publishers, but so is some paizo stuff. So I take everything case by case. Hopefully to help allow my players to make a character that fits their vision, both thematically and mechanically. And often the easiest and best way to do that is actually 3rd party material, since they are more willing to delve into 'out there' concepts, then paizo is.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

One thing to note is that sighted creatures even with good hearing are often still reliant on sight. How often have you heard a noise, looked up, saw nothing, then ignored it. Invisibility having an impact on sound based stealth checks is not completely rediculous. If a creature COULD see an invisible stealther, the bonus probably should still apply.

That said, RAW is really messy. One thing to point out is that all perception checks take a penalty based on distance, and circumstance.

A sentry on the other side of a door is at a -5 penalty (through a door), and an additional -1 for every 10ft away the opponent is. Is there a wall in the way? -10 per foot thick the wall is. These mods are often forgotten, but if you are going to nitpick about stealth and invisibility, you really should be accounting for this also.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
simon hacker wrote:

Nope nothing wrong our group we just imrove a lot, they dont tend to like to be railroaded and like to do thier own thing occationaly. If you GM in or group you need to know this and be perpared for the unexpected We are all the same in our group, fixed encounters work fine when they are there but sometimes we have mnore fun when the unexpected happens, thats all.

Not everyones play style is the same, Every group plays differently. BTW this s only happened since we started a sandbox, I have just found it to be immense fun to run, if it was not working I would have gone back to running as is. Sometmes you just need to try these things out.

Not railroading and planning are not mutually exclusive. I too dont like railroading, and am ok with pcs finding their own route for things. And I am a proponent for improvising situations that I didnt expect to happen because the party did something I didnt expect.

None of that has anything to do with random charts. There is no in game difference between a dm deciding the next random encounter will be an owl bear, and rolling for the next encounter to be an owl bear. The wacky hijinks are identical. The only difference is one is a choice by a dm trying to make a fun game, the other is probability. Choice, should give you a series of interesting encounters. Probability gives you the chance for a series of interesting encounters, or the same encounter 5 times in a row, or no encounter 20 times in a row, or 2 interesting encounters and 1 stupid encounter, or 5 nights of bad weather, roll your survival you cant fail again because reasons, or the 8th friggan time we are fighting a chimera on this same there like a hatchery near by or something? Chance is just that, chance.

The gm PICKING encounters off that random list is almost certainly going to result in a better session then rolling a die. And by picking, he can actually look up ahead of time what sort of things he needs to know, like spells, special abilities, or where he might find stats for the 5 gnoll pirates that are on that random ship parked in the harbor.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
simon hacker wrote:


If random encounters are more fun then the ones you actually plan, you arent good at making encounters.

LOL that would be Paizo then as Im runinng Skull and Shackles...

so that would suggest that as my players are trying to get me to do...make my own adventures which is where I struggle. Oh wellmaybe I should give it a go If I can find the time :)

And if your party is having more fun with the encounters on that random chart then the set peices presented in detail in the adventure, something, somewhere is wrong.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Oh Kolo.

I know you're right.

But with some sandbox games you get to a point where the GM is "playing" the game too. We're all waiting to see what happens! Random weather, random encounters, these can distinctly enhance the feeling of a living, breathing world.

In my Kingmaker game I love how procedural everything is. I don't really prepare (except the planned hexes) and the best stories we've experienced so far all came off the tables.

It is not for everyone. I daresay only very experienced GMs need apply. But if you're willing to take them on their own terms, there's more to encounter/weather tables than legacy assumptions.

It's a thing, unto itself. You really ought to try it some time. A GM with sufficiently honed improvisation skills can deal with whatever comes down the pipe, and often with better results than whatever was "planned".

I know its buried in some vitriol, but I do agree that random charts have a place in a true sandbox like kingmaker. It would be a tremendous amount of work to plan every encounter in every hex of those maps. I get that. But most adventures arent sandboxes, and the vast majority of overland travel isnt part of a sandbox. Its getting from one story point to another.

And for every 'random' moment that provides a really fun encounter, you get a dozen...nothing happens... in a row, or the 5th friggan chimera to turn up on this road. And really, would it somehow be different if the dm simply picked an item from the list? My problem isnt the encounters themselves, its the reliance on dice. If you want to have a list of 10 things that might happen as you move through hill hexes in the nomen heights...go for it. But what is gained by letting chance pick what happens?

Certainly some gms have great improvisational skills, and those can make for some really awesome moments, but those good gms will still be good gms doing awesome things without random charts. Average gms (you know, most of them) on the other hand, are pretty terrible at this, and most 'random' charts are not as well crafted as the ones in kingmaker. If they are not very carefully considered they can be just as jaring and immersion breaking as they can be a tool in world building. And deliberate choice is almost universally better there. Even kingmaker had some at first problematic, and then comically trivial encounters as the adventure proceded. Charts dont follow story progress, they dont know you've gone up 6 levels and are just going back to a region you didnt check out before and thus literally mock to death the band of 3 trolls or the owl bear as 9th level adventurers. They also dont know that you are actually 3rd level adventurers that went one hex too far going into the next books random encounter chart facing an unapproachably difficult encounter that your party may or may not have the knowledge to know they cant handle.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Weightlifting, particularly with the best of human ability is as much about skill as it is raw ability. Pathfinder doesn't emulate this well becasue why on earth would there be rules for it in a fantasy adventure game? Weightlifter would probably be like an archetype of expert and probably added a skill 'weightlifting' to the skill list (maybe just proffession weightlifter). Then feats and equipement would modify it.

Its not just raw strength. The game isn't meant to model it, and it really shouldn't. It models things likely to be associated with adventurers going on adventures. Even when lifting things, adventures generally dont hike a specially designed weight above their heads, leave it there for a second or two and then drop it. Hence, its not part of the lifting/carrying rules, which are meant for long term lifting and carrying of things, which adventures might very well do.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am not sure what 'appropriately' time consuming is. I generally am trying to tell a story, its only very specific kinds of stories where overland travel is actually an important part of it. Otherwise, there really isn't a point. It wont drain resources for story relavent encounters (assuming a night's rest separates overland travel and whatever events happen at the destination), it doesn't enhance the story. It literally serves no purpose unless you have a desire to track resources, and make survival checks for a few hours of your group's lives and fight pointless battles that ultimately mean little besides their xp (if you even still use xp, I dont).

