|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
hhhmm...Robots strike me as a bit too technological to make a whole lot of sense for familiars. One of the major differences between them and things like clockworks or golems is that they specifically constructed using science, not magic.
As for Bestiary 5, yeah the robots from this (and the Numeria book) would be fair game, and they are an obvious new creature type to add in, like adding psychopomps to Bestiary 4.
Abberations are my favorite part of the game, and So I hope Iron Gods will give me a lot of cool ones that can migrate to Bestiary 5.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I saw the first movie in a theater, it was disappointing but could have been worse. Saw the second one, but solely to MST3K it with friends, since we heard it was ridiculous. After that I realized paying money to see something bad is just encouraging them to make more, and haven't bothered to see the last two intentionally. I did see a good chunk of the third one on cable, still didn't think it was good.
I think we can dismiss ideas it might be part of a box set or some sort of super large volume. That would play havoc with the submission model, which sort of depends on people paying a rather fixed price every month or so for a volume.
I kind of think it might very well be Aboleths + Absalom, which would be pretty classic and also tie into a key location for Golarion and the Pathfinder Society. Also I feel like they have been slowly building up Aboleths in the last few years, especially with information on the fall of Azlant, Veiled Masters, etc.
as mentioned upthread, Pathfinder discarded that rule. Number of worshippers has absolutely no impact on a God's existence or her power. See Lissala for instance.
Ari Kanen wrote:
I am curious to see how 5E turns out, but I think it's really really really too early to see how much 5E is a DM's game. Right now it's early in the game, and so they need to set up the basics, which is going to be pretty GM friendly. I would be willing to bet we will see a lot more player support than DM support, simply because it's more profitable and that was the pattern for the last two editions of the game.
It is simpler right now, but again I think complexity may very well increase, even if its at a lesser rate than 3.5/Pathfinder.
Personally my vision of an artificer class is a largely non-magical class that comes with a bombs, robot/clockwork companion which grows in power over time, and can apply temporary buffs to weapons as well as fixing stuff. I really don't see how it's needs to be a magic factory, anymore than a alchemist has to be a potion factory.
I'm going to be a bit of a Debbie Downer and say that of the classes not already known to be in PU, I personally believe that Sorceror probably isn't in need of an unchained treatment.
If you take the principal that unchained is about radically altering classes without caring about backwards compatibility, Sorcerer isn't commonly derided as being weak (like rogue or monk), overpowered (like Summoner) or overcomplicated (I guess for Barbarian).
I mean don't get me wrong, you could do a completely new version of sorcerer in it, I just don't think its as widely called for as other classes, and would largely be for flavor reasons. Not that their is anything wrong with doing it for flavor reasons, but then you could argue the same for just about any class probably, depending on how individuals felt about it
Really if they were going to do unchained treatments of 9 level casters, they should really do new versions of all of them, and try to bring down the power level. Although I do hope there are some more magic systems and other stuff here for playing casters
So as expected, this thread devolved into another caster vs martial thread, instead of actually talking about changes that could be made to either side.
To continue the above tangent however, just a few notes:
Why do people keep talking about Zeus releasing a Kraken? and then bringing up stuff from mythology? Guys...Kraken is from Norse Mythology...Zeus only ever released a "Kraken" in movies, because the Kraken wasn't part of Greek myth. Zeus/Poseidon did at times unleash sea monsters (Ceto, etc), but none of them have Pathfinder stats.
Zeus did slay Campe to release the cyclops and hetancheires (sp?). Campe is a Drakaina, which in Bestiary 4 is I think CR 22 (and Campe being a legendary one could very well have additional class/template levels)
Not that I think these discussions have absolutely any utility at all. Because as it turns out, mythology/comics/novels were not written with a rpg rule set in mind. If an rpg can't emulate certain ideas presented in those mediums, than either you are using the wrong rpg or it's a failing of the system.
Numeria I think is actually a bit easier to deal with then Alkenstar. Gun technology as it exists in Golarion can be pretty easily copied by other parties, and should realistically be more widespread. In my own version of Golarion...firearms are a bit more widespread and frequently used than in the publisher's version.
Numerian tech is so advanced that large chunks of it couldn't be properly recreated even by our technology, nevertheless pseudo medieval societies. A lot of it is nonfunctional or malfunctioning as well.
I imagine there would be a bit of a collector trade going on with Numerian tech if your removed the theme park isolation, but mostly it would be treated as oddities and curios. A few functional laser guns or sets of power armor are not going to change the overall setting, especially since a lot of the function of high tech can be more easily replicated and produced using magic.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Various Paizo devs have said that it's likely they will do some sort of Psychic magic system, that will be vancian, and not use power points. Psychic magic is at any rate already built into the setting, with Vudra and Castrovel.
In general...it's easier to buff a class than nerf it. Since any nerf you do, no matter how valid, will incite rage in some proportion of players. Personally I am hoping Pathfinder unchained might offer some solution on this matter, although in general I don't think fighter is as problematic as some people think.
Really...my issue is that a common trope of magic in fiction is that you pay a price to use it, and the more powerful a magic the greater risk and danger involved in using it.
DnD pretty much took the route of providing powerful magic, but in simplifying it for the game they removed most of the risk associated with it. If wizards had to seriously consider if their world altering spells might blow up in their face or require some sort of sacrifice besides some gold or spell slot usage, mundane character classes might have more opportunities to shine.
One of the recent modules that dealt with the Dominion of the Black has a monster whose abilities are taken from DSP, and this resource is cited. I think it Doom comes to Dustpawn, but it could have been Dragon's Demand.
Moot point anyway. If Paizo takes on psychic powers, it will probably use a system similar to Vancian, as no one at Paizo is a huge fan of power points.
Wolfgang...that's great and all, but:
Insain Dragon has kept telling people to vote for whether they want an unchained fighter, and keeps citing those poll numbers. Certainly Odraude's point is relevant if at this point in the forum history a lot of people do their best at this point to avoid any discussion whatsoever of fighters. Which means that the poll is going to select towards people who are very unhappy with the fighter.
My guess for why they have knowledge: engineering is because of siege tactics
Having read through Wrath of the Righteous and Reign of Winter, from the GM side, I don't really see too much problems. Role playing encounters are some of the easiest thing to adapt or expand upon. I'd rather have to tweak encounters to add a little more diplomacy or what have you, then have to generate a lot of stat blocks for enemies/encounters.
Reign of Winter didn't really make the cut off for the last Bestiary, although somehow the weasels got in...
"peaks head up"
I actually don't think the fighter needs a big enough boost to rewrite from scratch.
I do agree on the skill points problem.
Honestly I think generally changing how combat works so that fighters can be more mobile without losing full attack. That could be built into the fighter as a class, or just become the result of a change to combat rules, either of which could be in the PU book.
I do hope that if a new version of the fighter makes the book (which also wouldn't distress me unduly), that they keep the new design simple. That the fighter lacks a lot of fidgety bits (unlike say the wizard, or some of the other classes) is a big plus for the class IMHO.
"ducks for cover"
I think the reason such an approach hasn't been done is a combination of multiple factors:
Not every monster that makes it into a AP/module/CS book is necessarily well loved by everyone at Paizo.
Concern that people would be unlikely to buy a book composed solely of monsters that already exist. At least with the current bestiaries, their is a good mix of new creatures in with the old
Difficulty in making future bestiaries: If Paizo wants to do a "normal" bestiary book, say Bestiary 5, their are less existing monsters to draw from. Which means the devs have to spend more time developing the book, and also commission a lot more new art. Which at this point, might result in not getting another Bestiary, since the profit to work margin will decline.