|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Re: dusk knight - one of you is right.
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
May 2010, Adventurer's Armory is the most successful Player Companion ever.
September 2012. Ultimate Equipment.
I'm not saying making Legacy of Dragons the most successful PC ever would mean a hardback for dragons would follow... but we'd sure notice!
WotC released a book for 3.5 called Dragon Magic. Supposedly they called it that because the two highest selling categories of books for them were ones with either "Dragon" or "Magic" in the title.
The origin of the book's title had no impact on how seriously we undertook writing it. :)
Oh, would you look at that. One of the two main authors of that book is also developing this one. Gee.
Who'd have thunk? :)
I so love dragons!!! I wish this was somehow connected to the Dragonrider Class from SSG or Rite Publishings In the Company of Dragons but I'll still purchase this for all its scaley goodness.
As much as I love the Dragonrider (and I accept my admitted bias), I don't foresee us ever adding a 3pp character class in a Player Companion book.
Anyhoo, Legacy huh. Sounds like new line. I wonder if its like Blood of lines for ancient things or if its chronicling effects on world by super ancient beings xD
"Blood of" wouldn't be an accurate description of this book, because it's not about playing a dragon or half-dragon or presenting some new dragon PC race. It's more about how the influence of dragons may impact people, places, and things.
And yes, obviously, if we thought we had a good idea for another book that similarly looked at the influence some other group has on Golarion and its protagonists, we'd likely use a Legacy-style title.
For example, and confidentially, I pitched "Legacy of Otyughs" as a follow-up, but for some reason no one's gotten back to me about that idea yet...
Secret Wizard wrote:
Okay... if you really want me to...
(Begins to erase the outline with 7 things taken directly from the journal... )
It's a magus archetype. The ability to cast in armor is not the same as having mastered casting in armor, and it's a much shorter trip for a magus to become an armor master than a wizard.
This book is much more about taking characters who can use armor, and giving them new options and expertise, than it is about taking characters that don't use armor and giving them a way to be as good or better with it than characters who already have a baseline ability.
So there are archetypes for anti paladin, cavalier, fighter, magus, paladin, samurai, and war priest. There are also magic armors (light, medium, heavy, and shields, so no matter what armor you wear we have a new option for you), armor-related traits, armor tricks (again, for light, medium, and heavy armor), armor and shield fighting styles, and so on.
These books aren't that big, and as a result I prefer a fairly tight focus. We didn't put ways to use melee weapons as ranged weapons in Melee Tactics Toolbox or ways to use evil options with good-aligned characters in Champions of Corruption. Similarly, our focus on this was not ways to add armor to characters that don't normally have any use for it.
So if your character uses any physical armor, we have something that might be of interest.
If your character doesn't normally wear any armor, I recommend picking up a buckler. :)
Yep! Our yojimbo is in that vein.
"Yojimbo are highly trained bodyguards favored by the nobles and warlords of distant Minkai."
Very excited about this one. I really hope there is a "build-your-own-armour" section like they had for weapons in the Weapon Master's Handbook.
I hope you won't be too disappointed that there is not. The need for such a thing was not nearly as great, since we already have UC's piecemeal armor rules, and the skeleton of a system I looked at never showed promise.
In the end, it didn't seem a good use of space.
COULD we have kept it to only 2-page spreads? Yes, of course. But some of the content would have been cut to fit everything neatly and to ensure every spread had its own introduction. And it would have taken so much longer there's a decent chance the next Player Companion would have had to be designed to include a good deal less innovative material, to ensure it could be developer, written, copyfit, and laid out in a compressed schedule.
Where topics more naturally fill 4-page or 6-page spreads, my preference is to use spreads of those lengths rather than artificially chop it into only 2-page chunks.
That said, I value everyone's feedback, so if other people feel strongly on this subject one way or the other, I'd love to hear about it.
Barachiel Shina wrote:
One question I have is...why isn't this book going to be a March release? There's nothing for March concerning a Player Companion, why was this bumped up to April?
My understanding is that it's an issue of scheduling of resources beyond this line. Sometimes, something has to give. Way back when we first built this year's schedule, it was clear there would be a major issue managing everything we wanted to put out in Feb/Mar/Apr. When we try something like that and fail, book get pushed back, and that's not ideal for us, or customers, or anyone really. So it made more sense to decide up front to not have a March PC, so everyone (customers, retailers, and us alike) would know that and could plan accordingly.
Note that questions like that are above my paygrade, so this is my impression from inside the trenches, rather than some formal Paizo statement. A weekend musing to answer a reasonable question, when I don't have access to an official answer. I could be way off.
As I noted earlier, I do not expected to put any unarmored material in the Armor Master's Handbook.
I expect to used all the space for armor mastery-related things.
I don't have a problem with unarmored character ideas, I rather like such characters, but this is not the 32-pages I feel make the best fit for those idea.
