Wrong John Silver wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood the OP, but I didnt think he was referring to adopting an "anything goes" approach. I like knowing about all those cool places, but I'm happy to be told "you're all from Cheliax" or whatever. I like playing in heavily restricted campaigns, but I still enjoy knowing about the wider context, even if it's not all usable.
Generic Dungeon Master wrote:
I prefer having more in-depth and broader knowledge as a player than my character has because I'm better able to play a character from that world if I have some context in which to sit my backstory. I'm not going to pretend that my 1st level Varisian fighter is going to know anything about Vudra, but I suspect I'm better able to portray his response to Vudran elements he meets for the first time since I (as the player) have a better understanding of what he is encountering from the sourcebooks than I would glean from purely the DM description..
Similarly, I like getting maps of the world, the village, the local area, the geopolitical situation even though my character has probably never seen a map and definitely hasnt visited all those places. The extra info is a tool for me, the player, to portray the character - it generally includes information the character doesnt have, but that's a routine part of playing a character anyhow (my 1st level PCs dont know anywhere near as much about monster abilities, spells, magic items, etcetera that I do either. Ignoring the stuff my character doesnt know isnt that much of an effort).
It seems to me the issue is the existence of an objective alignment. We don't have that in the real world, but if it were a real, objective, detectable "thing" the way it is in Pathfinder, automatic prejudice against evil groups would be rational (and probably moral as well, by definition). It's also more reasonable to deem it an inheritable trait than it would be in reality (since "good" and "evil" are tangible concepts, rather than social constructs of some description).
No, that's just a glitch. Although, to be safe, I'd start a separate thread just related to your order so CS can track down the issue. Nonetheless, Paizo don't spread subscription shipments over multiple months. They should start shipping on Friday and then won't stop until everyone's December package is out the door.
The various different schedules on paizo's website don't do very well once the authorisation starts. The computer gets confused about which things are still to ship and which are pending.
I find it psychologically helpful not to pay attention to my credit card during such times.
A few days ago, I noticed a tab labelled "judges chambers" or something similar which appeared to be a separate set of forums, behind the main messageboards. I didn't have any time then but figured I'd go back and see what they were later. But now, I can't find them.
Any idea what that was? Where I can find them again?
Vic Wertz wrote:
Yeah—we've made some revisions to the schedule, with an aim towards getting more subscribers stuff before the retail release date. We expect to have the vast majority of subs shipped within two weeks—that December 31 date is worst-case—and we've delayed the retail release until December 26.
Thanks, Vic. Who'd have guessed runaway success would bring such angst? :)
Yeah. I've placed around six hundred orders and had issues with maybe a dozen. All of those were rectified quickly and beyond what paizo were obligated to do.
The warehouse and CS crews are terrific 95% of the time and stupidly busy the other 5% of the time, making them late, possibly but still terrific - my orders during this insane period have all been packed with the usual, stellar care (thanks Cassidy and Mika!)
If I'd placed my first order with paizo in the last few months, I'd probably be concerned too. In context though, this is just a minor, temporary glitch. It's obviously a genuine problem, but they'll work it out. :)
Vic Wertz wrote:
...we had some single orders containing nearly a thousand individual items.
Wow. And I thought I was a dedicated paizo fan. I better lift my game!
Solely the latter.
I had an epiphany a few years back that all RPGs are terrible simulations (and have always found "balance" to be an unnecessary goal in an RPG). As such, the concept of a rule set "having problems" isn't really one I understand. There are just some rule systems I like and others I don't.
Eh, it's a useful warning sigh for games to avoid.
Or just a useful shorthand for describing a PC or campaign (presumably not everyone wants to avoid it).
I don't think it's right to get annoyed about him making up numbers on the fly if you knew that was how he did things going in. If you know he doesn't stat up NPCs then it seems obvious he has to make up skills and NPC knowledge on the run. Sometimes he'll do that well, sometimes poorly - you're buying into that variance by playing with that kind of DM, in my view.
I have less sympathy with taking back actions that were doomed to fail. I think the acceptability of that is more about the group culture than a matter of DM fiat. As such, I'd bring it up with the group and see what others' views are.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Every time I see a new "how do I block someone" thread I am saddened because for whatever reason you guys just won't implement this simple, basic function that makes Internet communication so delightful.
FWIW, it will sadden me if they ever decide to implement one.
