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

Roman's page

1,062 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,062 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Odraude wrote:
Sah wrote:
Odraude wrote:
So I hope to see them do Vancian style with psychic magic. I'd hope they use a different name though, because psychic magic doesn't have a good ring to it.

I hate to be that guy, but wouldn't they just use the term "Psionics"?

Also I would like to see Paizo's take on Psionics. As much as I like the Dreamscarred press stuff it is nice to see first party support for such things.

They've already said it'll be called something else, so there won't be any expectations of it being like 3.5's psionics.

Well, the name is not really crucial to me. ;)


I don't really mind the name they chose: psionics/psychic power/whatever. I am more concerned about how they are going to mechanically differentiate it from arcane and divine magic if they decide to use a slot-based, as it seems they will. I am one of those people who likes flavor, but likes it to be supported by specific mechanics...

This would not be an issue if arcane and divine magic didn't cover pretty much all the bases already. The two are somewhat differentiated, though I would prefer greater differences still, but together they already include the types of spells/powers that psionics/psychic power should be dealing with (e.g. domination, psychometabolic-like stuff, etc.). A single mechanical system would work great, if the spells/power/prayers were divided among the various classes of magic/psionics, thus differentiating them in that manner.

Having said that, it is possible that they might find a niche for psychic powers/psionics yet. If I were to do it within the slot-based system, I would expand the scope of mental powers, telekinetic-like powers, etc. - perhaps there may be enough there that wizards and clerics don't have yet to make psionics work as different enough. Of course, in some sense, it would be nice to simply remove some schools from wizards and clerics (enchantment, to be sure) and give it to the new source of power, but for backward compatibility reasons and to ensure that people don't have to use psionics, it won't be done,


Thanks for the responses. It is a bit unfortunate that nothing appears to be in the works at Paizo yet, but the Dreamscarred stuff is indeed good.


Quite a while back, I recall that Paizo mentioned that they like the concept of psionics/psychic powers, but dislike the power point implementation from 3.5E and its OGL successor for Pathfinder. An interesting discussion was raging on the topic at the time and we made suggestions - for example I recall suggesting using one of several ki-based/ki-related systems, or a power point system modified to be less prone to nova-ing or a number of other more exotic systems and other people made suggestions too. I think Paizo was, nevertheless, leaning towards a slot-based system with a Psionic/Psychic flavor.

Whereas I am not attached to the power point system, I would prefer a new mechanic for Psionics/Psychic Powers to make them different from Divine and Arcane magic. Truth be told, I would prefer Arcane and Divine magic were different from each other too (and that Nature magic was separate, rather than part of Divine and also unique), but that ship has sailed, so at least Psychic Powers/Psionics could be different. However, even slot-based Psionics/Psychic Power would be interesting if the classes were made distinct enough mechanically from existing classes (I have no doubt they would have distinct enough flavor, but mechanics in my mind needs to support flavor.

In any case, I have not been active on these boards for a while and just want to enquire about the current state of the debate and whether there is something in the works yet.


I am wondering, are there any non-English (especially French) Pathfinder PbP games going on or starting up? I am learning French (currently at about B1 level of the European classification system) and would love to practice it while doing something I love: roleplaying. So if anybody is running or planning to run a Pathfinder AP (or another adventure) in French, I would love to join. The only snag is that playing with B1 level might be challenging, but I would still love to try. :)


Feral,

Thanks for the encouragement. One of the things that held me up was my lack of familiarity with Golarion combined with my yearning to have the character rooted in the setting. Hence the need to do research to find a place with current disposition and historical events that would fit the idea I had for Maxrow. Still, I should have posted the background earlier - it didn't take that long. Indeed, one could argue that paucity of knowledge about Golarion (or the APs) itself might not make me an ideal candidate for a game in the setting, but Paizo's adventure paths have a reputation for excellence, so I am keen on trying one.

In any case, this promises to be an interesting game, so I might follow along or at least pop in from time to time (the one thing which might stop me is the desire to avoid spoilers - I try to avoid movie trailers for the same reason, but sometimes cannot resist to watch them at least partially). You have collected a bunch of good players and are clearly an experienced GM - something I can surmise from your probing questions, not being afraid to tinker with the rules and your general vibe. (Well, that and your number of posts ;) )


Congratulations to all the winners or in the spirit of the upcoming holiday season: Merry adventuring and happy GMing!


