|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Also, teaching war orphans to not go raiding and pillaging other peoples is a far cry to what the Indian schools were. It's a comparison of generalities (kids being educated against a previous culture) without looking at the specifics, which make both a complex and much more unrelated case.
Also, we are missing an important point in Mikaze's post (at least about the orcs I haven't read all of them). They aren't being forced into compliance against their natural tendancies of aggression. In fact, it recognizes their predisposition and shows venues to channeling that in a positive manner. They aren't stripping down what it means to be an orc or hobgoblin. Rather, they are helping them take their natural predispositions and using them for positive means. And not to become a slave race or second class citizen, but to become aware of what their culture does and to be given the tools to choose a path other than mindless violence. In Mikaze's case, it'd be a half-orc paladin of Sarenrae :p
It's never too late to add more ideas. I've always wanted a copy of the older Deities and Demigods, and always wanted Paizo to make one. I can share some gods in my setting that uses Native inspired deities. One thing I tried to keep is that many of these gods have alternate forms and names, or are primarily not humanoid. It give them a good difference from classic Western European gods. Also, many have the Animal domain and all gods in my setting have tonalli, animal spirits for the Nahual priests.
Domain: Animal, Community, Good, Healing, Law
Based on the cryptic Mayan bee demons of the same name. I took a lot of liberties with her, taking the name and mixing in properties I saw in bees and honey (as a natural remedy). In one game I had an awakened bear cleric of Ahmuzencab.
Domain: Animal, Death, Healing, Magic, Repose
Maketaori is based on the Taino death god of the same name. I largely kept him how he was from what I've read and learned about him. There was also a paper I read that talks about bats and reincarnation and the hupia bat undead. I used what I read about that to add a reincarnation cycle to this death god, and have an interesting dichotomy between bats for the death god and bats for the evil bat demon god Camazotz. Maketaori is the only god I have written up that has an actual herald, Opiyel Guabiran, a dog shaped creature that hunts down spirits and brings them back to Coabey, the land of the dead. I made him interesting because he has a penchant for gambling and betting and can be duped into betting for a person to come back to life. Though he himself is a smart and clever outsider.
Domain: Animal, Chaos, Darkness, Earth, Evil
Camazotz is the Mayan bat god, meaning Death Bat in the K'iche language. I made him a full-fledged demon god in a similar vein to Lamashtu. A slayer of gods and heroes that places the decapitated heads of those he has slain on pikes surrounding his ball court. Creation myths play a big part in my setting and I have some allusions of Camazotz being the first proto-hupia (Taino undead bat zombie/ghost of people who refuse to move on after becoming petitioners), who later became the first man, then ran away from death because of his evil ways to become a true hupia. I've definitely made him evil with a capital E and a patron god of vampires, cannibals, and other voracious creatures.
That's all I have time for this morning. Got a long work day then school. I wish I had more time to do stuff like this, but life is a pain.
I'm very worried about the classes that aren't the Kineticist or Medium. Those two got a great deal of dev comments compared to the other ones. In particular, I fear the Psychic and Spiritualist will suffer the most. Psychic was very bland and boring and had nothing that made it pop with me. Spiritualist was weak and seemed like they were too worried about making a Summoner 2.0 to give it anything cool and unique. With the lack of dev responses for those two class, I fear they will be left to mediocrity.
There will have to be a lot done to the Occult classes to make them unique and fun. Only the Kineticist, Medium, and Occultist seemed to fit that. The other classes just felt boring and uncompelling. I hope that the playtest data will reflect this and we can give the classes (especially the Psychic and Spiritualist) more of a creative oomph. As it stands, though , without some kind of post-playtest summary for each class, I'm not really holding my breath for good mechanics. The fluff, however, should be awesome and probably the main reason I would get a copy of OA.
Home made kale chips are easy to make, delicious, and good for you.
Like most health foods, kale gets a bad rap because people assume it's only for pretentious hipsters. But honestly, it's delicious and good for you to boot. You can trust me. I'm no hipster, I'm a fat Latino chef-in-training :D
Also, lemme dig through my culinary repertoire and post some stuff I like to make. I've got my Culinary Foundations textbook with some good dip recipes.
