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

Odraude's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 5,783 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 1,107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame me. I'm just in a bad mood.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:
Have you ever noticed that if your avatar and Odraude's avatar were to be put side by side, it looks like they're roaring at each other?
RARRRRGHH!

RARRRRGHH!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, so far all the classes sound like they will be fun additions. I'll certainly hold final judgement for when I have the books, but I can't wait to roll up a Brawler, Swashbuckler, and Slayer.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought we were moving the fighter related comments to the other topic?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
You know that saying "a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic"? Well, a sufficiently advanced lifeform would be indistinguishable from god.

What does a god need with a space ship?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I never said point buy stat creation was bad. I use that all the time in PF over rolling. What I mean was full on point buy systems where you build an entire character. Things like HERO and GURPS.

JiCi wrote:

You guys make me laugh when you request a Mystic Theurge and an Arcane Trickster... when they're ALREADY Prestige Classes. Look, they cannot convert PrCs into actual classes, ok? So let them be...

Honestly, for missing classes? Hmmm...
- Artificer/Tinkerer: someone who can fabricate gadgets that duplicate spells. If that's problematic to you, pretty sure Numeria would have such a class amongst their ranks.

- Swordsage/Warblade/Crusader: Yes, I'm asking this, because I really liked how Tome of Battle was written and ruled. Look, the fighter is literally paling in comparison when it comes to "having something unique". These 3 classes made an awesome alternate fighter option. Tian Xia could be loaded with these right now. Basically, give the fighter spell-like abilities in the forms of unique attacks.

I dislike Prestige Classes in the core. I prefer having a character concept that doesn't require 6 levels of crappy multiclassing. Prestige Class that are more from a story line perspective (like in Paths of Prestige) are more my jam.

Beside, we already have the magus, the slayer/ninja, the bloodrager, and the myrmadarch that take the concepts of Prestige Classes (Eldritch Knight, Assassin, Dragon Disciple, Arcane Archer) and allow them to be playable right from the get go. Personally, I'd absolutely LOVE a Mystic Theurge, but for me, I have the Magister class from RGG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apparently, in Inner Sea Gods, on pg 193, it mentions that gods can be killed not just by other gods, but also by "the will of extraordinarily powerful mortals".

Doesn't mean that they are doing deity rules, but it does at least leave open the idea to GMs to do that form of storytelling.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That sounds awesome.

"You all know what spell I'm going to pick...."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's a good source for learning about the mathematics behind game design? Aside from college.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Welcome to the state of the fantasy gaming fanbase.

You can always try running an online game. There's plenty of people (including myself) that'd be down with playing Iron Gods.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

What would be really nice would be a full Class Builder like the Race Builder in ARG.

Honestly, having played point buy systems, I can tell you that would really be easy to abuse and game. It's better to have advice that can help guide a GM make good judgement calls about class design.

Point buy systems can never beat experienced advice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually hoping that with the class building advice, I'll be able to use that to design the classes I wish. So that will be cool :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only for things that deviate from the tradition Tolkien fantasy. Jade Regent had a similar reaction when it was announced.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if Ashiel-senpai will notice me...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But I like dice :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gods don't require worship. So those gods are still around and still power, but since their religions are dead, they don't have clout they once had.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

By that logic Clerics have no weaknesses.

Paizo does have a serious case of favoritism for Divine casters. The majority of them have the best saves in the game, have a d8 or higher hit die, are not restricted by armor, and have very powerful spells.

Divine casters and arcane casters have fairly different spell lists. While the cleric does have some powerful spells, many of their spells are buffing spells. Arcane full casters have a wider utility of spells that they can cast from. And the arcane caster that can use armor have altered spell lists to compensate for that.

And considering that divine casters were brought down in power from the 3.5 transistion, I'd hardly call divine casters their favorites.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you wanna rear a Behir, you better buy her drinks first! ZING!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusNero wrote:
Odraude wrote:


Yeah, I am a little sad about how the momentum to Tian Xia lost steam after Jade Regent. At least we got some good modules in there. I just really would love to see more of the other countries fleshed out.