I would like to join as a Witch or an Oracle. :)


Here is my background:

Maxrow Eldner:

The gift of prophecy can be a blessing, yet also a curse. Maxrow's experience is a testament to that paradox.

Born to a prominent magister family in Razmiran, his early childhood years were spent luxury. As an only son in a family of wealth and privilege, Maxrow's parents spoiled him. Anything a child could want, he merely needed to ask for and sometimes not even that...

Living a carefree life, Maxrow loved to watch the stars, read books and observe his parents' involvement in politics. He was also fascinated by his parents' command of magic, but having been spoiled by luxurious living and doting parents meant that even though he wanted to, he simply did not have the determination necessary to dedicate decades of his life to magical study to follow in their footsteps.

Paradise on Earth is never forever, though, and everything changed with Razmir's arrival. His assault on the ruling magister class was brutal. Claiming to be a god, he unleashed terrible destruction and let his gold-masked priests loose on any magisters who survived the initial mayhem.

Eldners did live through the first wave of destruction, but their luck was not to last, as gold-masked priests caught up with them in their country getaway. Maxrow was an adolescent by then and the family collectively agreed to make a break for with everybody running in a different direction, so that the pursuers could not get them all. Overcome by fear, as he was running he slowly regained his composure and even thought himself fortunate that nobody seems to have chosen him as the quarry. When he arrived at the designated meeting place, though, nobody else was there. So he waited and waited, but it was in vain. It eventually dawned on him, that no others had made it.

Grieving Maxrow set out to on his own, but spoiled and unwise in the ways of the world, it was only a matter of time before he was captured too. Sadistic priests did not kill him on the spot. Perhaps they did not recognize him as a son of the magisters or they simply did not consider him a threat and wanted to have fun torturing him at the temple or maybe they wanted him to serve as a slave; all he knew is that he was caught and bound, yet spared.

As he was being brought to the temple, his priestly captors joined with a few others, transporting prisoners from the south. During the night at camp, Maxrow noticed that he could roll to grab one of the logs in the fire and use it to burn through the ropes tying other prisoners. Afraid to draw the anger of the cruel priests, though, he just lay there all night, motionless.

Next day they reached the temple and he was made to watch his fellow prisoners being beaten and sacrificed. Ravaged by revulsion and guilt, he struggled, so that several priests had to restrain him. It was then when they told him, "If you cannot bear watching a sacrifice to our God, you will never be able to see anything agan." Bringing him to the roof of the temple, they forced his eyes open and held his head, forcing him to stare at the Sun. Maxrow's eyes burned, but he was forced to keep his gaze fixed. Eventually, the pain petered out. To his surprise, Maxrow could still see the bright golden disc in the sky, but when his head was finally released, he was indeed blind... or nearly so. Surprisingly, he could still see the various celestial objects, but on Earth, his vision was almost gone.

Their evil handiwork done, the priests had left him for a few days in his cell to wallow in grief before they were going to execute him. When sulking and watching the stars, one of the few things he could still see well, through the small, barred window, Maxrow had his first vision and spoke it aloud. A small meteor would fall that night and bring great wealth to the one who got there first. A priest overheard him, but thought nothing of it, until a meteor did fall - a meteor with mithril.

Following that incident, the priests would spare Maxrow, to prophesize for them. His visions were infrequent and he could not control them. Nevertheless, he was eventually allowed to roam small confined sections of the temple on his own. One day he heard another group of prisoners passing by in the temple. This time he would try to make up for his past cowardice. He managed to get hold of a ceremonial dagger and cut through the bonds of several prisoners. They made a break for it, when the priests least expected it and grateful for his help, carried the relatively frail and light Maxrow with them.

Once they got far enough, they all went their separate ways. This time, though, whether through fate or priest disinterest on account of a lack of recent visions, Maxrow would not be caught. Though reluctantly, he sold the ceremonial embossed dagger that he used to cut the prisoners free, which afforded him enough money to buy supplies, board a ship and leave the country.


