|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I give it a hearty meh with a few good songs and awesome super power displays.
The false love interest didn't work at all. It's one thing to try to surprise the audience, it's another to not lay any ground work for a character's sudden betrayal and dramatic switch from good to evil. There were a number of scenes where his actions were in direct conflict with his actual evil agenda (e.g., telling the angry mob not to kill Elsa when he could've just been silent about it; giving out blankets and whatnot to the suffering people when he could've just said "nah, ain't gonna happen").
Also, what was the point of having the other sister's memory erased? Was that just so she could also be surprised when her sister manifested awesome super powers or so she wouldn't understand why her sister was cold (no pun intended) and distant all those years? I expected that to have some meaning in the movie, but it never seemed all that relevant.
Freehold DM wrote:
I like ninja psylock. It may be the horny teenager in me, but I do. I find the complaints about her overdone.
Ninja Psylocke as a new character would've been fine - a martial artist telepath is a pretty nifty idea for a comic book character. But I really liked pre-ninja Pyslocke - she was sharp, creative, and was one of the few non-telekinetic telepaths.
Goodreader is my solution as well - I can download files from my account on the Paizo website directly to my iPad using that program.
First Class was good, and so were the Bryan Singer X-men movies, so I'm optimistic. Can't say I give all that many f&~!s about continuity - if it's a good story and an entertaining movie, I have a hard time caring how it fits in with the other movies, or the comics, or the cartoons, or the Ultimate universe comics, or the alternate zombie-universe version of Marvel comics, or the video games, or the breakfast cereal, or any other X-men brand flavored media product.
I haven't had a problem with the pacing because I keep getting my post-apocalyptic fix. One of my all time favorite shows is Life After People, which is a plotless pseudo-documentary style show about what would happen to all the things humans built if the they were to suddenly disappear. 75% of the reason I watch TWD is for scenes where the characters explore the shell of the post-zombie apocalypse world, and as long as I get that, I don't mind slow or odd pacing.
*shrug* Do whatever you want, I'm just pointing out the many ways in which you are wrong on any number of topics. I'm not saying that your poor understanding of what this particular forum is based on your understanding of what a platonic ideal of a forum is might be indicative of a recurring defect in your arguments and reasoning, but it does seem clear to most in this thread that you have a very hard time separating what you like and prefer from objective facts. Similarly, you predicated much of your criticism on the idea that the designers had made a binding commitment to you personally to implement choice quotes selected by you in a manner you prefer. I suppose that objectively that might be true - maybe all of the WotC designers are stalking you and making statements and releasing products specifically to raise your ire. Stranger things have happened.
But, in any event, it is you who is failing the forum, not the other way around. The substantive discussion keeps getting sidetracked by these ridiculous meta-conversations regarding your behavior and style. Given that you arrived here with that meta-conversation pre-packaged for our consumption, it's difficult to believe that your primary interest is in discussing the topic of 5e rather than putting on a show to prove how smart and persecuted you are.
Either way, good luck with all that.
If only the people who created this forum had told us what it was about.
Oh wait, they did:
Here's where you can find answers to additional FAQs regarding the forums on Paizo and their purpose:
I might've missed the part where they indicated that these forums are intended to be a white hot crucible of burning truth, placing frank discussions and OMG Very Serious Discussions over having fun and friendliness, but given that this a forum dedicated to discussing a system for pretending to fight monsters and take their loot, I kinda suspect that if Paizo has to choose between a friendly and fun forum and one devoted to OMG Very Serious Discussions, they will choose the former over the latter.
If a person promises to pay you $5 you are lending to them, that's a contract supported by valid consideration. If they don't pay, you can sue.
If I tell you I'll give you $5 in a year, and then tell you to go pound sand one year later, you're fresh outta luck.
There is no binding obligation of any nature for the designers to deliver on their promises when you have given them nothing in exchange for those promises. The problem is further compounded by the esoteric and debateable nature of the promises being made (compatability, playstyles, etc.). I suppose you could try to make a case that there was misleading advertising after you actually purchase the product, but good luck with that (spoiler alert: the case will fail).
