|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Lady Vastra, Jenny, and Commander Strax are reoccurring characters in New Who, who first appeared in "A Good Man Goes to War" and have been in several episodes since. Vastra and Strax both owed a debt to the doctor, and hence while they are friendly to him.
I dunno..I think there is a consistent moral and philosophical core to the new series. Perhaps watching a season instead of random episodes here and there would help?
You could do a lot of APs in Arcadia without having to deal with themes of colonization and such:
Just thinking about the Arcadia thread on here:
SKY CAPTAINS OF MACHU PICHU (the all caps is important)
Windigo gods: horror AP dealing with themes of desolation and loneliness, where they must venture into the savage Taiga of the North, ultimately facing a ancient and all powerful Windigo that is stirring from it's thousand years of slumber
Battle against the Syrinx: Players deal with increasing problems from resurgent monsters and enemies nations, only to realize taht the real threat is a cabal of Syrinx mages
It probably also doesn't help that baby goblins are kept in cages where they are poked and prodded at by adults. Who may or may not regularly feed them, which sometimes results in cannibalism.
Interestingly, the Advanced Race Guide leans really hard on the idea that Hobgoblins, in contrast, are evil almost entirely due to cultural reasons. Something it does do with Orcs and regular goblins by contrast.
My thinking is that, unlike with 4E, the game plan for this edition is not to gain huge numbers of people who have never played a RPG before, but rather to retain 4E users and earn back fans of earlier editions.
If they can get new people into the hobby, great. But that is not the main goal of the marketing as far as I can tell.
I think they want to keep the brand "viable", in that they are supporting a system, but everything I have heard makes it sound like they might be mostly keeping DnD alive for the purpose of novels, computer games, and other multimedia
If you talk about Psionics in relation to DnD, at least if you talk about it post 3rd edition, people will automatically assume you mean a power point system. Even Paizo recognizes that, hence psychic magic and not Psionics
As for powerpoints, I don't actually think it is overpowered in comparison to more traditional spellcasting, at least as implemented by DSP. Numerous threads on that subject on this site There are restrictions on how you use your power points, and Nova-ing si something easy to address in play.
Personally looking forward to seeing Occult Adventures, and glad it's going in a different design direction than 3.5 Psionics. We already have the latter in Dreamscarred Press, and I want to see something new.
Are they? I flipped through the players book at a bookstore the other day, and it seems like they had all of the classes that are in the Pathfinder core rulebook (+ warlock). It doesn't seem fair to say they are focusing just on a handful of classes when the game just came out. And really...I tend to think that "slow and steady" is the best way to introduce new classes, lest you overwhelm people.
And nostalgia...well it works as a business strategy. I know lots of people online are only trying the game because it reminds them of earlier editions, in some way or another.
Nope...for instance the Kineticist is stated to be a completely non-spellcaster, so it doesn't seem like it just a bunch of straight Vancian casters.
this comment...is all over the map.
It sounds like what you are really saying is "Take feedback seriously, but not only ignore playtest comments that disagree with me, but ban those people entirely from the process".
I'm glad we will have access to both the Dreamscarred Press version and the Paizo one. I wonder how long it will be before the cries of blot begin yet again.
I am pretty sure some people have been making those cries since the Advanced Player's Guide, so not sure how it is really relevant
For what its worth, I voted no. My vote will vary based on what is meant by "edition"
I don't want to see a huge overhaul of the system that renders all of my existing books useless. If a new edition was mostly:
cleaning up formatting and presentation of the rules (which is something that is really needed),
I would be okay with it. Basically....I want a revision of the rules where most of the classes/monsters/adventures still work without any real changes
Well....one thing is that I just don't want to see a radical new edition that necessitates Paizo having to republish a lot of the current books. I don't want to have to rebuy the equivalent of the APG, UC, UM, etc. I don't want to have to sit through republishing 4 new bestiaries before we get a mostly new one. Etc ad nauseum. And that is as much a "this sounds really boring" as it is money reason
I think it depends on what side of the fence you are on. Personally, I don't find criticism of Pathfinder to be stymied, or the forum to be full of "fanboys". If anything, certain sections of the forum tend towards the overly negative, to the point I usually don't post in them or pay attention to them.
Also, human psychology, at least as far as playtest suggestions. I have heard people in some of the recent threads say things along the lines of "No one ever wanted this class and it is a waste of space", while earlier on the same thread people raved about the class. People are more likely to remember the people that agreed with them and disregard playtests comments that didn't
But I don't think they necessarily are trying to compete for the 3.X crowd. I think it's been obvious from the get-go they are going after fans of rule-lite systems + DnD brand loyalists. I for one am glad they are not trying to compete for the same consumer niche as Pathfinder. That would be a bad idea for both brands.