Feral wrote:
Roman wrote:
Stuff.
I like some of the things you said here, particularly the bit about heroic characters. Get me some sort of background (it can be vague in parts). If you can't write up a background without a specific AP, just choose one and write the background for that.

I have just finished writing the general background. I can add to it in order to provide some AP-specific motivations once the AP is chosen.


Feral wrote:

I'm seeing a bit of interest in Kingmaker and I thought I'd explain a few more things:

If we end up doing Kingmaker, I plan to drastically reduce/streamline the kingdom building aspects of the campaign. I've ran that AP up through the 4th book and I have no desire to repeat that process. If this is a deal-breaker for you, please post changing your AP preference.

Well, I would say, let's do something other than Kingmaker then. I have played none of the APs yet, so I cannot judge an AP from personal experience, but if the AP leaves you frustrated, as Kingmaker seems have left you, it is best to go for a different AP. Besides, Kingmaker appears to be a very popular AP on the boards, which may mean it is very good, but it also suggests that a Kingmaker game might be easier to find then some others. I haven't seen any of the latest adventure path the "Shattered Star" starting recently, for example.

In any case, it would be helpful if you indicated which adventure paths you have, so that we can limit our suggestion to them.


I would be interested in playing either a Mythic Oracle or a Mythic Sorcerer in this game. :)


A) I would be up for any of the APs, as I haven't played or read any of them. As such, it is difficult to judge how appealing each one would be ahead of time, but given the quality of Paizo's work in other areas the reputation of the company for high-quality adventures, I am pretty confident all of them are great.

B) I think I would like to try my hand at playing a spontaneous divine caster. Hence an Oracle would probably be my first choice. Time and the Heavens look like interesting mysteries. Race would be either Human, Half-Elf or Elf.

C) Given that I like playing heroic/good characters, I would like to play a character in this game. It would probably be best to tailor the background of the character to a specific AP. Of course, that has not been chosen yet, so I am going to have to go with the notion that he is an exile from a faraway land (hence will be easy to fit into any AP).

D) I have little PbP experience (i.e. almost none), but I have been a player and a GM since the 2nd edition of AD&D. Currently, I am the GM/DM for an in-person game (indeed, in my current in-person group, I am always the GM/DM).


DM Heterocephalus, sorry I missed the deadline. Thanks for the opportunity though and maybe next time. Good luck to all the gladiators! :)


Black Fang wrote:
Roman wrote:

I have long wanted to try out one of the official adventure paths for the Pathfinder RPG. The only realistic chance for that is on the net, so this seems promising. I was thinking some sort of magical character, such as the ultimate spontaneous caster: Oracle/Sorcerer [Mysteries: Time, Heavens & Curses: Blind or Lame]/[Bloodlines: Serpentine, Another weird bloodline) or something similar (e.g. Witch/Wizard could also be interesting - a wizard who took a shortcut to power through a pact, but is not trying to increase independence from the patron.

A couple of questions though:

1) How far do the online adventure paths usually get? These are supposed to be long campaigns based on chains of adventures. Is PbP a workable model for that?

2) Is Kingmaker suited to an online format? I have not played or read any of the adventure paths, but some preliminary theme-search indicated that Kingmaker supposedly concentrates on map and army play. Isn't this particularly difficult to do online?

Yes, adventure paths are able to be played using the pbp format. They take a long time, but they work.

Cool, how long did it take, in your experience, to run through a full adventure path in the pbp format?


I have long wanted to try out one of the official adventure paths for the Pathfinder RPG. The only realistic chance for that is on the net, so this seems promising. I was thinking some sort of magical character, such as the ultimate spontaneous caster: Oracle/Sorcerer [Mysteries: Time, Heavens & Curses: Blind or Lame]/[Bloodlines: Serpentine, Another weird bloodline) or something similar (e.g. Witch/Wizard could also be interesting - a wizard who took a shortcut to power through a pact, but is not trying to increase independence from the patron.

A couple of questions though:

1) How far do the online adventure paths usually get? These are supposed to be long campaigns based on chains of adventures. Is PbP a workable model for that?

2) Is Kingmaker suited to an online format? I have not played or read any of the adventure paths, but some preliminary theme-search indicated that Kingmaker supposedly concentrates on map and army play. Isn't this particularly difficult to do online?