You should attempt to calibrate your expectations to the commercial and legal realities to which we are all subject. Your personal interpretation of what is owed is not consistent with either the legal concept or the general expectations of consumers at large. If the world operated as you proposed, I would sue the ever-loving hell out of those scrubbing bubbles, which have yet to manifest googly eyes and sweep through my bathtub, magically cleaning it without any effort on my part.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Thank you. When I mentioned this debate to most of my other gamer friends, their reaction was "what does Crane Wing do?" I think there's an overwhelming silent majority that is absolutely indifferent to this feat and the change, but it's really hard to post and say "this is a non-issue and I don't really care" when people are proclaiming it to be the worst thing to happen to the hobby since 4e. Please don't lose sight of the fact that most of us don't care, and that this is primarily a proxy for those who rail against the alleged martial/caster disparity. Sure, you could change the feat back, but that's not what they really want or what they're really asking for. To adequately address the real issue underlying this reaction would require a new edition of Pathfinder, and raising that issue will likely wake the sleeping giant that is the silent majority.
Good luck sorting it out. I don't envy you having inherited WotC's most vocal audience members along with the crown of being the top rpg, but it looks like you can't have one without the other.
Dear third party publishers,
Would one of you please publish a book, and, by book, I mean a single page, and on that page, please print the original version of Crane Wing. You're our only hope to save Pathfinder from the tyranny of Jason Bulmahn. Plus, you'll make a lot of money!
Seems like the order is well seeded for an alignment debate. You've got:
Roy, who may be tempted by Durkula (who I suspect will start offering up tactics that are extremely effective, but also evil) despite being pretty solidly LG.
V, who is trying to do the right thing, but has a damaged moral compass and hasn't come clean about what he did.
Belkar, who may or may not be drifting out of evil, but is definitely less overtly evil than in strips past.
Haley, who started out more neutral, but may be drifting to good due to Elan, but still has her own past acts that may haunt her.
Elan, who is pretty much good all the time.
I think that there is a LOT of people in the show's fandom that are absoutely determined to like this season more simply because Dan Harmon is back. Never mind that every single problem the show had in season 4 was stuff that Dan Harmon had started.
What if you mostly liked season 4, but still like the first few episodes of season 5 better?
I wasn't really going into this season with the expectation that it would be better for Harmon's involvement. I went into it with the expectation that it would be a lot of flailing and crap caused by dealing with the baggage of season 4, the loss of Chevy Chase and the upcoming loss of Donald Glover. I was expecting a fiasco at best.
One element I would note as being Harmon-esque is the quick back and forth banter that he's so good at (e.g., the Annie/Jeff argument about teaching styles). I came into the show as a result of the D&D episode, and the very next episode I watched was the first documentary episode featuring Jeff and Britta in a similar routine regarding their fathers. That exchange had me crying with laughter, and hooked me on the show for good.
All that said, I don't agree with the fandom consensus that the final episode of season 4, featuring the darkest timeline, was all that bad. It didn't seem that far off of the season 3 episode with Abed, Annie and the Imaginarium (or whatever the hell it's called). Season 4 was a season of decent, but largely mediocre episodes; season 5 is off to a good start, and I look forward to more.
I gave up on this show. It really hasn't been all that great. I tried to like it, but found most episodes to be slow and boring. I'll watch Arrow instead.
Same here. Maybe if they finally bother answering the question regarding Coulson's return from the dead, I'll watch that episode, but given that they've strung it out this long, I anticipate it will be used in a cliffhanger.
We just introduced a new 11th level Warpriest to our party last night, and I was DMing, so this feedback may be a little vague as I'm not on the front line of the mechanics. We are playing Kingmaker (more or less), and the character didn't see much in-game action last night.