If October wasn't the "usual state of play," one might think that the shipping date wouldn't have changed from 12/18/13 to 1/3/14. There's also been a note up for quite a few weeks regarding how the "Great Golem Sale" has caused customer service and shipments to be delayed. My concern is that Paizo's operations have systemic flaws, either in terms of glitchy software or a fulfillment department that doesn't or can't scale up when the volume of work increases, that might cause such "rare" occurrences to happen more frequently.
I'm basing my comments about it being unusual on data from the last four or five years (when I've had continuous subscriptions to a number of lines and made a few hundred additional, one-off orders). The August shipment often gets sluggish, but the rest of the time they're generally pretty smooth at shipping out whatever is available..
I share your concerns about the systemic problems - the new products coming out in the last couple of years (probably exacerbated by the growing popularity of their core products) have really thrown their fulfillment systems something of a curveball. I suspect the comics and miniatures subscriptions, plus the new card game have all proved either more popular or more convoluted than they anticipated. I hope that they adjust the street dates appropriately if subscription runs are now going to take three or four weeks as a matter of course. I dont expect things early as a subscriber, but it would be a weird thing if it became usual to receive products later than the stores.
I'm confident they'll work through them (it really doesnt make sense to allow potential direct sales to go elsewhere) although I realise it's going to take some time. Nonetheless, I think it's worth mentioning for those who are new subscribers to Paizo that the last few months have been out of the ordinary, not the usual state of play.
I don't have an issue with your approach, RD. However, I think you should consider how well it extrapolates if everyone were to do it. Provided that suits the style of your group (all martial parties at low levels and all caster parties at high levels) then I don't see any ethical issue - they should get over themselves and let you play the way you enjoy.
It's different if your group likes to have a balance of martials and casters. Since your method will never result in you being the guy "taking one for the team" and could perhaps be seen as selfish.
Most of their product lines are monthly, so it shouldn't be a big deal. October was a weird confluence of technical glitches, not the usual state of play.
Where did you get that date?
The schedule of upcoming products page often gets glitchy around the period when subscription items stop being due next month but haven't yet been delivered last month.
Okay. So it's not "mathematical" objection based on distances between squares. It's that you don't like some combination of the trip/movement/stun rules.
May as well work on fixing the issue rather than something unrelated.
Each character isn't in the middle of their squares (or you wouldn't be able to punch an adjacent opponent). Moving from one square to the next isn't necessarily moving from one centre to the other.
There isn't a breach of pythagoras's theorem - it's just that the grid is an imperfect approximation (fireballs aren't jagged either).
Perhaps you're misremembering (or perhaps I am). My take on it was that supporting the kickstarter was the only way to be sure to get it for two reasons: first, the kickstarter backers would get priority, so there'd be no danger it would sell out before you got your copy and more significantly, if the kickstarter didnt fund, the superdungeon wouldnt be made at all..
I dont remember them saying it would be exclusive to the kickstarter backers. In fact, I'm pretty sure there was an explicit statement from paizo that the emerald spire would likely be made available to non backers - but they were keen to make clear that without the kickstarter succeeding, it likely wouldnt happen.
Can't wait to see this. I liked the first deck, but wanted a couple of changes - both of which are incorporated in this one. :)
Thanks for listening, Paizo.
Vic Wertz wrote:
If you've been following the Modules line for long, you may note that it has been months behind schedule for a really, really long time. Switching from smaller bimonthly books to larger quarterly books did not solve that problem (nor was it meant to; it's actually an *increase* in the number of pages per year). It's been clear to us that getting back on track was going to necessitate skipping a release window at some point, and when we decided to do the extra-large Emerald Spire module, that provided an opportune time in our schedule to do that.
Ah, I see. Thanks. Can I ask when (roughly) you'd expect the next, non-Emerald Spire module to be released? Just to calibrate my expectations somewhat.
2) Many of freelancers which develop products for Paizo are creating content for 3pp. Many of whom have stated that they are more careful about balance in their own products than they are in their submissions to Paizo.
Really? I dont suppose you have a link or two do you? I'd be really interested to understand why.
The Community Use Policy is where you want to go to see what's allowed and what isnt as far as non-commercial use by fans goes (and the usage requirements you'd need to abide by). Paizo are very generous in that regard, in my opinion.
As an initial thought (from an interested but not terribly knowledgeable, non-lawyer), including such work in a portfolio might count as commercial use, even if it isnt directly for sale. (Being in the publishing business means you are considered a commercial user whether the product is being sold or not, for example).
Couldnt it be another unwritten (and sensible) rule that using two hands means you are using your off-hand?