Spellcut is a Weapon Mastery feat, not an Advanced Weapon Training option. :)
Edit: Ninja'd by Imbicatus!
It is crucial to remember that the utility of various abilities are about how much they can come up in actual play, not what they do to your optimized, preferred build. As a result, group playstyle makes a huge difference in how useful an ability is.
Fighters literally swapping out feats to respec to different weapons (with no option to respect weapon training with the same ease, and in some cases planning to change back after specific adventures), players ending up with a randomly selected magic weapon from treasure for at least part of an adventure, disarm, sunder, and the golf-bag of weapons to affect various foes (bypassing DR, shutting down regeneration, and so on) are all things that have an occurrence based on play style, and represent occasions where bonuses (at higher levels often pretty big bonuses) in weapons you *didn't* specialize in can have a significant influence on effectiveness.
While some play styles mean you'd never see any of those things happen, they all DO happen, sometimes quite frequently. And a lot of fighters carry things like silver war hammers, reach weapons, or morningstars to be able to swap weapons when facing werewolf assassins or advanced burning skeletons.
Technically, as a play tester for 3.0 and someone who wrote Dragon articles for it before it was released. I'm *16* years into 3.x design.
If I were to redesign the fighter form scratch, it'd likely look different. That's not going to happen in a Player Companion book, which isn't the place for a top-down redesign of the rules.
Advanced Weapon Mastery was a design space I thought had been underused, and I wrote a lot of guidelines to Alex about how to approach it, and when I developed his work I got it exactly where I wanted it. Alex did a great job writing to the outline, and I look forward to working with him in upcoming books.
Alex's representation of what the rules are designed the way they are isn't complete, and that's okay. These weren't created to fix every problem every fan of martial combatants has with their favorite design. It was presented to show ways that different groups of fighters, who are supposed to be our premiere weapon users, can specialize into weapon masters, while giving fighter characters fun new ways to play. I'm quite satisfied with how it accomplishes that. If you want tons of Advanced Weapon Training options added to power-up fighters until they reach a level you like you're welcome to do that in your own campaigns, but that's not what I had them designed to do. I'm happy to explore interesting design space in Player Companion books, but I'm never trying to *fix* a core class. That isn't what these books are supposed to do, and that isn't my role as their developer.
Also, please consider your tone when talking about the work Alex, or any freelancer, produces for us. If you make it unpleasant for someone to write game material for you, it'll be much harder for me to put together teams of good writers, and thus harder to oversee the creation of good books.
Weapon Material Mastery: Elysium Bronze does not specify a duration for the effect, only that after being targeted by the effect, you cannot target that creature again for 24 hrs.
While I cannot speak to any faq or errata, I can say the idea was that it's last 1d3 rounds, as with greenwood and living steel.
(PS. great supplement, I'd have preferred some more Sword-and-board options, but this is a very tasty morsel indeed)
We do, of course, have Armor Master's Handbook coming up. :)
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yeah, losing the second domain means no domain spells, which hits pretty hard. I thought that was, in this case, reasonable even given that in addition to giving up a domain, the advocate requires your other domain be trickery. That said, since we're firmly in the realm of house rules, there's no real reason to think we'll come up with the same answer. :)
A key design goal of advanced weapon training was to provide options for core fighters, and a strong part of their balance was the fact they can't be taken by a broad range of characters. The more different builds you allow to take something, the more carefully you have to check for every conceivable interaction of options. In this case, I intentionally decided to allow advanced weapon training push the envelope, which required it to keep a narrow scope.
Martial Focus allows characters to access Weapon Mastery Feats, because those are feats, rather than alternate class features. Advanced weapon training is closer to a set of specific fighter talents, and I'm comfortable keeping them tightly as fighter-options with just a *very* few exceptions. Even excluding archetypes that have given up weapon training was by design. I'd rather weapon training get much more flexible, but only for people who already have it, than create a whole new subsystem for everyone to become better combatants.
Otherwise to avoid power creep, advance weapon training would have to be less flexible.
Of course, play style has a major impact on how various rules systems actually impact games. I encourage people to do whatever makes sense for their home campaigns, but those choices often won't make sense for the baseline game as played by everyone else.
Blood of Shadows would be an ideal book to also provide some developer clarifications on RAW usage and adjudication of the 3 big "Shadow" spells in Pathfinder - Shadow Conjuration, Shadow Evocation and Shadow Enchantment (and all their lesser/greater variants).
It is [very rare for core rule clarifications to come from a Player Companion. I expect it'll remain rare. That's not what these books are for and, honestly, I think that's best.
GM Aram Zey wrote:
Note that I'm not making a FAQ or errata statement, just talking about my interpretation.
An amulet of mighty fists can be augmented with weapon special abilities that affect melee weapons.
