|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Myth Lord wrote:
A lot of people also loved 4E. A lot of people also hate Pathfinder. None of which really matter in regards to 5e, since it is neither 4E nor Pathfinder.
As for the first Monster Manual, I doubt anyone is surprised that it mostly consists of the required / expected monsters. Pathfinder's first Bestiary did the same, as did Monster Manual 4e, Monster Manual 3.5, Monster Manual 3.0, and Monster Manual 1e. So two did the first couple of volumes of the 2e Monstrous Compendium.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
no more followers than their Leadership allows
Question for you. If the king of a nation doesn't have the Leadership feat, does that mean he can't even command his own royal guard, much less his armies?
Speaking of armies, if a king's Leadership feat does limit that nation's army, then how do you deal with the fact that a decently optimized mid-level party with decent tactics can essentially completely overthrow the entire military might of any conceivable nation?
If a party invades Hell with the express purpose of killing an archdevil, does only that archdevil's personal summons get to engage the party?
For certain individuals, a strict adherence to WBL or number of followers makes no sense. If you are the king of a nation, a being of vast power in the multiverse, or even the head of government for a decent-sized city, you have "followers" that don't depend on your (possibly non-existent) Leadership feat, and you should basically ignore WBL.
Myth Lord wrote:
People always give females compliments... What are they after?
Sometimes people aren't "after" anything.
Myth Lord wrote:
Anyway, I really hope this bestiary isn't 50% sciencefiction and 50% fantasy.
I agree. 50% science-fiction, 40% horror, and 10% fantasy would be a much better ratio.
You don't look for a god of petty evil among the big 20. Even if a god of petty evil was a full god, in the hierarchy of evil, they would probably fall well below thousands of evil demigods. Who do you think the leaders of Hell, the Abyss, and Abaddon will respect more: the demigod of murder, or the god of malicious inconvenience?
baron arem heshvaun wrote:
In the actual canon, he's pretty inept. In ESB, Vader scolds him like a child, and he takes a frozen Han after the Empire does the work of freezing him. In RotJ, he get outfought by a half-blind Han, and falls into a giant sand vagina.
Any version of D&D (and PF as well): Moments after Gandalf confirmed that it was The One Ring, he teleported Frodo and himself to Mt. Doom. Frodo tosses in the Ring, Sauron is vanquished, and what was a trilogy becomes a (very) short story.
Milo v3 wrote:
Cool. So they nerf a single spell every 5 years.
By the year 3000, Pathfinder 1E might be decently balanced!
That is, assuming that the FAQ/errata for Simulacrum actually nerfs it, instead of buffing it.
it is a pointless argument because Paizo and WOTC are rival companies, and 'bounded accuracy' is 5e's trademark. It is what defines the two different systems and game publishers.
Yeah. And who could possibly imagine Paizo "borrowing" any concepts from WotC for their system. Ridiculous!
I hated Lifeforce when I first saw it on 1980's cable TV, then gave it a second chance a couple years ago - I found I didn't mind it too much at all on second viewing, and I really enjoyed a lot of the imagery, especially that wonderfully Gothic alien ship.
That's not the wonderful imagery that most watch that movie for. :D
0e, 1e, the flavors of Basic D&D, and 2 were unbalanced. But, in my opinion, comparing their level of unbalance to that in 3.x/PFRPG is akin to comparing a running faucet to a fire hydrant with the value fully opened. And part of that is because they didn't make many adjustments to spells when they changed from 2e to 3.0.
The change from 2e to 3.0 was a VERY substantial change. For the most part, I think practically everyone can agree with this. When you change the underlying system, but you don't change certain elements, then those elements are going to react differently in the new system.
Imagine if they had taken the same approach with monsters. Imagine, for example, that an Ancient Red Dragon had the following stats:
This is an Ancient Red Dragon...the most terrifying non-unique evil dragon in the world. In 3.x/PFRPG terms, it underwhelms, doesn't it?
Why? Because if you change the underlying system, the how the elements you don't change will react differently.