First and foremost, if I could destroy every random encounter 'chart' in existence and wipe them from everyone's minds, I would. Its just a dumb idea. If you want there to be encounters on the trip, plan encounters. They can be 'random' monsters that you pick from what might be in the area, but there really isnt any reason at all to make it a die roll. I cant tell you how many times a rediculous (either irrationally difficult or just plain ludicrous like a surprise dragon that pops out of no where) encounter has turned up in games and the defense has been 'Its what I rolled'. Thats bs. You are the dm. You choose to include the chart and what's on it. You are no more absolved of responsibility then if you specifically placed that encounter. So place it.

Own your choices. If you want there to be bad weather, say its day 5, bad weather happens, figure out how to get your wagon out of the mud. Day 9 bandits attack. Why leave development of your world or potentially your story to friggan chance? And trust me I know there are those that LOVE their random encounter charts. I guess, if you have a true sandbox game it makes sense, you cant plan for a sandbox. But if your party is going on a planned route, thats not a sandbox, set fire to your bs chart and actually plan the session. Heck, take the charts other people make and just pick things to happen. Chance is not always even handed. Sometimes you do in fact roll 90+ or 10 or less several times in a row.

And I completely disagree that a random encounter can produce more interesting results then a planned encounter. They are the same thing, its just one you roll to choose from a list, the other you choose. You can even look at the charts and pick something that seems interesting. You can plan non combat encounters just as easily as you can roll for them (more easily actually because you can be prepared for it) If random encounters are more fun then the ones you actually plan, you arent good at making encounters.

All that said. Why does overland travel have to be hard or at all important? I mean in something like jade regent where you are leading a caravan, sure, its relavent. But if you are more then like 5th level adventurers, rigors of the road are literally trivial, food is plentiful with magic or just good skills, and anything that challenges you would literally stop all travel of normal people, and all but prevent travel entirely. Most people dont have high level pc body guards to get them around. So if you are traveling within civilized lands, overland travel IS pointless and easy. You are traveling with a super hero, a walking miracle, someone who bends space and time, and james bond. Walking or riding a few hundred miles is not an important task.

There really isnt a reason to delay actually getting to the story so that overland travel isnt 'too easy'. Spiderman comics dont highlight how he swings from brooklyn to times square, they focus on what happens in his home, and what happens at times square. Who the heck cares how many swings it took him to get there, or how he almost slipped landing on the brooklyn bridge. And how dumb would it be if he DID slip on the brooklyn bridge, broke his arm, missing the fight with the green goblin in times square...yea thats a good story. Good thing getting across the east river wasn't 'too easy'.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cuuniyevo wrote:

Sooooo… My brother's starting a new campaign, and I get to be one of the 4 players (yay!). One player says they want to build a melee char, one wants to build a ranged char, and one wants to build a Skald, so I figure I'll make an Oracle that can do some healing. Everything's great so far. We decide on 4d6—drop the lowest and start rolling stats… The melee player gets 16, 12, 12, 12, 11, 9, no problem. The Skald gets 16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, no problem. The ranged player gets 14, 13, 13, 12, 11, 11. Then I roll 16, 16, 16, 15, 13 and my last set of rolls is a 1-2-3-4. To make it interesting, I decide to drop the 4 instead of the 1, and put the resulting 6 in Constitution. Our backstories are going great, and it seems everyone likes the idea of me being a glass cannon destined for great things, if I can only survive to see the day (6hp at the moment).

Here's the issue: I'm worried that with these stats, if I'm not careful I'll become too powerful, and even though everyone's on board at the moment, the other players may be annoyed if I hog the limelight too much. On the other hand, I don't want to be a burden. So far, I'm a Halfling Oracle of Time, working with the idea of multi-classing like so: 1 level of Cleric, 1 level of Feral Hunter, 1 level of Sacred Fist Warpriest, then back to Oracle full-time. The character should have a lot of versatility without stepping on anyone's toes. The Feral Hunter level is for Druid spells and the variable Animal Focus I'll be able to apply to myself. The Sacred Fist Warpriest is for the AC bonus, Flurry of Blows (for hot slinging action), and Blessings. I'll basically always have 1st Level spells and abilities available, but the excessive multi-classing will mean I have much less power in the long run.

Is this a good idea, or am I going about this all wrong? Thanks. =]

Um that is a ton of multiclassing for relatively little benefit. I can understand not wanting to over emphasise your really good stats, but since no single number is particularly high (your best equals their best), the best way not to overshadow people is to do ONE thing. Your advantage is how good your spread of scores is. If you do something that is single ability depenedant (like a focused caster) then your stats besides your casting stat become less important. The scald and melee character will both have equal primary stats (whatever they choose).

ANd you realize that the multiclassing you are doing is going to be extremely counter productive right? You are looking at 5th level before you get +1 bab....all of those give 0 bab at 1st level. Flurrying with a sling isnt particularly meaningful if you cant hit anything. Also unless this game is going to stop at like 6th level, multiclassing into hunter for 1st level druid spells and an animal focus bonus isnt worth it. They wont scale. And by 8th level those 1st level spells dont mean very much.

At most i'd recommend multiclassing with just one of those, maybe the sacred fist warpriest. Other then that go oracle. Focus on your spells and occasionally sling some stones. You arent going to come close to overshadowing anyone, assuming ofcourse your 6 con doesnt get you killed in like one session. Seriously, maybe drop the 2 instead of the 4? A 8 con still can be rollplayed as a frail sickly child. You dont need to put it in the physical disability range.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It was presented formaly in dungeonscape towards the end, but unfortunately with the edition ending so shortly after, it sort of got lost, and that isnt open content, so it seems paizo hasn't decided to persue the idea. Though Maybe if we ever get an ultimate adventurer it will be in there somewhere.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In general i dont like traps that are not part of an encounter. I think its a mindless hit point tax/busy work for the rogues, and in general slows down the game. Obviously some places it makes sense, vaults, secret doors, anywhere a kobold is, but the prevalence of them in pathfinder/dnd really just reflects a desire for gms to have the 'gotcha' moment on their players. It literally does nothing besides provide that in their current incarnation.