DM Heterocephalus wrote:

It is Play by post Only.

Minimum 1 post a day and during combat has to post an action within 24 hours or risk missing your turn.

Thanks for the update on this. btw: we were posting past each other for a while - I was sending you a PM while you already responded and vice-versa - hence the sometimes seemingly disjointed conversation, where I didn't yet know your answers in a PM/post, even though you had already provided them.

Anyway, in your experience, do PbP games last to the end, or do they just dissolve along the way? Does the DM and do the players usually find a daily commitment manageable? I don't have much experience with them, hence all of these seemingly strange questions.


I see. Well that does change things. Anyway, I have just sent you a PM with some ideas, so I will wait for a response on that first.

Also, what is the venue for this game? Is it PbP or some sort of chat or something else? What is the expected activity load (whether it be post frequency/length or chat meeting fequency/length)? Thanks for the info! :)


Hello DM Heterocephalus,

The campaign idea you have presented here is certainly intriguing and although I love playing casters, I must say the idea of a campaign where all players must begin as non-casters in a gladiatorial setting is interesting.

I was indeed thinking of going the Paladin route, as you put it, but it does not seem like a Paladin would be a very appropriate character choice for this type of campaign. Although the goal of achieving the greater good might be a worthy one, fighting in immortal (very mortal for some) games seems to entail committing a lot of sins even if they are done with the greater good in mind. It seems like a Paladin would quickly become an ex-Paladin in this kind of setup.

It seems to me as if the Gladiator is the most appropriate of the listed classes for this setting. That is a third party class, though. You mentioned you might be open to other third party content too, correct? If so, I have some ideas of what I might like to try. :)


I was considering a Rogue and a Paladin, but have just realized this is a PvP, which is not really my style.


The party in the campaign I run at the moment consists of a Barbarian, Rogue, Wizard and a Cleric (multiclassed, though), all at level 10. They have not fought each other, but if that were to happen in most reasonable scenarios (but it is indeed scenario specific), the Barbarian (not a Fighter, I guess, but still) would probably slaughter the Wizard. This is a poor measure of class worth, though, as that kind of one on one fight is rarely encountered in actual campaigns.

A more accurate measure of 'power' might be the extent to which each class contributes in a campaign. In combat, the Barbarian contributes the most in my current campaign, though the Wizard is not far behind and neither is the Rogue. The Cleric contributes the least, but that may be because the Cleric is multiclassed with a custom class I have invented, thus possessing only five Cleric levels and five levels of my class).

For the record, though, I do use many house rules and magic item availability is very restricted indeed.

Out of combat, the contribution of each class is heavily campaign dependent and story-specific. In my current campaign, the contribution is fairly balanced. I can see, though, why in most campaigns the spellcasters may have an edge in this.

Personally, when I am a player, I do generally prefer spellcasters to non-casters. The reason is not really power, though, but the fact that I simply find them more interesting. It is exciting for me to wield magic, as it is a possibility that does not exist on Earth. And I do find their out of combat options more interesting. Indeed, I think the main weakness of a Fighter is not combat capability, but having relatively few out of combat options. Having said that, I still do enjoy playing Fighters and other non-casters too and certainly have had fun playing my fair share of them. :)


The concept of this campaign is certainly cool. I think you need to provide some additional context, though, notably on whether this will be an evil campaign or whether the characters can be good. It would be kind of pointless playing a paladin if the campaign were to be evil and if he were to fall immediately and it would be equally senseless playing a bloodthirsty barbarian if the campaign were to be good and the characters are supposed to struggle with their 'gift' morally and ethically.

Information about venue (forum? chat?) and expected meeting or posting frequency would also be helpful, as would information about the group (e.g are the players and their characters cooperative?)

Personally, I enjoy playing casters the most, but they do seem to be fully covered (though an Oracle would seem to fit the premise of the campaign pretty well). Even a half-caster (like a summoner - a class I really like) might be reluctant given the party makeup. A paladin might be inappropriate to the campaign. Out of the non-casting classes left, a monk would seem like the best choice for me.


I wouldn't mind being a Merfolk aquatic/undersea/underwater Druid. A Gillman would also make for an interesting character, but Merfolk being more wilds-oriented seem like a more natural fit (no pun intended). Unless there are other race suggestions? I am not too familiar with underwater-capable races/monsters.