Which is sad. I'd love to see more done with Tian Xia; fantasy doesn't have to be just psuedo-western Europe. Fleshing out the continent was a great idea, and left me craving more. Really hope Paizo goes against the grain and gives us one starting out there.

Fantasy should be like assorted nuts - variety and choice.

Exactly. And people that wanted an Asian setting had to deal with these type of threads and comments.

"Great, we gotta deal with these weeabo settings that don't belong in a western setting."

"Why cant we have a separate setting for this? I don't want ninjas / samurai stretching my disbelief in a traditional western setting."

"If I wanted samurai , I'd play Legend of the Five Rings. "

And thus the cycle repeats itself. Because apparently people aren't allowed to have fun with options another person doesn't like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeven wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Yeah, the constant "It's just one AP! And we won't be publishing just science-fantasy stuff during these 6 months! And the next AP will be traditional fantasy! And the one after that! Promise!" feels like a band that released a conceptual album and now tries to placate the rabid traditionalists fans so that they won't go away.

Sure, you gotta make money for living and this is a turbo conservative corner of a conservative hobby. Still, disheartening.
So, except for Iron Gods AP and Distant Worlds, is there any other Paizo campaign stuff you actually like? Or is most of their stuff "turbo conservative" rubbish designed to please "rabid traditionalist fans"?

Rasputin Must Die! clearly ;)

No joke, though, that was probably one of the most well-written adventures of 2013. Even people that thought Paizo jumped the shark on that were like "Damn, that was pretty good".

As for the "rabid, traditionalist fans" comment, while it is hyperbole, it's sadly kind of true. Look through the forums and compare how many "Give us Numeria" topics there are vs "Don't ruin our fantasy with tech" and you'll see that more often than not, it's the traditional people making the fuss. Not us. Tian Xia was proof of that. So much vitriol and borderline racism in those topics. In fact, pretty much any time Paizo does something that is a divergence from the tradition, it brings on the waves of naysayers wary that their ideal fantasy setting is suddenly in peril.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

I believe at lot of hangs on how good Iron Gods will be. Jade Regent, while not a bad AP at all, didn't really manage to get me excited about Dragon Empires (mostly because it spends half the AP away from Tian Xia).

Iron Gods dodges that bullet by getting us there and right away. And the author lineup is sweet. And Space Goddess Crystal is writing the final adventure. And the stars are right.

Yeah, I am a little sad about how the momentum to Tian Xia lost steam after Jade Regent. At least we got some good modules in there. I just really would love to see more of the other countries fleshed out. Especially the non-traditional ones you don't see in RPGs, like the ones based on SE Asian culture. Anti-weeaboos be damned!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly. We don't want one AP of support, then get abandoned for other things. I'd really like to see more products that "rattles the cages" as it will. Not replacing traditional modules and APs, but also not swept aside for them. I still have faith in Paizo for it, since Distant Worlds and Rasputin Must Die! showed that this isn't just a niche thing (as many would have you believe).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Curmudgeonly wrote:

This is where we disagree. We've had several APs now that have broken "the mold"

Jade Regent - Asian themed
Skulls and Shackles - Pirate themed
Shattered Star - Traditional Fantasy
Reign of Winter - This one's all over the place
Wrath of the Righteous - Mythic
Mummy's Mask - Egyptian themed

I hope Iron Gods is amazing, and I hope they eventually make more that break the mold. But saying Paizo hasn't explored beyond traditional is nonsense.

If having an Asian, Egyptian, and Pirates setting is breaking the mold, especially given how many DnD adventures take place in those settings, we have a problem.

Though I do remember when Jade Regent was announced and how up in arms everybody was about how Paizo was ruining Pathfinder and they needed to stick with traditional fantasy and not "this weeabo crap". Replace weeabo with filthy tech and that's what it is.

It's just a bit disheartening that when we finally get an adventure that tries something different, it's always met with the same crowd that wants to keep the adventures from trying new things. Or decries it as ruining their fantasy. Or deem it just a phase and hope we don't get near enough the support traditional fantasy gets. Not saying YOU are, but the tone from others is here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
Odraude wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
So Paizo seems to have a thing for not statting their deities

There's a very good reason for that

Paizo just wants players to know that, no - you CAN'T kill a god (because if it has stats, that means you can kill it). I mean this literally, Gods have only been defeated on a near permanent basis (except for Aroden, who is the exception)

That is the difference between a 10th tier mythic and a God, the Hero can always die, it just gets REALLY tough.