My preference is for traps as encounters, were overcoming/detecting the trap provides an advantage (or lack of disadvantage) in the encounter as opposed to simply being 2 die roll encounters. Something like a mechanism that will drop a gate splitting the party when they are to be attacked from both sides. Dealing with the trap would allow the party to better coordinate/escape, but the trap itself is only a part of the encounter, the environment and the enemies are also part.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
voska66 wrote:
I ran King Maker with 3 players with high than normal stats. It worked just find. With 3 classes you can cover things pretty even better now with Ultimate classes. I'd avoid Gestalt as it get over powered, did that with Council of Thieves with the same group. It ended up being lot more work for me as the GM to modify encounters.

I think gestalts power level entirely depends on what player's do with it. If they double down on a certain set of abilities, yes it creates higher powered characters, but if they do the intended thing and diversify, it doenst really do that. I've played gestalt games with both 2 and 3 player parties and they've run just fine with published aps. But in these cases the players made sure there wasnt a huge amount of stacking of abilities, and instead focused on versitility.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

well in a small party game i generally strongly recommend the pet classes. Specifically the druid and summoner. Their buddies help fill out the action economy, and in a small party they arent actually as detrimental to play time.

Druid/anything is often a very good choice, particularly in this campaign (lots of wilderness and nature), so maybe your 2nd friend could be a druid/slayer. Divine caster, animal buddy, and lots of rogueish goodness from the slayer. Plus wild shape is among the most useful single abilities in the game, both for combat and non-combat situations. Need to sneak, turn into a mouse. Need to scout, bird on the way, need to swim im a dolphin etc.

Summoner is also very good, perhaps combining with swashbuckler for you. Still charisma focused but now with an outsider buddy backing you up. Again this fills out the party's action set and ofcourse the summoner has lots of great control spells to help out all those combatatants in addition to the combat abilities of the swashbuckler.

For the brawler, thats a bit tough, I am not sure what you mean by 'doesn't want a lot of power'. If you mean he doesnt want it to be overly complex, you might want to go fighter. Very straight forward. Barbarian works, but both are sort of just doubling down as a beat stick, and thus not the best use of gestalt. Really depends on what he wants to go for, but those two would be the simplest additions. I'd personally recommend he combine it with SOME kind of caster to flesh out the party better.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
rainzax wrote:

as a storytelling game, i find conflict to be at the heart.

but that's me.

Conflict within the story, ofcourse. Conflict WITH THE GAME, is not fine and isn't at the heart of a good story or a good game.

We are after all playing a game. There is story telling, but the dramatic moment is not more important then people having fun. And one of the biggest parts of having fun is participation.

I have seen too often people pushed into either over preservation of serources, or into directing their resources in a very specific way (think, mandatory healer) to the point where one or more party members are effectively not participating in most of the game.

And while sometimes that makes for a good story (gandalf only pulling out the stops in moria) it makes for a crummy experience at the table, if half the time a certain character must effectively not participate in order to maintain resources against attrition.

I have seen way to many 'we need to have a healer' conversations to think making hp attrition an important aspect of the game is anything but an aweful aweful idea. I actually hand out renewable healing items (healing belts) in my game simply because I dont want my players resources to go towards that instead of things they actually want to do.

I can make moments dramatic and challenges difficult without requiring them to no play to be able to play.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
rainzax wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
15 minute work days will be a thing until the core paradigm of the game--attrition--is altered. Right now, these things just sweep the problem under the rug. Nobody likes it, for the most part, but they hate the stop-gap solutions more.

my solution to this predicament is to simply sweep the PCs under the rug of Climbing Plot Conflict. If you can introduce into your story a sense or Narrative Urgency, suddenly Time itself becomes a resource, joining the milieu of various other Attrition Indexes (HP primarily).

what if the PCs don't have 10 minutes to conduct a short rest!?

naturally this is much easier said than done, and is something I am always striving for as a DM, but, ain't no better "stop-gap" than one the PCs, under pain of narrative arcs altering story crossroads, impose upon themselves, without some external rule, disassociated or otherwise, tearing asunder verisimilitude from on-high.

The problem with adding that urgency in plot terms is that you are in conflict with the game, which itself isnt designed for an endless escalation. Honestly, I'd like to see the whole resource attrition thing be thrown away, and have the majority of abilities balanced around the idea of always, or mostly always being able to do them. It makes things like having plot urgency not a direct conflict with the game itself. Not every story can be told at lord of the rings pace.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:

Hah! I really want to see the Strategy Guide...

I'm betting it'll give general advice without going on specifics ("Carry a bow! Buy wands! Teamwork is good!"), or, if it does go into specifics and tries to help new players to make informed choices, it'll be as "honest" as the Class Build guide ("Rogues are the most skilled class") and the ARG Race Builder point cost (obviously designed to make Core races seem balanced and elemental races seem more powerful than they are).

Paizo is not going to say anything that might make their products look bad, so I doubt they will even acknowlege Pathfinder balance issues. I'm pretty sure the strategy guide will imply that the TWF Rogue is just as good as the 2-handed Slayer. And that "Mobility" is a good feat.

If paizo wasnt willing to admit issues then unchained wouldn't exist.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
The thing that always bothered me the most about "Healing Surges" was the name. It sounds like they had the idea, and just went with the working title. They didn't bother to contextualize it in the simulation at all. It doesn't mean anything, so it looks outwardly like a sloppy patch over a hole in the system.

Thematically healing surges actually works within the context of abstract hit points. HP is a 'wearing down' of your ability to fight (I dont need to explain this to you ofc). Maybe calling it determination or something would have been better, but 4E wasnt exactly worried about associative vs disassociative mechanics. A 'Surge' of determination or 'guts' or whatever is a perfect explanation for the reocovery of everything but those actual viatal injuries.

The thing everyone who argues for those sorts of things should remember is that the 2 games 4E and 5E are also very different in how much damage things put out. The reason most seasoned players insist on going into encounters fully healed is the fact that things can cut through the hp of even the tough guys (full bab d10 or d12 hd) in a single full attack.

Pathfinder doesnt really work as an actual attrition game because a full attack from a level appropriate opponent doens't contribute to attrition of hp, it can flat out drop you.