Mad Elf wrote:

I tend to agree with the OP. There is one point I disagree however:

Roman wrote:
3) Each character should have a weakness that allows even weak creatures to kill the character (in theory - they might find it hard to accomplish in practice) if they exploit it properly. The 'mortal weakness' could be based on the mythic fault or be an entirely separate concept.

I don't see why mythic characters should always have a flaw. Some like Achilles do, some others like Perseus don't. In my opinion, a flaw should be gained in exchanged for an extra mythic ability, but should not be mandatory.

Yeah, that is a reasonably approach too on the flaws issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cross-posted from a similar thread:

To be honest, although I am not a proponent of immortality (or resurrection) possibilities at low and medium levels, these concepts do have their place in high-powered play, so including them as mythic abilities does make some sense. Immortality, even in Mythic play, however, should be (much) more circumscribed than it is in the current playtest document.

1) There need to be ways for signature/powerful non-mythic creatures to kill mythic characters. Legendary dragons and outsiders (and indeed heroes - say X levels higher than the character concerned), for example, could be allowed to deal mythic damage, even if they are not strictly-speaking mythic.

2) Like legendary creatures, legendary weapons should also be capable of killing mythic characters (e.g. by also dealing mythic damage), even when wielded by non-legendary hands. This should include all artifacts and some other major magic items.

3) Each character should have a weakness that allows even weak creatures to kill the character (in theory - they might find it hard to accomplish in practice) if they exploit it properly. The 'mortal weakness' could be based on the mythic fault or be an entirely separate concept.


I would like to have the full Mythic progression. :)


This definitely sounds like an intriguing idea. Any particular races/creatures that are allowed? I mean, standard races don't really apply here if the campaign is going to be underwater... I wouldn't want to suffer asphyxiation within minutes of the campaign start :D , so I would prefer being something else than a human or a member of the core races.


I am looking forward to it. Hopefully, 2013 will be my lucky year. :)


I agree with the OP. In fact, I was planning to participate in a mythic playtest, where this would have probably been a significant issue: Sole Mythic Character After I read about the immortality powers, though, I am not so sure anymore, as the immortality issue makes this exact type of playtest (mixing a mythic character with non-mythic characters of higher levels) somewhat pointless.

To be honest, although I am not a proponent of immortality (or resurrection) possibilities at low and medium levels, these concepts do have their place in high-powered play, so including them as mythic abilities does make some sense. Immortality, even in Mythic play, however, should be (much) more circumscribed than it is in the current playtest document.

1) There need to be ways for signature/powerful non-mythic creatures to kill mythic characters. Legendary dragons and outsiders (and indeed heroes - say X levels higher than the character concerned), for example, could be allowed to deal mythic damage, even if they are not strictly-speaking mythic.

2) Like legendary creatures, legendary weapons should also be capable of killing mythic characters (e.g. by also dealing mythic damage), even when wielded by non-legendary hands. This should include all artifacts and some other major magic items.

3) Each character should have a weakness that allows even weak creatures to kill the character (in theory - they might find it hard to accomplish in practice) if they exploit it properly. The 'mortal weakness' could be based on the mythic fault or be an entirely separate concept.


Planning a playtest where I would have and advance in mythic tiers, whereas the other characters would advance in class levels. This would help test the relative power of mythic tiers and normal levels.

However, even before beginning the playtest, I can see a problem. Its name is Mythic Damage. Beyond tier eight, mythic characters are essentially immortal unless confronted by other mythic creatures. This is probably not a huge issue if all characters are mythic and they are meant to take on primarily mythic foes (which in itself is a bit of a predicament for the DM assuming he wants to keep mythic creatures rare) . In a group with a single mythic character, though, this makes it essentially impossible to endanger this character unless there is a surfeit of mythic opponents for the group to fight.

Now, mythic rules might not be created with this kind of gameplay in mind – they do seem to assume that characters are either all mythic or none are – so a mix might not be supported. That’s fine I guess (though it does obviate the possibility of a number of interesting fantasy tropes) – not all styles of gameplay can be supported. As I have mentioned, though, even if all the characters are mythic yet low level, they essentially only have to fight mythic foes to be in mortal danger.