Contributing to this, as Steve also pointed out, 3.0 also reduced or removed most of the checks on a spellcaster's power. They can completely nova out, and one hour of studying can refill every spell slot with just an hour of skimming through your spellbooks. You get the skill Concentration, which lets you continue to cast your spells even through things that used to automatically disrupt them. Pathfinder even did away with having to sacrifice skill points to power this. If you specialize, instead of finding spells of your opposition school impossible to cast, they're just a bit harder to cast.
Spellcasting in Oe to 2e was overpowered, that's true. But, in my opinion, using that imbalance to justify the outright brokenness of spellcasting in 3.x/PFRGP is simply telling the developers that you don't care. And they'll use that to continue to morph even more into the CASTER EDITION. Paizo already has a tendency to be quick to issue errata for any "overpowered" martial options that happen to somehow slip through when someone brings to their attention, while basically ignoring it when the same happens for spellcaster options.
(he says, as though 1st and 2nd Edition didn't contain/create 95% of those broken spells pretty much exactly as they were, anyway...)
Yes. And despite massively changing the entire underlying system, the spell descriptions were left virtually unchanged. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
So thanks for reiterating my point, even if it seems lost on you.
One thing that needs to be done is the entire spell list needs to be gone through. Virtually every spell in the game needs to be rewritten, have it's spell level adjusted, or be eliminated from the game. The problem started in 3.0, where despite large changes to the system, the spell descriptions for most spells remained untouched. A similar lazy approach was taken with both the 3.5 and Pathfinder revisions. This is something that is a decade and a half overdue.
Of course, I'm not sure if Paizo's priorities are to make a good, well-balanced game; or if they are to make spellcasters completely overpowered. It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.
Moto Muck wrote:
Rules were often vague, poorly written, confusing or just plain stupid
Not much has changed, then.
-magic items were far more imbalanced AND necessary in those editions than now
but 3.X and PF are strictly better games and are MUCH improved over the old versions
And this is my 10K post, apparently.
Pathfinder has a bias towards Good in all things. Races, Prestige Classes, etc. It's a wonder that Evil gods can get anyone to worship them at all in Golarion given that their counterparts give much better benefits.
That's actually pretty prevalent throughout D&D as a whole. Take, for example, dragons. Compare the five chromatic dragons to the five metallic dragons. The metallic ones, when compared to their equivalent chromatic, are more powerful. Same with angels vs demons and devils, and in many other examples through the game.
One realization I had after watching the movie:
Stark didn't actually create Ultron. The initial robot bodies, yeah. But the Ultron AI was within the casing that also contained the Mind stone. A booby-trap set by Thanos? Seems likely, since the mid-credits scene implied he was receiving information about what was going on.
I think one of the keys would be to advertise it as a Forgotten Realms / Eberron / Dragonlance / Greyhawk / [insert setting here] film, not as a D&D film. Not only does D&D carry the stigma from the 80s Satanism scare and being a very "nerdy/geeky" hobby, it also now carries the stigma of the 2000 film and it's sequels.
I'm not saying to entirely avoid the D&D branding, but I think that Eberron: a D&D adventure would go over better than D&D: an Eberron adventure.
One thing I'll note about the Whedon discussion, he recently said that (paraphrased of course) he was separating himself from the MCU to focus on his TV series again as that's the place he likes to be.
As for him not being able to use some characters like him might have wanted to because they are key in future storylines....that's something you have to accept when you work in a pre-existing franchise...especially one that has a rough future planned out. If you don't want to deal with it, you don't accept the job.
I'm a big fan of his, but I don't consider him to be without flaws. For example, I think he has a specific range of the length of a medium that he works best in. His strengths really don't fully come out if he doesn't get enough time (IE, he needs more than just a movie or two), but I also think that he tends to fizzle out when he's given too much time (see Buffy and Angel).
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'm not sure it's a poor business decision so much as a misalignment of expectations - paizo wanted to include some pictures for which they didn't have perfect images - there's an editorial trade off between only including flawless images and covering a wider spectrum of WAR's work.
I could accept that, if some of the problem images weren't ones that Paizo holds the rights to. They manage to print out the Core Rulebook cover at a much larger size on the cover of every Core Rulebook, and it doesn't have the problems it had in Visions of WAR.
Forget Iron Man. They made a freaking Guardians of the Galaxy movie.