You can draw a comparison to video games here. Many older games and some current games made hp a long term resource. Healing was rare and had to be carefully manaaged (think medpacks in doom). BUT things did damage in very smalle chunks. Even bosses couldnt wipe you out in seconds. You might only fight one or two weak enemies at a time most of the time with almost no chance of seriously hurting you, but even one hit was a drain on resources. Its a slow burn of encounters.

Many current games, like say call of duty, dont have that. Your damage goes a way, you recover after a few seconds. Each encounter is as intense as it possibly can be. Each set peice has you fighting for your life, but if you get through it, recovery to complete health is simple. This a kind of flashpoint system of encounters.

Pathfinder as it stands is like call of duty, while sort of still being doom on the box. Sure theres 'attrition' but it's simple to recover from the attrition. But challenges have shifted to compensate. Things do WAY more damage then they did back in the adnd the cleric has 2 spells and covets them intensly. And they do more damage then 4E or 5E does. If you want to most to a system where players are struggling into encounters half injured and bleeding thats fine, but you have to realize that doesnt work when the big bad could have dropped them in a round when they were at full hit points, let along when they were dragging themselves into the fight.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I was saying [greatsword] is better for doing lethal damage is what I was saying.

PS: I like daggers.

Here's the thing though: weapons and armour that are in the game should have a time where they're actually useful. People wanting crossbows or daggers to be viable aren't saying they want them to be as good as a greatsword or longbow. On a fighter you wouldn't ordinarily use a dagger. But there should be situations/classes/builds where daggers are a viable option (funnily enough I think they might be with fighters due to an Ultimate Combat archetype).

Daggers can be good with certain builds. My point was basically that certain weapons are just going to be better than other weapons in combat.

Basically I think the designers and myself view the weapons like this--> Martial weapons are made for combat. That gives them a higher learning curve, and therefore justifies them being a better weapon. Simple weapons(dagger, club) can be used in battle, but they are not generally what you would want to field an army with so they were intentionally made to not be so good in battle.

Yeah, I know some weapons such as the morningstar and crossbow are good for armies, at least according to some scientific shows I watched. Yes, that also means I think some weapons are in the wrong category. And I also want it to be easier to make crossbows good. Speaking of which the Ace bolt puts out good DPR. Without the dex to damage however, which I have not run the numbers for I would expect a pretty good fall off, but I expect them to be a decent choice.

Summary:The game is very much about choices and if you intentionally make an inferior choice you will get inferior results.

PS and edit: I think the disagreement is mostly about how big the gap should be. The bolt ace was not too far behind a fighter archer I made. I am guessing a normal crossbow specialist will be about 20 points behind.

I think one thing we have to remember is the current stewards of our game are totally ok with options being inferior if they function in a manner that makes sense fluff wise. They are story focused more then rules focused. If the first priority is story telling tool, and you want associated rather then disassociative options, then we will always see subpar options in the rules because some things are subpart. Child scent isnt going to be as useful a hex as evil eye, but in some stories witches hunt down children, so there it is. And it works exactly how you expect.

My hope is that the strategy guide will help new players sort through the '90%' or at least make informed choices. But its kind of ok for those kinds of options to exist. The key is to make the choice they represent clearer.

Then there are more fundamental issues. Like the supremacy of the full attack vs single attacks/actions. Or that casters are playing dc superheroes and non-casters are playing game of thrones. Those are the sort of fundamental things that the devs can hopefully tackle in stuff like unchained. Maybe we could see a whole series of it.

In particular the ranged combat thing (Crossbows, Bows and guns) has always boiled down to full attacks. Crossbows are supposed to load slower then bows, guns slower then that, which obviously is true, but in the real world, it doesnt take 18 arrow hits to kill someone. So one shot with a crossbow or gun is sufficient. But the game is designed around iterative attacks, which bows are good in, other ranged weapons not so much. Address the full attack issue and we can probably put the bow vs crossbow vs gun issue to bed relatively easily.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

One thing to note that there is little to compare modern shoes and clothing to that of a previous age in terms of durability and longevity. Magic enhancements aside, leather boots didnt just last years, they lasted generations. As set of armor did too. Things were made to last far more back in the day then they are now. Well made leather boots from the mideval erra dont wear out. Neither to guantlets. They might be broken or cut, we have rules for that, its called sunder.

Leaving aside the magical upgrades. Baring direct damage (sunder) theres no reason adventuring gear should wear out.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you are permitted 3rd party material, the rogue genius games talented monk and talented rogue (which basically takes the classes and their archetypes and breaks everything down into talents that you can choose each level) have rules for mixing the two with relative freedom without multiclassing. Only thing you cant to is combine offensive options (SA and flurry).

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
It isn't, however, a part of every person's D&D. Just because there were D&D modules that incorporate technology didn't mean that the DM was therefore obligated to incorporate technology into any campaign that they run. I had never played nor run a game with anything more modern than the old, crappy arquebus before Pathfinder--not because it didn't exist but because that wasn't how we rolled. Some folks still don't roll that way. That's fine.

It wasnt just modules. Rules for laser guns have been in dmgs since Adnd. And I certainly get that its not everyone's preference. And certainly it doesnt fit every campaign.

But the issue I have is the idea many have that it should NEVER fit into a fantasy game. And that's sort of what I have a problem with. Its the whole 'I'm taking my ball and going home' mentality. The intollerance and refusal to find a way to incorporate someone else's fun into your own. Is it really unreasonable for someone to expect their friend to over months or even years eventually run a campaign that includes something they want to try? Why does it 'ruin' a campaign to have a region like numeria in it? Or alkenstar? Is it really a world shattering horror?

At some point it stops being a matter of 'how you roll' and starts being about being a jerk to your friends. I have no idea where that line is, and I am sure everyone's milage will vary. But anyone who says never to a concept(not like specific rule, but a concept) proposed by their friend to include in a game they run is over some period of time, being a jerk.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Umbral Reaver wrote:

Often, it's for a sense of balance.

You can gain power from magic or technology. Pick your favourite flavour.

If you can gain power from both then it's likely that technomagical characters will reign supreme, having twice the power.

This is a total cop out. If there is an imbalance, there's a problem with the rules, not the concept. Its almost always the concept that is regected. People who have problems with the rules just generally change them.