Lamashtu killed Curchanus when she was only a demon lord. Took his portfolio too. And being a bonafide demon lord requires you to be CR 26-30. Not impossible for PCs.

Let's just face facts. There are two groups of people. The first like the idea of killing gods. It takes them back to Birthright and mythologies where cultural heroes defeat the gods. The other thinks that you shouldn't kill gods. Gods are kind of the last ultimate thing left in the universe and should be unkillable unless the story wills it.

Both believe the other group is having BADWRONGFUN and are probably dirty little powergames/power hungry GMs.

Meanwhile, This is a thing.

Making up rules for the killing god part of RPG is too niche and causes too much pissing and moaning.

More to the point, vagueness and refusal to answer certain questions leave more wiggle-room in the metaplot and the Big Picture mechanics.

I can't really blame them for that, any more than I can blame them for not telling us where Nex is, What happened to Aroden, or Where in the world is Carmen SandiegoThe Axe of the Dwarvish Lords. These mysteries are tasty little seed pods that can grow full adventure paths sometime in the future.

idk, the pissing and moaning didn't stop Paizo from bringing out an Asian setting or firearms. God I remembered the borderline racism when Tian-Xia was announced.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Curmudgeonly wrote:
Odraude wrote:
It's traditional enough that Gygax made a megadungeon themed on it. Not to mention dungeon delving into the unknown and Egypt practically go hand in hand. Egypt is almost synonymous with "dungeon crawl".

Gygax also wrote Expedition to the Barrier Peaks in 1980. By your logic, we should call Iron Gods traditional fantasy.

How long a certain theme has existed has no baring on it being traditional fantasy or not.

Look, I'm happy that Paizo is diversifying and giving everyone something to enjoy. I personally have no interest in Iron Gods and am looking forward to them returning to some traditional fantasy after going away from it for some time.

As a matter of fact, yes. It is traditional :) Along with City of the Gods.

A lot of books from the period of 0e/1e had aspects of fantasy and science in it. This was long before people latched on to Lord of the Rings and made that the bar that all settings had to be compared to. My point is, a return to what is deemed as "traditional" isn't long overdue. In fact, it's the reverse. Getting things that break the mold is long overdue. I couldn't count the number of "traditional" modules and Adventure Paths that exist in DnD for those that want it. But I can count DnD modules like this on one hand. Barrier of the Peaks, City of the Gods, and this. That's pretty much my point for people who complain that "we need more traditional APs" or "Pathfinder is becoming too genre inclusive". This AP isn't the end of traditional modules. Rather, this AP is a bone thrown to those of us that want something more. Something different and exciting that sparks the imagination and isn't tied down to the fantasy tropes we see in every video game, book, and movie.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alleran wrote:
Scavion wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
So Paizo seems to have a thing for not statting their deities

There's a very good reason for that

Paizo just wants players to know that, no - you CAN'T kill a god (because if it has stats, that means you can kill it). I mean this literally, Gods have only been defeated on a near permanent basis (except for Aroden, who is the exception)

That is the difference between a 10th tier mythic and a God, the Hero can always die, it just gets REALLY tough.

Interestingly, a 20th level/10 MT character is CR 25 and could get 4 Domains and 4 Subdomains. CR-wise, just barely short of being considered a full on Demigod.

Already noted, but they'd be CR 24 normally. PC wealth kicks them up to CR 25. Then they could do something to gain that extra point or two of CR they need. Viable options are lichdom (+2), vampirism (+2), or, to swing it close to the Mythic, they could go to a Mana Well. By standing in it to accept the power and getting the right roll on the table, they will immediately gain the Mana Wastes Mutant template, which provides +1 CR. Sure, you're a deformed wreck half-destroyed by primal magical forces, but you're CR 26 and thus a demigod. Sort of a baby-Nethys, perhaps.