Sharding is a weapon property that affects melee properties.
So you can put sharding on an amulet of mighty fists.
This means you can make a special ranged attack in place of melee attack. By throwing a duplicate fist. That may look weird, but anyone who has played fighting video games can envision it, I'm sure.
It's worth noting that when you throw a greatsword, you're throwing an improvised weapon unless you have Throw Anything or a similar ability. The same is true of fists. A fist is not a thrown weapon, so when you throw one, it's an improvised weapon. We know this because the ability says "as if thrown by the wielder."
Of course, Throw Anything fixes a lot of that.
Just a note, "Weapon Master Weapon Training" is not actually "Fighter Weapon Training" as it does not meet the requirements of the archetype replacement FAQ. That's why the new companion had to add an explicit exception letting that archetype take and benefit from the advanced weapon training feat.
I DID think it would be a shame if Weapon Master wasn't a good option for a player excited by options in the Weapon Master's Handbook. :D
Chess Pwn wrote:
I'm really happy with this book. I feel it's inspired a lot of thought into making some "off-meta" builds that are now more supported. Also I feel they gave a lot to help classes that get a lot of feats feel like they have good options to go into.
I'm really glad you enjoyed the book!
Lou Diamond wrote:
Owen, I was disappointed in the weapon masters handbook.
I'm obviously sorry you are disappointed. However, suggestions that change how core rules operate, such as changing Vital Strike so it works on a charge without any other player resource being spent on it, or giving every martial character weapon training as part of the base character classes, just aren;t going to happen in a Player Companion. These books are ways to contextualize the existing rules in Golarion-specific ways, and offer new campaign-specific options that work within the existing rule framework.
We're not going to overturn how the whole games work in a 32-page soft back.
There are, of course, options here that are more than a list of feats. Advanced weapon training specifically looked at a way to expand what kind of fighter builds a player can create without making the fighter give up feats. The divine fighting techniques offer different kinds of alternatives.The stamina and combat tricks boost feats characters already have.
But a straight redesign of martial classes that boosts their baseline power for no swap-out isn't something a Player Companion is ever going to do.
Just make sure the Caligni get some generious love Owen....and I'll be a happy camper :P
Sadly the order of then the books have to be outlined and approved vs when Bestiary 5 was actually out means we didn't do specific caligni support, though obviously there are lots of dark- and shadow-themed options they can access.
Chess Pwn wrote:
I just got the Weapon master handbook, it's awesome, but the Rondelero Flexibility ability has me really confused. The Rondelero fighter archetype has a very similar ability, minus the keeping buckler AC, but I feel it's been "established" that the ability doesn't actually DO anything, since you can already alternate between weapons and not take 2WF penalties. BUT since the ability was printing again I am super curious if it's actually supposed to mean anything. Or does the fighter's really do nothing and the swashbuckler's really just saves you a feat to keep ac? Does anyone know more about this?
So, obviously when developing a Player Companion, I can't go back and adjust the wording of other books already in print. And of the thousands of people who will buy and use this book, not all of them are part of online discussions. So I want to make sucre it's clear to people who have already put the Rondelero fighter archetype into their games that this class can do the same thing. The fear is if we *don't* mention that, there will be people who see the absence as meaning the new archetype can't do it. And if some new FAQ or official rules change comes along (which I have no reason to think will happen, but like to be prepared for), the two Rondelero will continue to operate in the same way.
However the swashbuckler ability DOES do something, since it allows you to shield bash witch a buckler without losing the AC from the buckler, and that's a nice ability if not overwhelming. For one thing it means you can attack a foe hit with a full attack action, hit, roll damage, discover the foe has DR 10/bludgeoning, and swap to your buckler for your second attack without fear of weakening your defenses.
I added them both but shouldn't those be listed as hybrids or alternates as they draw from existing class features primarily?
That's not really my call, it's not my list. :D
The RuneGuard clearly *isn't* an alternate ranger, despite using a lot of ranger numbers as shorthand. That's a simple way to present a class, but there's nothing about the base attack bonus, saves, skill points/level, starting age, or starting money that's uniquely ranger-ish. The skill and skill points/level are changed, anyway.
It's also pretty clearly not an alternate witch, since it's a martial class designed to fight with weapons. It does have hexes, which only shamans and witches (and hexcrafters, and hellions, and maybe other archetypes and or 3pp classes) get, but that's mostly because they're an underexplored concept. Lots of classes have spells, for example, which doesn't really make them hybrids or alternates of each other.
Given its not thematically at all a ranger, and is not going to play in any way like a spell caster (shaman/witch), I don't really think it's a hybrid of those either.
These are clearly abbreviated class descriptions, but the *intent* is certainly to provide new base classes that, at the game table, will produce a unique play experience despite being built on new ways to use existing rules.