There were tons of anti iron gods and technology guide posts long before the actual rules were discovered.

And that balance isnt really hard to manage, just make them draw from the same resource pool You gain technology either through treasure, or through class abilities. Since both of those are also how you gain magical power, you dont get double power, you get part of one and part of the other. If everything is valued properly theres never an issue.

As for why people reject the concept, no idea...its been a part of dnd since there was a dnd, actually before. The dying earth (you know, where the concept of dnd magic comes from) was science and sorcery, with space ships and flying cars along side wizards and magic items. But some people prefer a revisionist vision of the history of both the fantasy genre and dnd in general, claiming the dont want any new fangled laser guns on their lawns.

Me I am running iron gods. I love me some robots and laser with magic and elves. No real reason I need to segregate the things I like (science fiction and fantasy). Lets strap some rocket launchers and power armor on that dragon and lets do this.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Uwotm8 wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Backwards compatibility will still be a goal because Paizo isn't going to want to invalidate their entire PF catalog to date, especially since PF was born out of a contentious edition change where many people refused the new edition before it even hit the shelves.
I don't think this is nearly as large an issue as most seem to think it is, Paizo staff included. The only fundamental changes to their APs would be monster stats which can be solved with updated bestiaries and interim conversion guides and skill challenges which can also be handled mostly through a conversion guide. Most other things are soft references to mechanics such as stating a cave in happens or the PCs need to cross a lava river, environmental stuff, et al. Their APs and modules are written such you can easily preserve the story and setting.

Well first off, a change could make specific monsters inappropriate challenges for a given character level, or make the progression of the adventure not line up (XP differences for instance). You could also see changes to things like how magic items work which would require revisions. Certain adventures also have specific spells as part of plot points, and a new edition could either eliminate, change the function of or change the availability of those spells.

It could also change how much of a challenge certain situations are, depending on what route the new edition takes. Yes a field of lava or a cave in is a 'soft' rules reference, but depending on what changes, it may increase or decrease in challenge. What if a single casting of fly becomes most of a wizard's resources at 6th level because he instead has an array of at will powers that eliminate the 15 minute work day. A pit that was once a minor obstacle, could become a major challenge or even completely impassable. What if an adventure had an encounter in a room with fire elementals that slowly filled with lava, but the new edition changes how fire immunity and fire resistance works.

What if skills are changed and for instance, social skill require a series of rolls, or the use of other in class abilities. Tons of what were meant to be minor interactions in adventures could turn into hour long slogs through something minor but important. It could also cause a huge amount of society scenarios to run over time.

Speaking of pathfinder society. Think what a new edition could do to what amounts to a very important part of paizo's business model. Hundreds of scenarios would either need revision, or to be dropped, leaving big gaps in what is available. Countless characters would need conversion (potentially with problems depending on how the current pfs model lines up with the new model). And even with revision, pfs scenarios are designed to run in a certain amount of time. There is every chance that the new edition will change how long encounters take making the revisions required of those scenarios even greater then those of adventure paths or modules.

Then there is the rest of their catalogue. Hundreds of companion and campaign setting books which are not soft references to mechanics, and which would have significant portions of their content made irrelevant. Paizo makes more then just adventures even if adventures are their flagship product. Every feat, talent, prestige class, archetype (heck archetypes might not even be a thing in a new edition) and spell would require considerable conversion, or be useless. That is hundreds of thousands if not millions of words of content that would be significantly less useful with a new edition. Paizo has many print copies of said content still in their warehouse, and they are also aware of how much money fans have spent on copies they no longer have in their warehouse. It is in fact a very big issue. Even setting aside the rpg line entirely, there is a huge potential loss on both paizo and their customer's side from a new edition of the game.

I think you vastly underestimate how much a new edition COULD (note this entirely depends on how much changes) invalidate existing content.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Skeld wrote:

I doubt Pathfinder 2e is going to be the panacea that many people seem to expect. Any new edition is going to be backward compatible to the current edition because Paizo isn't going to want to alienate at great many of their customer base by invalidating their entire current catalog (at least the mechanical bits of it).

It's more likely that pathfinder will issue stealth changes through books like Unchained, where the "edition change" is really just a new set of options that can be played alongside existing options.


If it is going to be backwards compatable whats the point of a new edition? It wont fix the 'issues' that are the bigest problems. If you go back to all the 'what do you want out of pathfinder 2E' threads few of those ideas would go well with backwards compatability.

If you arent going to go for a redesign why not just make those minor tweaks in house. Release updated stealth/perception rules and new write ups for a couple classes. New edition not required. Heck we might see all of that in unchained itself.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Block initiative is sort of an issue in a game where action enconmy really matters. 4-5 players all going to go before the enemy usually ends up with a much easier encounter, and if all the enemies in larger encounters go before the players you end up with a much harder encounter. Whenever there happens to end up a block initiative (where all one side goes then all of the other) it has generally been a serious problem in the encounter.

Participants getting to react amidst enemy actions is generally pretty important to the flow of a good encounter. I would expect this to create a lot more problems then it fixes.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
memorax wrote:
When possible I would want to use the current edition the longest. Eventually though depending on how many rules issues or flaws a rpg has it may require a new edition. While certainly doing something like PF Unchained is a good thing there is only so many books one can add to the core system as well. Another problem is keeping the edition unchanged. A PF 2E without major changes is going to sell well. Just nas well as PF 1E did imo. We have two edtions of D&D that are similar. One that is pretty much 3.5 with maybe 10% new material added in. Asking fans to reinvest 120$ in another rehash is simply not the way to go. Better to keep the system as is and keep adding more Unchained books to the core. For all the talk about backwards compability I see more and more fans just using PF only. So it's not even that bog a issue if it is imo.

It is less of an issue now then it was 5 years ago. But it was for many when they started. With just the core rules, your options were VERY limited. The backwards compatability allowed you to have some variety using 3.5 material until more was released for pathfinder. It would be years before a new edition of pathfinder reached the same state. Even on day one, I was more or less only interested in trying one concept out of just the core rules. It was the wealth of 3rd party options and the eventual addition of the APG that kept me interested.