If becoming said deformed wreck is unappealing, however, then you can always politely ask the right person to give you the tribal tattoos and scarification necessary to become a Runescarred warrior. That's another +1, which would also do the trick.

At level 20/MR 10, the best bets are the Half Celestial/Half Fiend templates. Both would give a +3 to CR and be fitting for PCs that want to step into godhood.

Lich and Shadow Lord would be cool, clocking in at +2 CR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the barbarian is mostly just to simplify the math. Solving for new HP, then lost HP can be a real bugbear for new players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
What about being 25-pt buy?

I know that an NPC that has both 20 point buy and PC wealth is given +1 CR. Beyond that, I couldn't tell you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Scavion wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
So Paizo seems to have a thing for not statting their deities

There's a very good reason for that

Paizo just wants players to know that, no - you CAN'T kill a god (because if it has stats, that means you can kill it). I mean this literally, Gods have only been defeated on a near permanent basis (except for Aroden, who is the exception)

That is the difference between a 10th tier mythic and a God, the Hero can always die, it just gets REALLY tough.

Interestingly, a 20th level/10 MT character is CR 25 and could get 4 Domains and 4 Subdomains. CR-wise, just barely short of being considered a full on Demigod.
Having PC wealth increases CR by 1.

The CR 25 includes that. Without PC wealth, it'd just be CR 24.

I've actually contemplated giving players the half-celestial/fiend or advanced templates to continue on into godhood.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CommandoDude wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
So Paizo seems to have a thing for not statting their deities

There's a very good reason for that

Paizo just wants players to know that, no - you CAN'T kill a god (because if it has stats, that means you can kill it). I mean this literally, Gods have only been defeated on a near permanent basis (except for Aroden, who is the exception)

That is the difference between a 10th tier mythic and a God, the Hero can always die, it just gets REALLY tough.

Lamashtu killed Curchanus when she was only a demon lord. Took his portfolio too. And being a bonafide demon lord requires you to be CR 26-30. Not impossible for PCs.

Let's just face facts. There are two groups of people. The first like the idea of killing gods. It takes them back to Birthright and mythologies where cultural heroes defeat the gods. The other thinks that you shouldn't kill gods. Gods are kind of the last ultimate thing left in the universe and should be unkillable unless the story wills it.

Both believe the other group is having BADWRONGFUN and are probably dirty little powergames/power hungry GMs.

Meanwhile, This is a thing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm...

You had me up until giving it half caster progression. I'd be very against that. I love the sorcerer and prefer it to the wizard. I love that it's the other side of the coin as far as full casters go. That's my draw to it and changing it from a full caster would kill the class for me. I think it should stay a full caster.

That said, I'd like to see bloodlines similar to the Oracle Mysteries. A kind of "choose your blood power" thing. Better skill points is cool. Class Skills are fine I think, but more skill points is nice. But yeah, bloodlines could be a bit better.

Though perhaps the issue isn't the other casters, but the wizard. Maybe we need a chained wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At the moment, no. But, I could see him as a victim of bestow curse. In the spell, it does state that you can make your own curse that fits the power level. And I think that would be appropriate for a third/fourth level spell.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
But six months later, we'll be back in familiar fantasy territory with Giant Slayer... and the one after that as well!

*sigh*

Don't worry! We'll get more support in the future! Just like Tian Xia!

Right? Riiiiight?

...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nargemn wrote:

Heya James,

What seperates a tiefling from a half-fiend, and an aasimar from a half celestial? I imagine it's that a half-fiend or half-celestial have a direct parent (or have it applied to them through a ritual or similar) who is fiendish / celestial, while tieflings and aasimar only have a 'touch' of that blood in their system (and could be grandchildren of half-fiend/celestials), but it's potent enough to cause physical changes to them. Of course, I could be way off the mark, here (which is why I'm asking you! :D)

If I'm close to correct, however, are there similar templates for other 'half' creatures, such as for geniekin (sulis, ifrits, oreads, sylphs, and undines)? And if not, do you think that is something that would be a feasible template to create? Or is there something inherently different concerning half geniekin and half-fiends/celestials?