With this in mind, I would advocate either removing or changing the concept of mythic damage. At the very least, some non-mythic creatures should be considered mythic for damage-dealing purposes. Dragons (at least of the more senior kind), Outsiders (again, at least from the higher ranks), higher-ranking undead and a bunch of other creatures/creature categories should dish out mythic damage. A less flavorful, but probably simpler solution might simply be to say that everything X% or X levels/HD/CR higher than the character deals mythic damage to the character.


Actually, I like the approach of the Mythic rules to solving the high level breakdown dilemma. It bypassed the level system, which is probably essential to solving the math issues without doing stuff like capping bonuses or changing their progressions (which always feels artificial and leads to class convergence - something I dislike).

Mythic rules are conceptually a great solution to these issues. They don't change existing class progression, they avoid capstone issues (which I have been warning about as posing a challenge to levels beyond 20 since the original alpha playtest) and they don't require the rebuilding of a character with different rules for high-powered play. In other words, the mythic solution seems awesome. Now let's playtest these rules to make sure that they work just as well in practice.


Cool topic!

Anyway, I am not as well-versed in Pathfinder and/or Golarion species as many on these fora, but I do have some criteria.

1) I would choose to be some species that is preferably immortal or if that is not an option, at least something that is very, very long-lived. Oh, and hopefully, I would get to be healthy and survivable to boot.

2) The species would also have to have a high level of cognitive ability/mental capacity/consciousness/(self-)awareness (i.e. good mental stats, among other things).

3) Preferably, the species would be powerful and thus capable of dealing with threats, challenges or obstacles and situations of various kinds.

4) Nifty abilities would be a definite asset. This means I would like to be able to do things I cannot do as a human (or at least not without the aid of technology). Magic/psionics/supernatural powers/spell-like abilities, flight, and various other powers are all more than welcome.

** 5) Ideally, it should not be a "silly species" (e.g. a space hamster), which is a rather subjective criterion, but I would want to be able to identify with it or be awed by it rather than laugh at it.


Kargun, I faced a similar situation some years back, when my wizard lost the ability to memorize spells due to a curse/spell. He could still read, but he simply could not regain spells at all once expended, and since the curse was cast at the end of a mission we had just accomplished, he had already expended a lot of spells. Furthermore, any attempt to cast a spell he still retained in his memory from before the curse necessitated a saving throw with a high DC, with a failure on the saving throw resulting in a permanent loss of a level.

The way I dealt with the situation was by multiclassing into a Psion, which was thematically appropriate, as I had been interested in Psionics and 'mental spells' anyway. It did leave me with 7 levels of wizard that were of not much use, so my Psionic ability did not correspond to the level of the party, but nevertheless, it did allow for staying within a similar theme and using psionic powers in place of spells.


Sash of the Daredevil
Aura moderate evocation; CL 9th
Slot belt; Price 14,000 gp; Weight 1 lbs.
Description
Made of fine white cloth, this sash is initially bland. The length of the band soon becomes lined with pictograms denoting the audacious exploits of its owner. Twice per day, when the wearer successfully engages in a risky task and chooses to take advantage of the sash, the item furnishes the proprietor with a bonus hero point that must be spent within three rounds. Wearer must declare the use of the sash before taking the action that would unlock the bonus hero point, but failure at the chosen task does not count against the item’s daily use limit.

Eligible risky tasks include meaningful uses of the following skills:

Acrobatics
Climb
Ride
Swim

In this context, the minimum DC for a task to count as risky is 20. Lower skill-use DCs denote tasks that are insufficiently bold to activate the item.

The risk deriving from skill-use must be real to trigger the item. This means that potential failure at the task must carry significant consequences for the owner, such as taking damage from falling off a tall cliff, drowning in raging waters, not making the jump across a deep chasm, losing control of a mount right next to the hostile villain and so on. If in doubt, the GM remains the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes meaningful consequences and whether the particular task is sufficiently risky to qualify.

A character cannot have more than one hero point derived from this item at a time, but the bonus hero point does not count against the normal limit of maximum simultaneous hero points.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, heroic fortune; Cost 7,000 gp

I really appreciate the time you take to critique my item. You have my thanks!