I am more or less done with the core classes conceptually. A non-backwards compatable edition of pathfinder would be a non-starter for me, there wouldn't be anything I was excited to play, or see played when I dm.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:

So let's say there are a couple of new players. Neither of them has ever played any version of D&D before. Neither of them is interested at all in casting spells: one wants to play an elf fighter like Legolas, and the other wants to play a thief like Gord the Rogue. In addition to the CRB, which books should they get to have everything they need to make characters that will be viable in a game where the other party members are a blaster wizard, a summoner, and a druid?

They should get d20pfsrd or the prd. They dont have to buy anything. They might possibly want to pick up the strategy guide in print, as that might be something they'd want to read fairly heavily. The rest of the books are REFERENCES. You dont need them during play. There is nothing forcing anyone to 'buy all the books'. Paizo has actually been supremely generous in that regard for specifically this reason. No one should be forced to buy a ton of books just to get to play.

And what specifics they want will depend on their actual vision of their characters. 'Like legolas' can mean a lot of things. And pathfinder 2.0 will almost certainly not make it any easier to create a specific vision of a character. They will still have to wade through different choices to find the ones that fit. Thats what an option rich game like pathfinder requires.

I am not familiar with Gord, but if I had to choose for legolas, I'd probably go with a zen archer. Nimble, good at acrobatics, and shoots a ton of arrows while still being able to fight close up.

But all of that ignores the overwhelmingly subjective term 'viable'. After all a core rulebook archery focused fighter can put out a ton of damage, and that might satisfy the player, or it might not, thats all perspective, and again it's unlikely a pathfinder 2.0 will make that any simpler, given that it can only have so many options in it. Some concepts wont be achievable with what's there regardless of changes to the core mechanics. Thats why we add to the rules in the first place.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mattastrophic wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
I am tired of the rotating editions. I am happy to address the problems and challenges of the game as it exists...

I see. So what you're saying is that the Core rulebook is becoming an obsolete product, but that's okay, because we can rely on the veterans who own everything to support the game, and because new players are perfectly capable of purchasing everything required to have a "fixed" game? And they'll just magically figure out which rules materials are included in this "fixed" game and which aren't?


Who said the core rulebook is becoming obsolete? 2 of the classes in the core rules might be, but the other 9, all the feats, spells, and everything else are not.

Heck even the contents of those 2 classes are still relavent as they are referenced elsewhere. Thats like 10 pages of a multi hundred page book. That doesnt make the core rules obselete.

And by fixing within the system, I am talking about things like Unchained, where we are given the opportunity to make changes without re-writing the game.

As for new players having to purchages a 'fixed' game, they dont have to purchase a things. Unchained like all the rulebook line will be on the prd. Its easy enough for people to point them there.

New players dont read the core rules cover to cover anyway. Rewriting the core rules wont help them. Products like the upcoming strategy guide which at least on it's billing will help new players make 'good' choices within the web of options available will. Again, 'fixes' without rewriting the base rules is what I want. And it isnt all that hard to do either. It might replace a few options from existing products, but there isnt a need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fundamental rules work as well as any d20 rpg. It's only specific options that need attention.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mattastrophic wrote:

Kolokotroni: The points in your post about there being a range of power levels in the Core, a range which has been recognized over the years, would that range not be a great reason to launch 2ndEd?


Not really, fixing the problems doesnt require a re-write. It requires additions. Some of that has been resolved since the core, some of it could stand for additional material.

What I do think it calls for is stuff like unchained. A set of optional rules that can work to deal with certain problems. Where you can say, hey, have a problem with x? Here's a different take on x. What I want is for every character to be as awesome as a well played/built wizard or druid. And I want the tools to create those in every general concept. If that means people stop playing rogues as a class, I dont mind so long as the concept is still acheivable.

My agrument against a 2nd Ed is quite distinct from rules issues. It has more to do with the fact that I simply dont want to have to buy the same books another time, nor do I want the robust set of options that exist in the game to be drastically paired down. Nor do I want the setting and adventure material I have to become less useful.

I LIKE lots of options, so a 2nd ed would take the game from a state that I like (where I feel like I can create most any character) to a state I dont (where I feel like the available options without homebrew or conversion are extremely limited). The reality is, I am more or less (as a player) done with the core classes. I've played them conceptually for 20 years. Theres nothing left in the tank for the basic 11 for me. I would literally have no interest in playing a new game that was once again reduced to the core rules. And I wouldn't be willing to wait years and spend hundreds of dollars again to get back to a state that I like only to have it repeat itself.

I am tired of the rotating editions. I am happy to address the problems and challenges of the game as it exists within the current edition, either with things like unchained or house rules, but there is very little chance that a 2nd ed of pathfinder wouldn't drive me away from the game as a customer.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
If you take just the core rules and the apg as your baseline (The apg is really where pathfinder became it's own game in my opinion, and no one is going to tell me there was a bloat problem at that point), no party you could create now is more powerful then what could be created there. And most of what can be created in both cases will sit in the middle range of power, with a relatively small amount of outliers on either side. That is a good thing, and its not power creep, its a more complete game.
I'm not sure I agree with that. While most of the new classes haven't contributed to power growth too much (arcanist and maybe summoner, excepted), there are feats, spells and other options that have boosted the power and versatility of those original top tier classes.

I certainly agree there are some outliers, and some abilities that when combined in specific ways are problematic, but to me at least, it seems relatively easy to limit those specific combinations. And certainly its easier to do cut out a handfull of feats and spells then it is to make sherlock holmes or an effective swashbuckler using the core rules, is it not?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deathknight69 wrote:
Damn That sux. I was looking forward to this. Does Pathfinder have anything comparable to RoT ??

Well paizo has a ton of really good prewritten adventures if that is what you mean. I am not overly familiar with the elements of RoT, but from what I know, you might want to check out the rise of the runelords adventure path. There are a fair amount of parallels as both are meant to be sort of classic dndish adventures that start small in scale and expand as players discover a greater power at work.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
yazo wrote:
My race is human, my feats are Weapon finesse, SKill Focus Bluff, Skill Focus Sense Motive, and extra rogue talent for honeyed words. i have 11 constitution. The character wasn't meant to be combat focused and i dont want to invest a bunch of feats into dervish dance etc. he is built for skills, but it seems the other players can do it without my skills.