Not to steal James's thunder, but in the Blood of Fiends/Angels, it is commonly described that the outsider-to-native-outsider lineage goes:

fiend > half-fiend > tiefling

and

celestial > half-celestial > aasimar

So the native outsiders are like the grandkids of an outsider. In addition, the tiefling/aasimar gene can spontaneously appear in a family. So even if a group of people are ten generations removed from the original outsider, they can still pop out an aasimar or tiefling.

That said, there are examples where aasimars and tiefling are born due to other circumstances that don't involve making the beast of two backs with an outsider. That's actually a plot point in one of Paizo's adventure paths.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I have two house rules I've been brewing up, thanks to reading a lot of 13th Age, D&D 4th Edition, and Marvel RPG (Cortex Heroic).

Climax Dice: The first is something I call the Climax Die. Essentially, at the beginning of combat, I set out a d4 die in view of everyone. After the first round of combat, the die grows bigger (d6, d8,) until it becomes a d12 (where it stays). A player that rolls a natural one for an attack or save causes the dice to drop by one step, while an enemy that does the same causes it to rise one step. At any time they need an extra dice, a player can grab the dice and roll it. That player can only roll once per round. They add the rolled number to the following:

  • attack rolls (added before the attack roll is made
  • saves (added before the saving throw is made)
  • damage (not multiplied for a crit)
  • AC (lasts until the beginning of their next round)

Now, when a player uses the die, it drops back down to a d4. In addition, the die that they used is added to the Danger Pool. This pool can be used by the GM in the same way, only they have no limit on dice per round. Each die must be rolled for something different. The GM can't put them all on damage, or two on AC. Once a GM rolls the die (or dice), they are removed from the danger pool. In addition, when the GM's monsters roll a 20 for an attack or save roll, they can step up the lowest value die in the Danger Pool by one. If that die is a d12, the GM instead adds a d4 to the Danger Pool. If a player rolls a 20 for an attack or save, the GM loses their lowest die. The Danger Pool starts a story arc with one d4 and at the end of a story arc, the GM empties the Danger Pool.

Recovery: This house rule uses the Wounds and Vigor subsystem in Ultimate Combat, a system I really love. Though I'm sure you can adapt this for normal HP. This is for use in a low to no magic game, where there is little to no magical healing. Players gain an amount of Recoveries equal to half their Constitution Score (round down, minimum 1). This represents a five minute break. The player heals an amount of Vigor points equal to their hit die + (character level * Con modifier). If a character is multiclassed, they use the highest of the hit dice. These recoveries refresh completely after 8 hours of rest.

For healing Wounds, a player can use the Heal skill untrained to heal the victim. The DC is 15. The medic heals a number of wound points equal to the victim's Con Bonus (minimum 1). If the medic is trained in using the Heal Skill, they can heal the victim for more. The medic rolls the victim's highest hit die and adds the victim's Con bonus (minimum 1) to see how many wounds they heal. Both uses of the Heal skill use up a single use of the victim's recovery. This healing must be down within an hour of taking damage, or else the medic cannot heal Wounds in this manner. Think of it like the Golden Hour.

So, what do you think? Too overpowered, underpowered? Thanks for any feedback. I'd love to give these a proper playtest.

Here's a Google Docs link so you can see the updated version of them.

Climax Dice and Recovery


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At the same time, though, it kind of makes it less appealing for those trying to plan for a budget. Not having a solid length of what the AP will be will make that more difficult.

Plus, if it's an AP you don't like, you'd have to wait almost a year to resubscribe to grab something you might like. That's a long time to wait for an AP you want. I couldn't imagine how much that would affect sales when people unsubscribe for an extra three months.

Plus, I'd imagine that writing up 6 would be a handful already. But a nine-parter? Especially trying to keep up with it during the Con Crunch? I think JJ would be able to shed more light on this.