Serve this with corn tortillas, blue corn tortillas (my favorite), or other chips. S$+&'s pretty easy and works well. The garnish and lumpiness of the guacamole gives it a rustic look, helps with the looks of the dip (so it looks like a salsa rather than green paste), and the mouth-feel of the crunch is awesome. Enjoy.
Might post a chowder recipe next. Or shrimp and grits, my personal hometown favorite. Although currently I'm enjoying Squid n grits more :)
Psychic shouldn't be magic according to you, not the rest of us psionics fans. Paizo is going with a different take where psychic powers are magic. They are using a classic approach via mysticism, ki and chakra, and esotericism as the sources, rather than the Psionics. They have already said that the classes in Occult Adventures will be magic and honestly, from a game design point of view, it makes sense to have the three big magics having similar mechanics that are balanced with each other. The idea that psionics should be more powerful, rare, and break SR is something I can't get behind. You may want psychics to be rare, but what about those that want a more balanced quantity of casters to psychics, or simple more psionics than mages and priests? We can't exactly do that because psychics have been made more unbalancing and clearly the better choice. That's why I'm more for psychics being balanced with the other options in Pathfinder. Making it overpowered but rare is poor game design.
Psionics is magic, just a magic of the mind, the several subtle bodies, and other esoteric things (ki, chakra, prana, the ethereal plane). This is made to appeal to a broader audience while allowing a place for DSP's psionics. Your version is too niche, unbalanced, and poor game design honestly. I'd prefer Paizo stick with what they are doing and allow DMs to decide what to do about SR.
Arcane is magic of reality
The former two have spell resistance, despite their different sources. I don't see why Psychic magic has to have a special resistance when Divine magic doesn't. There isn't a Faith Resistance stat, so I don't see the reason why there should be a Psychic Resistance stat. I'm a fan of psionics, but I don't see any need for it to be different than Arcane and Divine magic, nor do I feel it should be superior to Arcane or Divine magic.
I think the disconnect here is you are seeing this Psychic magic as not spells, but the intent that Paizo has for Occult Adventures is that these psychic abilities are spells. At this point, it is a matter of taste and something that isn't going to be changed in the playtest. If you are looking for something different, there is still DSP's Psionics which can certain fit the bill for what you are looking for.
I gotta agree with the sorcerer comment. Compared to the other classes presented, the psychic feels like it needs something more. Something that really makes it stand out. Right now, it feels like a sorcerer archetype with a phrenic pool. I'm not sure what it needs exactly, but something to make it interesting. Right now, it's kind of bland.
Also not a lot of dev commenting on this one compared to the other topics. Kind of has me worried about the Psychic here.
Mark Seifter wrote:
@Emotion components, you could carry around a cheap 50 gp potion of remove fear or rely on getaway spells like dimension door to remaneuver. Remember, if it would have a somatic component, it has an emotion component, so you can cast those getaway no-somatic spells to reposition for better tactical position. The good thing that way is that most forms of easy and reliable access to shaken work in a 30 foot range, so if you get farther than that, you're less likely to be in trouble.
I don't really like the idea of being required to have remove fear on you just so you don't get shut down by being shaken.
Like I said, the idea that emotional status effects are detrimental to psychics are fine. But I think shutting down the majority of their spells because they are only shaken is a very harsh punishment. I like giving PCs (and NPCs) a way to try and overcome issues like this and this style of game design really doesn't sit well with me.
I'm not saying you should remove this, but I really honestly think it could be toned down a little bit. If I can playtest this on the weekend, I'll try to.
Also this is a playtest. Of course the classes won't be the right power level compared to established classes. Expecting perfect classes in a playtest would defeat the whole purpose of the playtest.
I like 3PPs as much as the next guy, but this just sounds like petty complaining that does little to help with the playtest and rather seems more like ranting from someone with an axe to grind.
And my point is that you can't compare the two. Archetypes are options that you don't need. You can play the game without archetypes. the Spirits are compulsory. Spirit usage of 4 spirits is built into the class, so you're going to have to scour the 54 spirits to find four that work well with your character concept. You're essentially forced into grabbing up to four archetypes and using them for your character. It's a bit much and you only really can compare it to the cross-blooded sorcerer (and oracle version) archetypes. And even then, you choose the class abilities from the blood lines and at the end of the day, that archetype is your choice.