One of the things you have to take into account when creating a character is the game you are joining. Particularly the dm. If the dm isn't known for his social encounters, or his trap filled/sneaky adventures focusing on those aspects isnt going to be helpful. If you are playing a social intrigue game, social skill will shine, if you are playing a pure kick in the door dungeon delver (which it sounds like) you arent going to shine with that focus.

Talk to your dm about the kind of game he intends to run. One of the things that a style choice is to avoid things that are focused on only a single character. It seems to me like he wants to do that. The locked chest and locked door are just little minor obstacles to be rushed past to get to the fights. Where as trap focused or even social focused games often tend to spend alot of time with only one player participating when they are the hands down best at that thing. Its entirely possible your dm intends to avoid those sorts of things.

So talk to the dm, find out what kind of game you are playing in, and make changes accordingly. And have the same kind of conversation for every game you join.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
NotHenryNotJilian wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

I don't truly think anyone can say there has been no power creep.

Otherwise there wouldn't be a growing argument that "fighter, cleric and rogue are obsolete"

Swashbuckler and Slayer are CLEAR examples of power LEAP never mind creep

Are Slayers really that powerful? I mean, hasn't rogue been known to be a really weak class since forever? Making a class more powerful than the rogue isn't really a sign of power leap, more like actually getting a class properly balanced.
I agree that the rogue is a pretty low bar to jump over, and one that should be jumped over too. However, if you move up the baseline strength of classes, you're also increasing the average class strength of the game, so it could be construed as power creep.

If you move the baseline, then yes that is power creep. But the bottom isnt the baseline, it is BELLOW the baseline. The baseline for the core game is the paladin, barbarian, bard, ranger and sorceror. The top end is the wizard, cleric and druid, and the bottom end was the rogue, monk and fighter.

If the new options have a similar power spread, then there isnt power creep. And if you really look at it, each major release of options has had a very similar spread of 'power' since the apg. A couple of options or classes that were in the high power spectrum and decried as 'OVERPOWERED', a few that were the opposite, and a whole bunch somewhere in between the rogue and the druid often leaning more towards the rogue then the druid.

Otherwise you are saying that since the rogue, monk and to a degree the fighter were sub par in the core rules ANY character that fits a concept within those areas must REMAIN subpar throughout the life of the game.

In fact, I think paizo has hit the middle a fair larger amount of times then it has hit the high or low end of the spectrum. Particularly in the base class area. If the majority of characters made with the current options do their job about as well as the paladin/bard/barbarian then we have a sound game. And for the most part, that is true.

What we do have is MORE concepts able to hit that area. Where as a group might have had a rogue, or a monk in them which early in the game under performed, now they can perform considerably better with similar concepts. But they arent better at their job then a paladin is at smiting evil bad guys, or a barbarian is at smashing face or a bard is at buffing and social skills.

We dont have power creep, we have power equalization. The bottom has been brought up, but the top remained in tact for the most part, and the mean, if not the average, amount of power has actually become more consistent throughout the various potential concepts.

If you take just the core rules and the apg as your baseline (The apg is really where pathfinder became it's own game in my opinion, and no one is going to tell me there was a bloat problem at that point), no party you could create now is more powerful then what could be created there. And most of what can be created in both cases will sit in the middle range of power, with a relatively small amount of outliers on either side. That is a good thing, and its not power creep, its a more complete game.

In 2009, if I wanted to play a sneaky skilled guy who can fight, I had to jump through alot of hoops. Now I can play a slayer. If I wanted to play sherlock holms, lots of hoops. Now, I play investigator. The supposed bloat has made it easier to create effective (read: On par with the paladin, barbarian, bard, sorceror and ranger) characters of more varied concepts. The rogue isnt sacred. The fighter isnt sacred. The game as a whole is better for the options that have been added. More complicated, probably. But it is better, where better is defined as how good a tool the game is to create specific character concepts and have them participate in being heroic adventurers.

The summoner, arcanist and a hand full of specific feat/archetype choices that create actual problems are a welcome challenge if it means that I and the people at my table can more easily create and tell the characters and stories we want to tell.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There are two elements here. One is the group the person in question gms. The other is the group the person in question plays in. They are related but you sort of have to approach both a little differently.

First and foremost, if you expect fallout if you leave the game that could affect the game you actually like, talk to everyone, especially the gm first. Explain what you've explained. See what they think, where they are at. Heck they might all be on the same page.

Then talk to the person in question away from the game. Preferably in person. Explain you arent enjoying the game. Explain the fact that play style differences are causing tension in your actual friendship and that isnt a good thing. There really isnt a reason to condemn or blame him. Just break it off. Gaming is a relationship. Leaving a game is breaking up with someone. You can shout and throw things, but it isnt going to do anyone any good. Leave gracefully. If you can go to a party where an ex will be, you can play in a game with a gm whose game you left. Just treat it similarly.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Artanthos wrote:

The Puritan colonies in 17th century New England would be a good example of a lawful good society.

Not that any of us would want to live there.

Lawful perhaps. I'd have a lot of trouble calling it good.

The salen witch trials in the late 17th century give me more then trouble calling it good.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Paizo's generous open gaming liscense is more or less the reason I am here. I like the game, but it isn't perfect. It is however convenient, I am able to share information on the books I buy with my entire group with relative ease via the prd or srd, and it encourages me to buy more. Things like perrams spellcard generator has literally revolutionized the difficulty in playing casters. Players in my group who normally stick to very simple characters are playing complex characters because they can put all that information at their fingertips.

That liscense has also created a very heathy 3rd party community, which, aside from supporting their game and growing the player base further, has provided direct revenue through sales on their online store. All the pdfs and books from 3rd party companies I and countless others have bought through paizo is practically free money for them (obviously they still have warehousing and server costs, but still, its way less then the cost of developing the products themselves). That wouldnt exist without the same mentality that allows us to create the srd, or perrams spellcards.

And all that lets them focus primarily on their thing, their adventures and their setting, which aside from being really good, is renewable. Not every group will want new rulebooks. Some will, some wont. Those that do can go to the robust 3rd party community, and those that dont, still need stories. Paizo is in the business of selling stories. And the thing about that is, you can have 20 adventures where you play the same wizard. But you wont play the same adventure 20 times with different characters. Setting and adventure material are a renewable resource. Every game session is leading to you buying more.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DMJB83 wrote:

I have never been the kind of Gm that says we need a balanced party whatever you feel like playing as long as we have the source books to support it is fine. Now that has caused an issue, the latest campagin I began to run I have 7 pcs no biggie adjust encounters with things like max hp for notable npcs and add more mooks and sometimes tougher mooks.