I mean, I think splitting the APs into three 4 parters would be interesting. But I don't think I can get behind varying the APs to such a degree. Feeling unstable and the consumer in me like stability. Sorry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a consumer, I really wouldn't like that set up. Not the biggest fan in quiet the variance, and I probably would never spend $200+ on a 9 Part Adventure Path. This hobby is expensive enough. I can't even imagine trying to run that. I think 4-6 is a good number honestly.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
And the constant defensive "it's OK, Iron Gods is just a phase, then we're back to your beloved traditionalist giants and orcs stuff" from Paizo staff doesn't help much.

Maybe Paizo isn't the game company for you? I'm sure there are other rpg companies who on regular basis produce non-standard fantasy gaming material.

As it stands - Paizo is going to be doing this type of creative content as a one-off, and most of their customers support that.

However, they are getting a great deal of support from fan for more than just the standard western fantasy. First it was Distant Worlds, then Rasputin Must Die, and now Numeria. So while it might seem like one-offs, they are giving a great deal of more support for these style of play. And chances are they won't stop.

Then again, I still wish there was more support for Tian Xia than just some PFS modules. So, who knows.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graywulfe wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Jeven wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Having people constantly pop up and tell you that you're a Not True Fantasy Fan because you enjoy something else than knights and princesses can sometimes get tiresome.
Other customers are just giving feedback to Paizo about their preferences and/or seeking reassurance that they are not permanently changing their focus. Its not about you.
Cool. Can that feedback be more "Hey guys, I'm really not into sci-fi!" and less "You betrayed us, True Fans of Fantasy?". Thank you.

Interesting - you'll have to show me exactly where you got that "quote". I know you wouldn't be putting words into other people's mouths just to reinforce a weak position...

Per your request,

Wiggz wrote:

It’s one thing to face a dragon armed with a longsword and a suit of magic plate mail, but what if you had an atom gun and powered armor? How many zombies could you blow up with a rocket launcher? What happens if you’re standing next to a graviton reactor when it explodes?

A quote like this terrifies me and the many other fans of classic or high fantasy... if we wanted to play Rifts, we would be.

My 2 cp.

To me your comment read, and still reads, as you speaking for ALL fans of classic or high fantasy. I happen to number myself in that group and frankly sir, you do not speak for me.

No your exact words do not match Gorbacz's quote, but the tone implied by them is pretty clear. You were in fact being dismissive of people who don't agree with you.

EDIT: or rather your words were dismissive of people who did not agree with you.

I am not being dismissive of what you want out of Paizo. NEither is Gorbacz.

To be fair, Gorbacz is. But that's Gorbacz for ya!

*cue sitcom canned laughter*


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Odraude wrote:
To be fair, you did end with the snide remark that compares what Pathfinder is doing to the utter rules mess that is Rifts. Subtle and maybe unintentional, but still there.
To be fair, I didn't mention a thing about rules but rather the mish-mashed themes of an RPG that combines swords and sorcery, psionics, aliens, extra-dimensional beings, laser guns and power armor. Anyone who chose to misread it as a reference to mechanical defects in the game is projecting their own issues - subtly and maybe unintentionally, but still doing so.
Odraude wrote:
Feels very dismissive of our likes.
I think if you go back and re-read my posts and all of the responses that came after it, I'm not the one being dismissive of the likes and dislikes of others... I'm expressing my opinion, and being castigated for it, so much so that James had to step in and say that there was room for all opinions, even dissenting ones.

Except you kind of are being dismissive. You made it clear that you don't want Paizo to do this with your Rifts comment. Pretty much a "Why do this when we have Rifts?" Imagine if you wanted more classic fantasy and someone said "Why publish more classic fantasy when we have 30+ years of that to work with"? Probably wouldn't like that, no? Same with the "Is Paizo Being Too Genre Inclusive" thread you posted in. It's essentially saying, "Yes Paizo is being too genre inclusive and I'm afraid it'd going to overshadow what I like, so they shouldn't do it". Or else, why post this "fear that fans of classic/high fantasy" that you have? What is it you meant when you had a fear for the Technology Guide? ;)

Honestly, I'm not dismissive of peoples' wants from Pathfinder, and at the very least, I'm not of yours. I love having options, even if I don't use them. I think that having option for people that like classic fantasy is great. And I think having options for people that like sword and planet style is great as well. And psionics and eastern settings and New World settings... For me, having options for everyone is great for the fan base. The beauty of it is you don't have to buy it if you don't like it. I may never run an eastern campaign, but it's great that someone has the tools to run one. And as Paizo has shown, they will continue to support different genres and playstyles. Which is awesome. It means you get to enjoy Pathfinder how you wish, and I get to enjoy Pathfinder how I wish. The existence of what you like doesn't lower my enjoyment of Pathfinder, and vice versa.