Options are great, but complexity without any form of streamlining is a waste.
I don't like low magic because in my experience, it has always ended terribly from either GM malice or GM ignorance.
However, I hate it when people want something in a game and the only response is "Play a different game." The game has room for guns and asian setting and psionics. So it'll have plenty of room for low magic gaming. It may take some work, but it's doable. I've been contemplating it some myself. Thought about running a no magic campaign in Pathfinder, where the PCs unlock magic in the world at a certain point. If someone wants to play low magic in Pathfinder, then they should (preferably with some advice). And if you don't like that, well, play a different game.
I agree with lemmy. The all-or-nothing nature of the emotion component is too harsh. Allowing a concentration check or forcing the caster to, perhaps, increase the casting time by one step to get in the right emotional state would be better. As it stands, the emotion part is thematic but too crippling.
Exactly! An Extinguish wild talent could be fluffed as the following:
Fire: innate ability to control fire extinguishes it.
Fire: Heat evaporates the water.
Fire: A bit tougher to figure out. Maybe create a backdraft that reverses the flow of wind?
Fire: Melts the oncoming rock into specks of lava or glass
Extinguishing air powers would be the more difficult sell, but I think this could work well.
James Jacobs wrote:
Actually, as written, anyone that doesn't answer her questions the way she wants gets attacked, in addition to attacking trouble makers. I ran that encounter unchanged and my players failed the second question. The game ground to a halt when they were attacked by, to their understanding, a lawful good god asking for help. I ended up retconning it because no one liked the idea of a lawful good god attacking the people she asked for help, especially since they were all cooperative with her and respectful of her. But it was ten minutes of "Why is a lawful good goddess attacking us, the people who she asked to help, when we answer a question wrong?"
I wouldn't have written this, but honestly I am frustrated with the fact that our issues and feedback with Iomedae keep getting misunderstood or dismissed as "not getting it" by you. We didn't get this much push back about Erastil's misogyny or Torag's genocidal paladin code. Makes it feel like our feedback isn't being taken seriously or is just worthless. It's why I've generally dropped it till now, since it was obvious that no one was going to take our criticism seriously.
No one is asking for a Disney princess paladin goddess. We just think that the idea that a good god attacking her allies when they get a question wrong is not a good thing to do, both from a story stand point and from a GM/Player relationship standpoint.
Actually, I'd find that as an example of finding a political agenda that may or may not necessarily there. I've seen the same movie, with my girlfriend, and we both though it was a provocative film about someone in a tight spot and some of the things your mind does to cope with it. We didn't see a white knight helping a defenseless damsel in distress, but a person in distress using a coping mechanism to get through a terrible time. If it would a man in an astronaut suit with a woman ghost helping him, I would have thought the same thing. Same if it was a black man getting help from a ghostly white dude, or reversed. This doesn't mean you're wrong, but it doesn't mean you're right. I just think people will take different things from different films, no matter what the intent of the director is.
And I can absolutely tell you that I'm not invested in perpetuating the stereotype of a weak woman being saved by a man.
Considering there are many Europeans I've met that feel the same way, it isn't just a proud Merica thing. The fact LazarX thinks it is is very unusual.
It's all a matter of nostalgia, not nationalism. Magic School Bus and Bill Nye taught me there were nine planets and g%+ d**mit, there will always be nine planets :)
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Your reaction to Kirth's response of "GMs punishing the players" is the same response I have when people cry entitlement for players.
No one likes assumptions being made about their play style. If players like more magic items, it may not even be because they are entitled spoiled brats. Which seems to be the idea coming from some of the GMs here. Magic items = entitlement, you can't min/max and roleplay... all bunk ideas spread by GMs that I feel have become so far disconnected from what it's like to be a player that it somehow becomes an us vs them, instead of a cooperative gaming style.
Now, if everyone wants magic to be rare and is told ahead of time, then that's awesome. Kudos to them. Despite my poor experiences with low magic settings, I'd even run a setting like that. I'd probably do a good job because I know what NOT to do with it. But this idea that players are entitled s!+! birds that want all the magic items RIGHT NOW is as absurd as saying that all GMs that want magic to be rare are ego-fueled sadists punishing their players.
I love how people assume the GM is being a passive aggressive douche and not just finding the rules and allowing the player to play it according to the rules. Especially without the actual GM here in question to explain their side of the story.