However, one thing we noticed right away was how poorly the abilities granted stacked with the magic item package the party had. We aren't dedicated min-maxers, but we do have a handful of crafting feats in the party. Each party member has a ring of protection +2 or greater and a stat bump item with at least a +2 enchancement bonus. As we were trying to pick appropriate domains for the warpriest to fit him into the party, we kept running into domain abilities that were ineffectual for the party level - any bonus the warpriest could provide did not stack with and thus did not do anything to the party members with magic items (which was effectively all party members).
This may be an intentional design choice, and it might be that these abilities are intentionally skewed to be effective at low levels, but become less useful as the character advances. However, other abilities in that same slot for different domains continued to be effective/useful (e.g., one ability would've let the character fly) even at the levels of the party.
I realize character generation is probably on the border of what constitutes playtesting, but the initial experience with making a high level Warpriest is that it has some abilities that are dead-ends/traps for a typically equipped party.
Alex Martin wrote:
I especially liked how the prior conflict between Nale and Malack reinforced the notion that Durkon would be helpless, but that there were important differences at play in the confrontation between Durkon and the psion (e.g., the shadow (obviously), but also the lack of negative energy protection that Nale had in place).
When it comes to the ratings, you've got to trust the system.
My latest take is that this is Alias, but without the awesomeness of Jennifer Garner playing sexy dress-up every episode. Also, her nerdy tech guy > FitzSimmons.
Barring the unexpected and dramatic death of half the existing characters, I don't think I'm destined to watch this show for much longer.
Alright, I'm just gonna ask - WTF is being argued here? I keep trying to figure out what proposition ciretose is making that gets people hot and bothered, but all I see is stuff about killing horses with slings and using them as eyepatches.
Is the argument about whether a slinger is as effective as a bowman of some stripe?
It the argument that the sling, while worse than a bow, is still not horrible?
Is the argument that the sling, while worse than a bow, is still a viable choice for characters who don't have martial weapon proficiency?
Is the argument that the sling should be made better so that it doesn't suck as much as it currently does?
Help me out, people! I don't understand how we got 23+ pages out of the sling.
Belkar is surpised he just bought it; Durkon is surprised he's unaffected!
(Though I suppose we will know for sure in an unknowable amount of time)
Hmmmm...Belkar does have a surprise face instead of an angry face like Roy and Haley. I was expecting X's if Belkar had been killed by the psion, but Nale had a similar expression right before he died from an unexpected attack.
There are edition changes (1e-->2e; 3e-->3.5; maybe 3.5-->PF) and then there are EDITION CHANGES (2e-->3e; 3.5-->4e; maybe 3.5-->PF). I wouldn't necessarily object to the former, but am not particularly interested in the later.
But, that's neither here nor there - all signs indicate that there are no plans for a new edition of Pathfinder any time in the near future. The closest they seem to come is incorporating and updating materials from the softcover supplements into the hardcover offerings, which is a trend I generally like. I have a hankering for a PF spell tome that collects, updates, and polishes the best of the spells have been released to date.
The wall is just an example - you can take any number of obstacles where Pathfinder sets the DC based on the environmental factors and 4e sets the DC based on character level and challenge. Neither approach is bad, just different. It's also not black or white - you'll often see high level Pathfinder modules scrambling to justify a high DC on a particular check that should be easy in order to have a meaningful challenge for high level players. Similarly, 4e had some modifiers based on the terrain/etc. But, for the most part, Pathfinder tries more to model the reality whereas 4e tries more to base things on making appropriate challenges for the PCs.
<--Insert extended arguments regarding gamist v. simulationist stuff here.
Base Class: The classes in the Core Rule Book - rogue, fighter, wizard, barbarian, sorcerer, etc. I'd recommend starting with just the core book and the core classes for now. If you use the Beginner Box as your intro, I believe it only has 4 classes and does a good job introducing those (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard or sorcerer). They go from levels 1 through 20.
Core Class: These are classes introduced in the Advanced Players Guide, Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat and are a little more advanced (alchemist, summoner, magus, gunslinger, inquisitor, etc.) They are balanced against the Base Classes and also go from levels 1 through 20.