Everyone can have their cake and eat it too. And cake is awesome :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Jeven wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Having people constantly pop up and tell you that you're a Not True Fantasy Fan because you enjoy something else than knights and princesses can sometimes get tiresome.
Other customers are just giving feedback to Paizo about their preferences and/or seeking reassurance that they are not permanently changing their focus. Its not about you.
Cool. Can that feedback be more "Hey guys, I'm really not into sci-fi!" and less "You betrayed us, True Fans of Fantasy?". Thank you.

Interesting - you'll have to show me exactly where you got that "quote". I know you wouldn't be putting words into other people's mouths just to reinforce a weak position...

By all appearances, there are a lot of people looking forward to this AP and its attendant supplements. That's fine, I'm never going to tell someone how they should have fun or what they should enjoy. What I am going to do is tell Paizo how I and others like me feel, something I consider important as a member of this community even if my opinion happens to be in the minority.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Ultimately the most important feedback will be how we vote with our dollars.

*eyes all the campaign setting books for Iron Gods in my shopping cart*

Oh you can be sure I'm voting with my dollar....as soon as the AP subscription discount for Iron Gods kicks in! Never have I actually been excited enough to subscribe for an AP before, until I found out about and subsequently researched Iron Gods.

I will be doing the same. I plan on canceling my subscriptions for the duration of Iron Gods and using that money to buy the new Rise of the Drow products instead or maybe continue my quest to complete the AP's I've missed out on in the past, but I fully intend to return with the arrival of Giantslayer. Paizo has more than earned my loyalty and respect as a customer, but that doesn't mean I have to buy into everything they do.

To be fair, you did end with the snide remark that compares what Pathfinder is doing to the utter rules mess that is Rifts. Subtle and maybe unintentional, but it felt like the comparison was out of disgust. Also by saying that, you are essentially saying "Paizo is wrong in doing this and leave it to another system". Which, for those of us that like more options, is something we think is bunk. It's like saying "Paizo, don't do Tian Xia. If I wanted that, I'd play Lot5R". Feels very dismissive of our likes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know people didn't like it, but I actually really liked the trials in Book 4 of Crimson Throne. It was the only AP I was able to play start to finish (sadly, looks like current Jade Regent is over due to me moving and GM disinterest). I actually liked being chased out of the city and having to earn the trust of the tribes of Shoanti. And Book 6 felt like a "heroes return to save the day" moment, which was awesome for all of us. Shame people didn't like book 4 because it was really awesome and well done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I never really liked non-magic abilities that force someone to attack you. From a verisimilitude stand point, it can make things really janky. Imagine if you are playing a fighter and your friend is in danger. You could go save them right? But if an orc fighter decided to hit you and you failed the Aggression save, suddenly, saving your friend in mortal danger is less of a priority because you have this unnerving need to beat the hell out of that orc. It's abusable and doesn't make a lot of sense in the real world. It'd prevent people from running away from an attacking foe when they are clearly outmatched because GRRRR AGGRESSION!

I think 4ed and the Cavalier does Aggression right. It's still a choice left to the victim, but you or your party still get benefits if they attack the tank or not. I'd much prefer something that doesn't take away agency from the player/GM.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you may want to look at how Pathfinder is doing their modules now. They are multi-level campaigns that are much shorter and cheaper to get into. Usually 6-level ordeals. Give it a try. I think you'll like it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Lucio wrote:

With the annoucement of the Iron Gods Adventure Path it's begining to feel to me that Paizo are trying to cram every single possible type of campaign world into a single setting. Whilst it's not uncommon for a fantasy world to include several sterotypes such as Norse, Ancient Egypt and Oriental sections, the idea of throwing in aliens (which as an aside is supiciously similar to the Pinnacle Savage Worlds setting Evernight), feels like a step too far.