Always staying classy here at Paizo I see.
Personally, I like the Young Characters rules, but generally allow players to be PC classes. It's honestly been fine and I have not had terrible issues with my games with it. Honestly the penalties aren't even that bad.
But please, continuing bashing the GM. Clearly they must be a terrible person with evil intentions bent on controlling the PCs for their own amusement. Clearly, without knowing the person or hearing their side, they must be bad and punishing the player.
The "entitlement" predates 3.0. It was the same way in 2nd edition and, according to my dad, the same way back in his day. Only difference is that WPL is more codified into 3.X games. Though it isn't hard to work around honestly.
Course, is it the player that is entitled because they want rewards, or the GM that is entitled for wanting less magic? ;)
Lack of meaningful progress was the largest issue. We were playing soldiers in an Imperial army and for eight levels, never got to see any progress. No rewards, no promotions, no people for us to command. Just a "fight the good fight, you scumbags" and a pat on the back for our troubles.
As I recall, Frodo really didn't want anything to do with the ring. But we was pretty much pressured into it. And didn't Robin Hood end up marrying the noble woman and getting rewarded at the end? In fact generally, most heroes in fiction get rewarded in some fashion at the end of the story. And of course there are examples of heroes who continue to fight the good fight with no progress and get weary of it. Of course, I prefer my heroes more like Conan and The Gray Mouser than Superman and Gandalf anyways so...
And you're making the same mistake that a lot of GMs make when they want to make magic items rare and unique and special snowflakes. You are thinking of the game world as a novel, in a vaccuum without the PCs in consideration. There are things that work great in novels that don't translate well into games. Granted, giving PCs great stories to latch onto and become invested in is awesome and a great thing to do. But ultimately, this is a game. And in a game, the average player likes to do cool things with their character and their character's story. The PCs will like your world and your NPCs, but ultimately want to build up their PC's story, notoriety, and legend. Because to them, it's a game. A fun one. One that combines the immersion of books with the interaction of video games. They want to make their mark on the world and make their character awesome.
In general, PCs like to see progress. Progress is, of course, an open-ended term. It could be anything, and thanks to Ultimate Campaign , there are rules for more than just magic items, levels, and money. Farmland, a bar, a temple, a fort, followers.... these are all great for progress, get PCs invested in your story world, and you have potential story hooks for your players. But if your players see no progress, then after awhile, some may just not have fun with gaming. I know if I play a game that's the same thing over again with nothing to show for it at the end, I eventually get bored. That's what I see in the "make magic special" crowd. Usually a "red flag" (so to speak) to a larger issue of building and running a world without the PCs' consideration of it. That's admittedly based on my own anecdotal evidence of playing in games where GMs wanted magic items to be rare and special.
Now, if your players are cool with no rewards and doing good for good's sake, then by all means, go for it. Different strokes and such. But I'm talking in general, and from what I've encountered of GMs and PCs.
Either way, what's one person's backstory is another person's agenda pushing. I didn't find any of the LGBT NPCs to be agenda pushing and felt that their romance backstories are no different than, say, Ameiko's about her dead boyfriend.
It's all backstory that rounds out the characters. Why do we need to know that Shalelu has an estranged step-father? Why do we need to know that Ameiko's dad is a huge douche? Why do we need to know that Koya has always wanted to travel and leave Varisia? for all the same reason. Backstory. At the end of the day, it's all unimportant. But it makes the characters relatable and more real than saying "This is Hass Delgado, the elven blacksmith that's only here to craft your items.
I remember playing in a game where we were all 8th level and the GM was trying to go for the no Magic Marts-Magic is special route. After doing a long dungeon that culimanted with a battle between us and some golems and a purple worm, all we got for our troubles were.... a silver masterwork dagger, some coins (about 100 gp) and some silver horseshoes. Oh and a "Good Job" from our commander (we were employed by the army).
Next session, we all levelled. So we all took leadership, got some followers, and said that we were retiring from the adventurer life and buying farmland to live our days. Because risking our lives for no money wasn't worth it and wasn't fun.
I generally do this as well. My players have honestly always prefer making their magic items instead of buying them. We love that customization and naming it. We don't care about, say, Sir Archibald's rapier that we find, but love the swords and stuff we create and name. Because ultimately, we are building our own legend, not so much living in the shadow of another.