I feel the "one and done" stream-lined system already exists...it's the Beginner Box. I suppose they could expand the rules for that into its own hardcover. Although you still run into the issue that WoTC already is released a more simplified set of rules, so presumably a good chunk of the potential audience is investing in that.
David knott 242 wrote:
Man, now I wish Bestiary 4 had Dalek expies...
The high tech numeria tech is kept in check because:
It's been thousands of years since the crash: a lot of the tech is broken or malfunctioning
A lot of it is buried (the local Kellids greatly feared it for a good part of their history), or in crashed ship-parts crawling with robots and aliens, and sometimes fatal amounts of radioactivity.
What functioning stuff that does get out gets snatched up by Technic League, who are willing to kill to keep the technology from escaping their control.
Even if you get ahold of some tech that works and you understand enough to use, power charges are limited (after which it becomes useless), and it's so advanced that you can't replicate it. A lot of Numeria tech would probably be hard to replicate with our level of technology; Most of Golarion is at best Renaissance level as far as science and engineering goes.
Emperor Point wrote:
On the other hand, another AP set in Cheliax which DIDNT go up against House Thrune would probably have been a disappointment to many.
The only thing I'm worried about is the playtest time period. Hopefully, there is going to be a much longer playtest so the rules get a better pass over.
Well...on the plus side, 6 classes might be more manageable than 10 on that front (and part of the book will be monsters, so the whole thing won't be player options). I do think 10 classes at once might have been a bit much, given Paizo's current production schedule.
although man, I do wonder about archetypes. since that potential section got a lot bigger now that ACG is out.
I assume it's neither, and more a reference to the Showtime series. Especially since the series features quite a bit of 19th century spiritualism.
While insanity can take many forms, I assume the type of crazy that is attracted to Rovagug are the folks who IRL climb up watch towers and shoot people, or burn stuff down for their jollies. So while mental problems do not equal violent criminals always, they certainly can lead to violence.
As for worship of Rovagug, it's probably not all madness. You can also get the following:
Societies/races who for whatever reason were brought up within the religion of Rovagug. members of such societies might not be insane, but having grown up around Rovagug preachings, might not really know better.
People/societies ostracized by greater society. If you have been spit upon and treated by dirt by another race/nobility/religion/etc all your life, you may relish the opportunity to rise up and destroy your persecutors. Obviously Rovagug is all about that.
Charismatic cult leaders. This sort of goes with the earlier point, but there are plenty of real life examples of people who prey on the gullible and weak-willed. In this case, you might get a cult of Rovagug that may worship him without really realizing what he is about. Also if a powerful sect of Rovagug worshipers takes control, they might be able to influence the greater population into serving Rovagug out of fear.
On the other hand, WoTC isn't necessarily the only model to follow. How long did 1E/2E last? What about other gaming systems, such as Call of Cthulhu?
Really...the radically new edition thing only started with 3E...
And based on rumors for 5E, it might be now considered an obsolete model.
We also shouldn't forget that Paizo business model actually makes it a lot harder to update than WoTC is. A radical rules revision (ala 2E -> 3E, 3E -> 4E) would result in a lot of the existing product being rendered unsaleable. Which is a problem when a main source of revenue is subscriptions and sale's through the Paizo store.
Found a pretty cool blog earlier this week by a South American cryptozoology writer:
The site has tons of obscure monsters and legends from the southern portion of South America. These include many beasts I have never heard about before, like armadillo-folk, penguin-like dwarves, and monster seals. Worth checking out
Maybe...just maybe...judge the book after its been released on the PRD, instead of rumor and posted comments?
As for the Ecclesitheurge...My guess is part of the problem is that its something that would be better off as a full class, not an archetype. baseline clerics are already really powerful, since they get 9 level casting but can also fight well and have some other bells and whistles attached to them. Kind of hard to do a 1/2 BAB divine caster that doesn't seem like a nerfed cleric when you lack the freedom of creating new mechanics for them as well.
Personally, I think bringing some elements of the bard and pairing them with a 1/2 BAB cleric could be a good way of creating such a class.
a friend just sent me this: DnD 5E Umberhulk
This is apparently a page from the monster manual. Art seems great. I really love the layout and formatting. Also this make me hopeful each monster will get a whole page, like the Paizo bestiaries do. Also seems like there is a lot more flavor included in the entry, than what I recall 4E had (from memory).
for a lot of people, those names are more awkward to use and kind of harder to convey what it is the monster they are facing is. At any rate, I assume that everything in the game books is in the english translation of whatever language the PC's and NPC's actually use. So just because I use the term Tyrannosaur, doesn't mean myself as a player is literally saying the same thing in common.