I am interested to see if others have a similar impressions based on the little information released so far. Should Paizo have kept back these ideas for a seperate campaign world?

This is just my opinion, no more or less valid than anyone else's... but quotes like this from the new 'Technology Guide' terrify me and other classic/high fantasy players like me:

It’s one thing to face a dragon armed with a longsword and a suit of magic plate mail, but what if you had an atom gun and powered armor? How many zombies could you blow up with a rocket launcher? What happens if you’re standing next to a graviton reactor when it explodes?

If we wanted to play Rifts, we would be.

Luckily, the Technology Guide and the Iron Gods AP aren't necessary to run a Pathfinder game. If you are the GM and you don't want futuristic technology in your game, then don't include it. It's that simple. Just like how some people don't allow firearms or eastern inspired things. These options exist for those that wish to utilize it in their campaign. For example, I'm running a New World Renaissance campaign that takes place in a psuedo Caribbean. So, I need firearms in my setting. In addition, I do have a little influence of Ancient Astronauts in my setting. So this book is perfect for me. However, if it isn't something you wish to use, then you simply don't buy it and don't allow it. No one is forcing you. Its existence isn't going to cheapen the quality of the fantasy you run.

It's better to have many options for different styles of play that different people have, rather than be shackled to a singular style of play. I'd honestly would love to see Pathfinder expand its ruleset for more than just fantasy, but that may be a project better left for 3PP right now. I do hear good things about the Modern Path.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty simple. If you don't want tech in your fantasy, don't get the books and don't allow it.

For the rest of us that like it, we'll have something to munch on. Simple.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
VRMH wrote:
  • Magic Jar works by forcing souls into a crystal.
  • Simulacra having souls would open a whole new can of worms.
  • So it is practical to assume Simulacra do not have souls.
  • And thus Simulacra are impervious to the Magic Jar spell.

Do simulacra dream of electric icy sheep?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Insain Dragoon" wrote:
so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.

Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.

They acknowledged that some people wanted a different take. That's not exactly the same thing.
Agreed, it is only a coincidence that people have titled Rogue and Monk as the "worst classes in the game" and have been asking for their rewrite for ages. Same with Fighter, but they don't have a confirmed rewrite.

I will also add that it's rather irritating, to me at least, when you frame your distaste for the Fighter class as something that *everybody* shares, or as something that *only an idiot would disagree with* (this is how your posts can come off, at least to me).

Though I can see how many of the complaints aired in your thread and others like it can get traction, I'm not sure I agree with the strength of the conclusions that you and others draw from those perceived shortcomings with the Fighter class. So when I'm thinking to myself well, there are some valid points here but I'm not sure I want to go all the way with these guys, and you come along and adopt that confrontational tone, it riles me up a bit and I find myself less sympathetic to your case and tempted to start what I've characterized above as "yet another pointless forum squabble."

Which leads me to suggest that, flies with honey, you'd do a lot more for your cause if you adopted a less confrontational tone. In other words—which is more important, building consensus for your viewpoint on what you see as an important issue, or telling folks who disagree with you that they're stupid? Framed like that, it seems an...

Honestly this is the main reason why I have found it pointless to bring up my fighter thoughts in the other thread. The general tone is "The fighter sucks and if you don't agree with our changes 100%, then you are playing the game wrong/too ignorant to understand". And while I share the belief that the fighter could use a boost, there are some things about the fighter class I do like. But I feel like it's pointless to throw in any feedback when it's going to be met with "You are what's killing martials right now!". So why bother giving our feedback if they don't want any that doesn't completely agree with the echo chamber?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Like the late and great Jerry Lewis one said, "You'd better love yourself, because you're stuck with you for your whole life."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like LG said, Numeria has been here since the beginning of Pathfinder. Golarion itself is a modular, kitchen-sink world by design. If there is an aspect someone doesn't like, they can easily remove it. Better to have more options that you can ban if you don't like. And I like aliens in my fantasy, so this will be fun for me.

1 to 50 of 1,107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.