As a player, I hate in when I know that "the fix is in." So as a DM, I don't fudge, unless I think that I've made a mistake.
This approach interests me, since it's very similar to my position for several years. However, I've recently begun to consider that running a game I want to play is probably not a good measuring stick.
As a player I like rolls in the open, no fudging and reasonably common violation of 'level appropriateness' (ie lots of running away, evading and negotiating). I fully expect PCs to die pretty regularly and TPKs to happen from time to time. However there's at least one guy at our table who doesnt like PCs dying at all. His view is very much that failure should nearly always result in a story-based setback, rather than death. He likes games where TPKs are extremely rare (and nearly always thinks they should have been handled differently). On balance, I think it's better for me to fudge rolls and amend encounters on the fly when I run the game and for him to play a more hardcore, 'let the dice fall where they may' style when he's the DM. Unfortunately, that isnt proving as easy to implement as one would like.
Ban isnt the right word (since if someone really wanted to use a banned rule/option/book then I'd allow it) but my preference when playing pathfinder is beginner box only or CRB only if people are really keen for options.
Ah thanks. Any idea when the next module is likely to be announced (presuming the December then January release schedule is accurate - is the next one due out March/April (ish)?
I want to support the adventure path series but at the same time I'm tired if level one content, and rather start where pc are some what confident (like 3 or 4).
I think you'll have to cancel when each first instalment rolls around and then resubscribe with issue two.
Hmm. I seemed to remember it more in batches than a gradual thing. Ah well. The next module is the main thing I want to know - hopefully that'll be announced soon.
One more tidbit, I'll only have two players. I know most stuff is written assuming 4 PCs. Any tips on that? Maybe have them run two characters? We've never been real big on that because it's harder to get into character and make a fleshed out PC, but I guess beggars can't be choosers.
We have only two players too. One problem we had was the tendency to think of them as statblocks rather than characters (since running two PCs is lots of paperwork, it's easy to get bogged down in doing that and less so in the actual playing of the game).
Our solution (which is working okay) is to have one 'main' character each (built with a higher pointbuy and one extra level, in our case) and one henchman character. That way the henchmen tend to automatically drift into the background and there's fewer "who said that?" moments, since the default everyone falls into is to roleplay their principal PC. We find that in tactical situations, the henchmen dont innovate that much either, so the battle tends to stay focussed on the two primary protagonists.
I can never remember when the upcoming products list is updated - is it soon?
I note that the module line will be 'fully released' in January. Granted the new quarterly schedule changes things, but it would be great to see what is in the works. (Similarly for the campaign setting line - I can make the obvious guesses based on the upcoming AP, but there's usually a surprise or two).
I'm also not particularly knowledgeable about the system, but I do something similar to this if I'm planning on running higher level Pathfinder adventures (I dont think there's an issue at the lower levels if the PCs just dont have as much magic). I'm mostly averse to the image of the number of different items a mid to high level PF character is expected to wear - that's what screws with my imagining. As such, I often have combination items - armor which combines the effect of several of the 'big six' items, for example. (We dont use WBL and nobody ever takes crafting feats in our games, so there's not the issue of people trying to "fill up" the now unnecessary slots).
I also use the trope of a famous weapon growing more powerful by virtue of being used by a legendary hero - the barbarian's axe can gradually grant him bonuses to his attack rolls, AC, saves, whatever else you need to keep things balanced. It doesnt have to be an item you can actually find in the rulebook - it just has to match what you think the bonuses/abilities should be to keep the maths sensible and to give players the resources they're likely to need.
I'm not one of the ones you list, but I don't like the PF base assumption of lots of magic items purely on aesthetic grounds. The fantay stories I've read and enjoyed are predominantly about the characters triumphs with access to only very rare, very powerful magic items. As a consequence, those are the stories I like to tell.
I think there'd be a concomitant adjustment to the foes a PC would be expected to meet at various levels, were one concerned with preserving balance.
Puck Norris wrote:
...whole point of multiclassing is to not get locked into a class for a large number of levels...
Is this generally considered true? It's not why I multiclass (on the rare occasions I do).
I don't think there's any reason a high charisma player should expect to be able to persuade NPCs to accompany them.
Having said that, I like to give players reward for that aspect of their character they choose to emphasise. In this case, I think it would be good if the bard had got some reward that a "low charisma" character wouldn't have. Not because its in the rules, but because that's what he sees as a feature of his character.
I would have had the NPC decline the offer but instead offered some small boon. Maybe a healing charm/potion or even better some advice about an upcoming challenge.