Archetypes: Archetypes take an existing Base or Core Class and replaces some of the class abilities. For example, the Invulernable Ranger is a barbarian, except instead of getting dodge based abilities, it gets better damage reduction. Archetypes are not in the core rules, but are fairly easy to use and implement.
Prestige Classes: These are advanced classes that require pre-reqs. Back in the 3e days, you'd typically plan your character around the prestige class you wanted to qualify for, but Paizo has done a lot to make the base/core classes better and the prestige classes aren't as important or powerful. You can't typically qualify before level 5 or higher, and these classes only go from levels 1 through 10.
As a new gamer, I'd recommend sticking with the core rules classes and maybe introducing archetypes.
Nathanael Love wrote:
When you suggest that you should make Magic Missile have to roll to hit you have to expect people don't think its a good idea.
Except that's not what I suggested. You said that. I said magic missle is not newb friendly because it doesn't follow the general rules. Try to keep up here.
Nathanael Love wrote:
You weren't clear that you meant a different selection of spells in the book compared to removing the spells altogether.
And yet, even after I've made it clear, you've still been responding as if I'm proposing a revised version of the rules instead of a re-cut version of the rules. As shown by...
Nathanael Love wrote:
Just to make sure we're clear, I'm not actually proposing changing the rules. I'm proposing a core rule book which takes certain elements of the game not featured in the core rules (e.g., spells, feats, classes, races, etc. from other sources), perhaps combining them with new elements (e.g., a spell like magic missile, that isn't actually magic missile, but that has an attack roll and does damage), and releasing the whole shabam as a standalone product (which still has access to all the old grandfathered stuff, just not in that particular version of the core rule book). No part of this proposal includes taking existing books from your home or traveling through time to alter the contents of the original CRB to change the audience or its function. I'm well aware of the events leading to the current CRB, I generally think it's pretty damn awesome, and I was just spouting off about one particular product type that I've always thought would be groovy (an alternate CRB) and specifically mentioned that the spell issue is a pet peeve (pet peeve != OMG MAJOR DESIGN FLAW) when you decided I was attacking game balance, apple pie, and generally tilting at historical windmills.
Nathanael Love wrote:
No idea who or what you're responding to, but it wasn't to my point. Go b%!+& about balance to someone who's interested in having that discussion with you. Wizards could still take magic missile because it's in the main CRB; my proposal is for a parallel CRB with different classes/spells/feats/etc. featured.
My point is that the core rulebook isn't necessarily filled with feats and spells that reinforce the core concepts of the game. Example: a new player learns they can critically hit with a ray spell. What ray spell can they take in the core rule book at 1st level? Ray of Enfeeblement, which can't crit! I'm not saying get Ray of Enfeeblement is too powerful, but replacing it with a ray spell that actually follows the general rules for ray spells will help teach a new player how to use ray spells (though I suppose Ray of Frost is also conveniently available at 0 level). If you're going to deviate sharply from the generic ray spell rules (or the generic stat damage rules), save it for higher level spells that are less likely to be encountered by a newb.
Yes, I get that spells and feats break the rules, but they also help in teaching the game. The current grab bag of spells reflect the legacy of the game and it couldn't hurt to revisit what to include/not include if a product is needed with a slightly different focus (e.g., teaching newbs). No where did I advocate the absurd braindead version of the rules that you made up and then incorrectly attributed to me.
I suspect you'll follow-up with further posts in which you introduce various straw-men based around core rule books where the only classes are fighter, expert, and sorcerer, but I will leave the responses to those posts to the scarecrows to whom they are addressed.
I've always dreamed of an alternate core rule book, which provides a different mix of races, classes, and spells, that also has the actual core rules (combat, movement, etc). Spells in particular are one of my pet peeves when it comes to newbs - a lot of the low level spells don't follow the general rules for spells because they are wonky grandfathered spells from prior editions (e.g., magic missle and its lack of a to-hit roll, ray of enfeeblement can't crit because it's a penalty rather than stat drain, etc.) I'd like to see a core rulebook that is newb friendly by eliminating the grandfathered elements and focusing on clean and simple executions of the core concepts of the game.