I have also attempted to run a game above 20th level in the past. It was workable, but I completely ignored the Epic Level Handbook and used my own very loose, very incomplete rules. That incompleteness was compensated for by a heavy focus on the story and minimal focus on the mechanics.


While I agree that it is possible to make the Epic Level Handbook work, I don't think it was a good ruleset for above 20th level play. I really hope Paizo does better.


Is Paizo planning to publish a book that would provide for character advancement and supporting material above level 20? I remember that we have discussed this several times in the past on this forum, but I have been out of the loop for a while, so I am wondering if there are any new indications either way.

Personally, I would be interested in seeing such a book, but only if it were well-executed indeed. Should it turn into something like the Epic Level Handbook in 3e, I would probably pass.


LazarX wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Seems to be a really good arguement against entering if you want to one day publish it yourself.
But quite frankly, if you can't cut it in Superstar, you're most likely never going to publish commercially anyway.

That's excessively harsh. I think it is perfectly viable for somebody to publish even if they could not cut it in the RPG Superstar contest.

To the OP: You have to accept Paizo policy on this and approach the matter with that in mind. If you have something you want to publish yourself, don't submit it to the contest unless you are willing to give it up for the chance to advance in the RPG Superstar.

I am also designing writing a roleplaying game of my own (and have been for a number of years now - it can be slow going if one wants to do it well and is only using hobby-time to work on it). Every year, I come up with a whole bunch of items for the RPG Superstar and pick one I am willing to give up. I have plenty of ideas, so submitting one is not going to make a big difference to my RPG. Really, the chance to advance in the RPG Superstar is very much worth one item.


My definition of a DMPC would be a character that fits one or both of these criteria:

1) The character is run by the DM and is a permanent (or at least persistent/long-term) member of the party - travelling with the PCs and partaking in their adventures/stories.

2) The DM is sufficiently emotionally invested in the character to give him spotlight that is unnecessary from the point of view of the plot, use him as a Deus Ex Machina and to twist the situation to protect/enhance the character.

With the definition out of the way, here is my position on the matter:

As a player, I dislike DMPCs of both of the above types, but I tolerate them, because some DMs enjoy playing them.

As a DM, I also dislike both of the above types of DMPCs, and seek to eschew their use whenever it is reasonably possible to avoid using them.

So yes, I agree with Sissyl and Dr.Death, in that I have yet to see a DMPC done well. Sure, some are less bad than others, and as I said, I tolerate them as a player in the name of DM's enjoyment of the game, but I would prefer it if the DMPC phenomenom were to go away.


I once played in a campaign, where a similar mechanic to that described in the original post was used. It was an Arthurian Legends setting and the GM had characters of missing players go into the Fairyland. At first, it felt a bit contrived, but the GM has managed to weave it very well into the campaign and sometimes stuff would even happen to them there to enhance the plot or generate side-plots.

Personally, when I know the absence of a player is going to be long-term, I have the character temporarily leave the group. For example, I had a cleric summoned by her church authorities to assist in performing an important ceremony/ritual, when her player left for a few months.

When a player's absence is expected to be short-term, I temporarily assign the character to another player for the session(s), though I retain the right to veto/choose actions for the character.


I do indeed tend to give general answers to general questions, but often I think the players are looking for sufficient background on the subject to gain as many additional clues to the plot as possible beyond what I already gave them. I am then at a dilemma as to how much more to divulge. At other times, I would just prefer more consistency than my ad hoc disbursement of information.

As to the specific questions, again, I ad-lib it and give out information essentially on a whim, paying general attention to the number rolled. I guess it works, but again, I would like to generate some additional consistency.


How do you deal with knowledge skills in your campaign? For example, if a player has many ranks in knowledge religion and asks you what he knows about vampire vulnerabilities. Let's say he gets a high result (e.g. 30+) - how much do you tell him? Do you ad-hock it entirely or do you have some sort of system/guidelines that you use to decide what to tell him?

How about if he asks you a more general question, such as... "What do I know about demons?" and rolls his 30+ on knowledge planes.

So what do YOU do with knowledge skills?