I mean...PC's face minotaurs, and minotaur is a greek derived name that basically Refers to the Bull of Minos. I don't see how a group of characters facing a Tyrannosaur is any more odd than characters facing a Minotaur, or any other monster pulled from real life mythology.
I thought it was obvious that they were not catering this edition to the 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder fan base, but were trying a more simpler game approach to bring in the 1E and 2E players, as well as 4E players and people sick of 3rd edition.
Which I think is a good choice...I think it's healthier that DnD systems by different companies have completely different design philosophies. Gaming needs more diversification, not less, and hopefully this edition shakes out a few new approaches or design mechanics that can improve future game systems.
I think there are issues with magic, but it less about the spellcasting system than it is the overall power of spells. I would actually prefer if more specialization was present in the spell access of wizards, which I think would help deal with some of the power level. And if there were more meaningful limits on the powers of high level spells
I know you include this comment in all the Pathfinder 2E related threads, but I have trouble seeing how getting rid of vancian casting is a "necessity" rather than a personal preference on your part. Seems unlikely given that many Paizo folks like Vancian, and dislike spell point related systems.
I agree with Deadmanwalking.
There are certain posters who pretty much post in a very aggressive manner, incorporate subtle (or not so subtle insults in their postings), or will beat a dead horse into the ground, even after devs explain why X happened, or after realizing their opinion was not in the majority.
For you, this is a hobby that you can kick back and relax too, and you can post anything you want. If you don't like a topic or don't want to deal with something, you can just ignore those posts. IIRC, Paizo actually expects most of their staff to interact with the forums in some capacity. Note that most companies don't require this of there staff. So yeah...I think if you are expecting any sort of feedback or acknowledgement of a concern after heaping piles of abuse on them, it's just hilarious. And yes, calling developers stupid or claiming they don't do there jobs (after pulling off 7 days of overtime getting product done) is pretty much insult.
Incidentally, as I have posted once before, there is criticism and constructive criticism. I am in academia, and have had to review a variety of scientific papers. If I wrote in a review "This person is stupid and clearly doesn't understand the method they are reviewing" There is absolutely nothing constructive in that sentence. If you want your opinion taken seriously, tone and content are important.I would probably never be invited back to review for that journal. Furthermore, again from personal experience, nothing shuts down a dialogue faster than snarky responses or vague assertions. This kind of stuff produces a disconnect, which will just result in the person dismissing further criticism from the party, and may enforce earlier stances.
By all means, post historical notes, examples from the game, or math/theory work. But couch it in a neutral tone
I don't think it's mollycoddling to flag posts or ask people to be a bit more civil. I think if you consider "civility" as mollycoddling, than you have some very odd viewpoints on how the world works.
I think you are reading too much of an agenda into some people's complaints.
Which do you think is more fun for a group of players/GM. A single character who one shots the main bad guy of the campaign in 15 minutes game time, while everyone else plays angry birds on their phone? or a drawn-out complicated battle where everyone gets to contribute and which actually has high stakes?
I mean check out the Wrath of the Righteous threads. Biggest complaints in those threads are that characters become so overpowered that they steam roll most bad guys with no effort at all, making combat boring.
Personally I don't mind if PCs beat Cthulhu...that is what Pathfinder is about. But I would make it a challenging fight, and I would structure the whole campaign as leading up to that.
Incidentally, Cthulhu is on Earth, so if the PC's are going to fight him, they need to get to there. Which according to Rasputin Must Die, is pretty much a world where magic is nearly dead. There is an implication that magic works as well as it does for the volume because the bad guys are able to pull a chunk of the first world down to earth, which acts as a beacon for various supernatural beings to converge at the site. I would make the near absence of magic a plot element of visiting Earth.
Presumably Magic comes back in full when Rl'yeh (or however you spell it) returns, but Rl'yeh is also a place of non-euclidean geometry and other weird spatial phenomena. So while a party of players would have full magic abilities, any sort of magic dealing with spatial manipulation would probably (If I were GMing) have some sort of fail rate.
Basically...if this sort of exploit worked, it would forever change the fantasy setting. nations would just stockpile Exploding ruins and deploy them as weapons of mass destruction. Castles would be rendered irrelevant, and open warfare would probably give way to terrorist tactics.
I mean if people have problems with guns/gunpowder in a campaign, this would be way way way worse. You are effectively introducing briefcase nukes into the setting
That would be a cool idea for a magitech campaign, or as backstory for the fall of civilization and a campaign held in it's ruins. But probably a really really bad idea for a lot of other campaigns.