The problem was that after everyone one prepared their characters the shake down ended up as follows.

1 human vanilla paladin twf sword and board
2 human paladin hospitaler
3 monkey person ranger sorry cant recall name of that right now
4 human gunslinger/inquistor
5 human brawler
6 human illuluiosnist
7 teifling gunslinger

The problem is the about of damage they throw down is just crazy.
they quickly wipe crs of them +6-8 with little problem. Any suggestions on how to keep things chalenging for them? I'm not try to utterly destory them as they are level 8 I dont plan to throw a cr20 their way, but In dont want them to be bored with such easy combat.

There are a couple important things at work here. You need to be aware of all of them, and manage it.

First off the basics: The game assumes you will have one primary combatant and maybe one or two secondary combatants. In your party you have 6. They probably put out as much damage as 4 'standard' parties. If they are optimized or have better then a 15 point buy the disparity will be even greater.

Second, you have alot of players. Action economy matters in pathfinder, like alot. You also have a wide variety of damage dealers. Paladins are generally good at taking down a single target, brawlers can lay down hurt against multiple targets, gunslingers are ranged, the ranger might also be ranged (you didnt specify). So any single thing you do wont necessarily make the encounters more challenging.

My advice:

Step 1. No single enemy encounters. Heck no encounters with fewer then 5 enemies. And that doesnt mean throwing in 'mooks'. There should be at least 5 meaningful enemies in every fight. With 2 paladins and 2 gunslingers, you simply dont have the option of a single big bad guy in a fight. There should be 4 of them. Of equal or near equal strength. Have the big bad guy and his 4 powerful leutenants. Mooks are fine, but they wont extend encounters. You need multiple enemies in every fight that are a meaningful threat. That way, one round of full attacks from 2-3 characters cant wipe out the primary objective of an encounter.

This also has the advantage of bringing the action economy back towards your favor. And it is among the better ways to beef up encounters for lots of players. Each bad guy is the same threat to any individual party member, where as buffing one or two bad guys to try to survive against a 7 person damage dealing party is going to lead to disaster. So build your encounters to a CR of around APL+5 or +6, but do it with at least 5 opponents having crs right around APL.

Step 2. Consider your party's standard operating procedure in combat. Every group has one. They are a team after all. Try to come up with situation that disrupts that somehow. Dont outright negate the characters, just require a little bit of extra trouble to get into position, or otherwise bring their badassery to bear. Paladins in armor have trouble with difficult terrain, acrobatics checks, gaps to jump over, etc. Ranged characters might have trouble with concealment in fog that blocks line of sight past a certain distance, things like that. This will not only make encounters more challenging, but they will also allow different characters to shine more at different times.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Who would trust a 'space' ship that is apparently advanced enough to get to alpha centauri, but some how has an arbitrarily small amount of digital storage space for 10 'movies' which can vary wildling in length, file size and format....


1-3. lord of the rings extended cut
4. Blade Runner - Super Extended Cut
5. Boondock Saints
6. Rounders
7. Robin Hood, Men in Tights
8. Pitch Perfect
9. Kung Fu Hustle
10. Blazing Saddles

But really i'd just sneak a portable hardrive on with me and load digital conversions of my entire movie and tv show collection.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Rogue genius games has a set of archetypes that function differently then paizo archetypes. They can be added to any class by trading a specific set of abilities from that class for the archetype. One of the options for trade is the bard's spells. So in theory the bard could take any one of them to make a spelless bard

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My wayang witch was played as extremely creepy and sort of the thing of nightmares, and has a unique high pitched sort of breathy but low volume voice. No one thought his cackle was creepy. Though a few members of my group asked me to stop due to being creeped out. I didnt. But they asked. It doesnt have to be long and certainly not continuous, but if you aren't going to roleplay a cackle, why play a witch in the first place?

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I generally start any adventure path at 2nd level, and from that point follow the recommended level by point in the story. It generally works pretty well, and just requires a little ramp up of early encounters.

My feeling is 2nd level is still low enough where theres no fundamental changes to what the characters can do, but you are a bit more of whatever your character does, and a second hd makes one shots a lot less likely.

When I am running my own game, I generally start higher then that (usually about 6th level). I generally dont like low level play, but since i have been running mostly aps lately its not really avoidable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Honestly, most of the summoners issues are fixed if there are simply set or mostly set templates for eidolons, similar to animal companions. Maybe allow a few additional evolutions as you level, but mostly it shouldn't be a choice. All classes have things in thier concept that arent a choice and are more flavor then anything else. Particularly with the ever popular comparison of the druid you have things like wild empathy, and animal companions getting scent or what have you. Some of their 'stuff' doesn't go into sheer power. Make something too flexible and the 'power' options become really obvious and require little effort to include.

Summoners as they stand come out hyper optimized with little effort. Where as the druid requires considerable knowledge of the game and optimization to churn out the same, and possibly a more potent result. If you take the pouncing animal companion, get it custom barding, make a solid combat druid, and prep the right spells, you will be just as powerful if not more then any legal summoner by mid levels. But you have to make the right choices. Choose a wolf companion (thematically a good combat choic) and you have drastically reduced your effectiveness), dont emphasize physical stats and combat feats, or dont prep the right spells, and your combat abilities while wild shaped are limited. It all takes a lot of 'right' choices.

Adding more claws to an eidolon is a no brainer. And the summoners spell list is significantly less complicated then a druid's. So for every group that doesn't devote lots of effort to optimization, the summoner is a problem.

There are certainly specific evolutions that need work, but if you just create a fixed progression for all or most of them, it becomes far less of a problem. Less room for problematic interactions, or stacking points into a specific area. Hopefully this gets sorted out in unchained.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you want a non-magical option, there is CYTILLESH EXTRACT from the alchemy manual. It removes the previous hour of memories and prevents new one from being made for 8 hours. A device that injected you with that would work quite well.

1 to 50 of 8,370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.