I am relieved to hear that the financial exposure of Paizo to this MMO is small. Don't get me wrong, I wish you luck and success in this endeavor, but my skepticism regarding the financial success of this project runs high. I am not personally interested in playing MMOs of any sort, but I am still rooting for you, because if you can pull this off (though I think that is a very big IF), it could be a huge boost to the Pathfinder community in general.

On a different note, I agree with Darak and FoxBat that OGL does not seem to prevent electronic games. I think people often confuse the OGL with the d20 license, which did have a clause against such games.


I have just learnt about the Pathfinder Online MMO. After reading all the information about it I could get my hands on, I am sorry to say that this is likely to be a major financial flop.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a Pathfinder RPG computer game, but Paizo has chosen just about the least financially-viable way to go about it. There are many issues here - I will mention some below:

1) Creating a new startup company to create the game is the first big mistake. Game development is a complex process and requires expertise and experience to do well. Paizo is an excellent PnP RPG company - it should have licensed/outsourced game development to an experienced CRPG developer (e.g. Obsidian Entertainment).

2) Making the game an MMO is another huge mistake. MMOs are particularly difficult, lengthy and expensive to develop. Proving the market first with a single-player game would have been a far less risky and cheaper strategy. Besides, the difficulties compound themselves when tied in with point 1.

3) Designing the game to be a sand-box experience, rather than concentrating on a tight-story focused game. A sandbox game may be successful, but Paizo is known for its good storytelling and adventures. To abandon its main strength, especially when it has decided to create its own startup to develop the game, is almost beyond comprehension. Unless, of course, it is the result of point number 2 - it is difficult (almost impossible?) to make a story-driven MMO.

4) Abandoning the PnP ruleset is yet another considerable mistake. The 3.5E ruleset of which this is a derivation is familiar and attractive to and legions of CRPG players and could attract them to the game. Heck, I too am with Pathfinder RPG because of the ruleset, not because of Golarion with which I have no experience (not saying it is bad, but it is not what would attract me to Pathfinder). Some changes are inevitable in the adaptation of the PnP ruleset to electronic format, but this is wholesale 'reimagining' of the rules. Of course, this relates to the game being an MMO, where PnP rules would indeed not work well.

I really hope the new startup company is as financially insulated as possible from Paizo proper, since I wouldn't want the highly likely financial failure of this project to kill or substantially damage Paizo.


A new Legends and Lore article on "Getting the Most Out of the Rules": http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111101


ciretose wrote:

Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.

Which of course could lead to the discussion of what changes could/should be made to classes, short of a full revision.

Does anybody have a link to the source of that information? Thanks!

Anyway, although I can imagine some changes to core classes, I don't think I am ready for buying a Pathfinder revision yet. If Paizo is merely considering releasing the info through FAQs or on a website... well, it would depend on the direction of the changes.

For example:

1) Changes to restrict spellcasting are fine by me, so long as interesting spells stay in the game, even if many think them unbalanced. Perhaps spell lists could be revised to ensure that one needs to specialize to gain interesting spells from that specialization and be forced to forgo such spells from other specializations.

2) Hopefully, the changes will not add additional arbitrary concepts, such as 'per encounter' timing and such.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Gunslinger is banned in my games, but the reasons are not so much balance, as the very idea of a class that uses guns. No thanks, in my fantasy games that are without guns.


ForgottenRider wrote:

Legends & Lore Archive | 10/25/2011

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111025

I definitely prefer the 3rd option. I am somewhat partial to rules-heavy games, as I can ignore or gloss over the details of the particular rules I don't want to bother with and use the ones I consider appropriate for my campaign. :)


P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I'm wondering how much 3.5 material groups let into their Pathfinder games (ie. prestige classes, feats, spells etc.)?

It's the other way for me. I use 3.5E as the basis, include some Pathfinder elements, and use a lot of my own rules. I have also been working on my own system entirely for several years now.


I don't view new editions as a money grab, so long as they don't come too often. Sure, they are used by companies to boost sales, but I accept if I feel that the new edition improves the game - these companies need to sell games to survive after all.

Having said that, from my perspective, the time horizon for new editions should be fairly long. I did not feel 3.X had run its course yet at the time of the edition change to 4E. If I were a 4E fan, I would not be amused if the 5th edition came some time in the near future.

1 to 50 of 1,062 << 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.