The magic mart is primarily a GM problem. I rarely see players complain and have found that more often than not, you'll never make magic feel special. Fantasy is too mainstream right now, with video games and movies and books flooding the market. Generally, people of the current generation aren't going to really be wow'd by magic if you just take it away from them and make it rare. Trust me, making a bunch of 8th level adventurers beg for a +1 dagger isn't very fun.
Course, this doesn't mean I have Magi-Mart Superstores everywhere. I generally have magic items available to buy from collectors, or have items the players craft. And if there is a magic mart, I generally do cool stuff with it. Like, I once had a dimensional-floating magic mart with a mummy oracle in it that would sell items to the players. They could summon him with a special feather token that would allow any door in a city to turn into an entrance into his store. And they ended up doing some cool planar adventures with him, since he had a sarcophagus that was pretty much a TARDIS. So I don't get lazy and just remove magic marts. I make them spare, but I also make them fun and engaging for the players. Pretty much everything I do ends up being a story hook for the players.
And one thing I've noticed with the current generation of gamers is that story and making magic cool is all about engaging both their mechanical side and their roleplaying side. If you just talk about Sir Archibald's rapier, most people will shrug it off. Especially if they don't use rapiers. But if you give them a quest where they learn about him, maybe because they need his weapon, and even tailor it to one of the party member's weapons, you'll find your players much more immersed in your world and enjoying magic for more than just numbers and bonuses.
I actually disagree with this. A lot of what I've seen, including my own thoughts, actually like the idea of the hybrid classes and it doesn't feel lazy to us. It's just the editing was done poorly.
I appreciate the dev comments. I understand that errors happen and nobody should expect absolute perfection. My biggest problem was (until now) little public dev comments about the editorial issues. No blog posts and little word for a month after the ACG. That's really what I wanted. Just a blog or thread that has what Lisa and Erik typed for the consumers to see, perhaps condensed down. It really helps put our nerves at ease and lets us know that you're reading our concerns. The comments here have put me at ease and while I wish this was more public for ease of finding, I'm very happy that the devs have come out to address these issues with us. Thanks for the responses.
Erik Mona wrote:
Honestly if this had been a blog post, some critics would be a lot less worried about Paizo. But the only blog we got was about the misprjnted title. When a company stays quiet about a mistake, it makes us wonder what they are doing, or if they even care. I'm glad to finally see devs weigh in on the product, but it has been a month since the ACG release. In that time, ive already seen people return their hard copies and jump ship to 5th ed or other RPGs. And when someone asks me if they should get the hardcover, i can't lie to them about its issues. It's hard to defend Paizo when, at least up until now, there weren't any public, formal statements about the ACG. So I'm glad we finally got word about this, but I really wish it was sooner and more readily available to the public.
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate the time you guys take talking with us. :)
Vic Wertz wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't have the money to buy a product with a great deal of editing errors. I don't want to spend $39.99 on a product with gross issues just so I can get the errata sooner. I don't have a lot of money and as much as I like Paizo and want to support them, I can't spend money on a product so I can get the errata faster. The frugal part of me won't allow that.
Seems like a catch-22 alas :(
Also, any chance you can comment on my question about the GenCon rush and Occult Adventures? I've been looking for a dev comment in regards to it, positive or negative. I just want to know if anything is being looked at to prevent OA from having similar editing issues due to GenCon coming earlier. I love psionics and I love Paizo, but after ACG, I am really worried about OA having the same issues.
Figured I'd ask here since the devs are looking at this one.
I've asked this before, but no one ever answered it. The one thing I have on my mind is, with GenCon coming earlier, and the ACG being what it is because of rushing, is anything going to be looked at so that Occult Adventures doesn't suffer similar issues? I like Paizo, but I don't want to buy a hardcover that will have the same (or more) editing errors that the ACG had. The ACG may have been a singular drop in quality, but it is one that has the chance of repeating itself again next year. And I've been waiting for psionics to come out, so I am a lot more invested in Occult Adventures than the ACG.
So what can we expect from Occult Adventures and avoiding the same editing issues that plague the ACG? Is GenCon coming early being looked at as a potential issue?