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

Steve Geddes's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber. 7,494 posts (8,462 including aliases). 12 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
It may be true, there may even be proof somewhere, but this isn't it. No reason to think the OP isn't just making the first part up, just like the rest of it. Because you want to believe it, doesn't make it true.

Words to remember, really. This is a pretty low bar to set as "proof" (or even evidence).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Wheldrake wrote:
At best you could submit it to Paizo and see if they want to publish it. I'd be suprised if they didn't have a contributors FAQ around here somewhere.

As a general rule, they don't read unsolicited submissions.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

What I do is remove the map and place it, opened out as much as possible, behind the board.

Personally, I wish they didn't package the maps in this way (I'd prefer a wraparound, detachable cover), especially with the premium versions, as it inevitably leaves a few creases in the cover.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

The (unstated) assumption is that the game is fair and nobody is cheating. However, cheats do not "exist outside" of either probability or "the mathematical element". You can mathematically account for cheats too.

For example: if you (somehow) know another player is going to cheat, the best you can do to maximise your chances is to do whatever you can to go before that person makes their choice (although, in my view, this in itself constitutes cheating on your part). Knowing another player's proclivities (like third from the left or something) doesn't actually help you at all unless you plan on cheating yourself.

Obviously one answer to "how do I maximise my chances of winning this game of chance?" is always going to be "Cheat". It's not generally a very useful answer though, in terms of advancing understanding, since everyone already knows that answer.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Adjule wrote:
thejeff wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Wrath wrote:

The card game lets me, my wife, my 10 year old daughter and my 8 year old son all play and enjoy the game. My wife hates roleplay games, but she'll do the card game because she thinks it feels more like a board game to her.

If Paizo can get that into mainstream shops like Target, k mart and Big W (Australian shop chains) then it'll be a win and it will grow the market.

Cheers

Yep. Cards is the way forward for Paizo, just look at there expanding product range now......to the detriment of (rpg) books I feel. Much wider audience and therefore cash for Card Based Games
It may be the way forward for Paizo, but I'm not sure how much it grows the market for RPGs. While I certainly wish Paizo well in whatever whatever they're selling, outside of the tabletop RPG market it's not really going to interest me.

Yeah, I am not really interested in anything outside of RPG books. Paizo's card game doesn't grab me at all. I have played Magic the Gathering multiple times before, and honestly card games (whether CCG or not) just don't interest me anymore. I lost interest in Magic as well.

I don't really know what exactly their card game is like.

It's worth a shot if you ever get the chance. I think it does an excellent job of capturing the "feel" of an RPG (though it's not the same thing at all).


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Generally it needs a code (like Holiday15) or something - looks like that was left out.

It's usually one order only.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

He means that the "early" d20s (ie in the 1970s) came printed with 0-9 twice and it was suggested you color half of them yourself, rather than being printed/cast with the numbers 1-20. The latter didn't become standard until the eighties.

Nobody in this thread has advocated rolling two d10s and adding them together (although several have thought others are suggesting that).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
king phar wrote:

Alright so I'm gonna start this post off saying that I have only played one campaign set in 5th edition using the Tyranny of Dragons adventure book and playing Bard (a class I have never played before but heard good things about).

I, personally, found the whole experience to be really boring. Throughout the campaign the only way my character really felt like he had changed was in his spell list, even in the spell list though I felt like I was just choosing what charm I thought was most amusing at the time. I didn't really roll dice unless it was for some skill check and for those checks we basically just threw dice at them until one of us succeeded (It wasn't until the 3rd or 4th level that my diplomacy checks got more than 2 points higher than the party warlock and I'm the bard). On top of that there was rarely a fight that I didn't just rehash the same spells I used the last encounter. The DM tried his hardest to make things interesting but my character, my window to the story, was so static that when he threw us up against the harder stuff I was at first afraid, because I didn't feel stronger, then I found out that in reality the bosses weren't all that stronger than their lesser bandit brother in. Sure they would have one new ability that they would use every turn, but it was still hard for me to keep myself from rolling my eyes when my paladin started calling my name praying for heals when the enemy had barely scratched him. I also felt as if I have very few choices in how my character did things, from his leveling to his play style he followed his path like a good little elf and I was just a guy watching from a distance making notes on a piece of paper and rolling a dice.

Comparing this with the last Pathfinder campaign I played in. I found that even though the campaign was kind of excruciating due to a Dm putting in some rules and fluff that were just ridiculous in some cases, my character progressed. My hunter learned new techniques and each fight was a new lesson in ways to use my...

I've wondered about this dichotomy too. As well as the simple-complicated spectrum (which most of the discussion has been about) ít seems to me there's also a spectrum of how closely one likes the mechanical options provided within the character creation part of a game to replicate the flavor one is trying to portray.

It seems to me that 5E's default assumption is you can do much more without any mechanical backup - that duty falling on the DM to adjudicate rather than the rules. In Pathfinder, by contrast, there is more a general assumption that the rules empower you to do various actions/stunts and that the DM doesnt need to come up with rules, but that you cant do them without the appropriate mechanical gizmo.

We have one player in our group whose tastes in this regard mirror yours, I suspect. He's begun saying things like "well, that's not in the actual rules" when things come up in our 5E game and I suspect that in the long run he's going to find it limiting/boring in the same way that you did.

For me I find it the opposite - my pathfinder characters are all built very simply because I have no interest in the effort required to tweak them mechanically so I just make them good at one thing (and I'm not terribly good at that, so they're not even that good at it). Having done so, I cant then do anything else - since there's feats and options I should have taken but didnt, so I'm either forbidden from trying it or I'm nearly always going to fail. It seems to me these two different ways of playing arent really captured by the simple/complex dichotomy we've mainly spoken about in this thread. Nonetheless, I think it will prove a significant element long-term in which game one prefers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

I'd go for "as in your favourite role playing game" or similar.

You can use paizo's community use license, but only if you don't charge for your novella.

The pathfinder compatibility license doesn't seem to apply (as it isn't actually "compatible" per se).

Ultimately, any trademark holder is going to be protective of their IP (or they wouldn't have bothered registering the trademark), so I'd go for something more generic - it seems to me you'll get the same point across without naming a specific system.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Dafydd wrote:

been a while since statistics, but isn't the average roll of a d10 (theoretically) 5 or 6?

If that is true, then wouldn't the peaks be 5, 6, 15, and 16? (d2 being basically a flip of the coin)

If that is true (again, statistics was a while ago) this rolling method is much better for you, as you are more commonly rolling in a possible crit range, keen rapier being 15-20. The odds are different from the d20 roll, which peaks around 10 and 11.

The average of a d10 is 5.5. This means that the average of the d6/d/10 method is the average of 5.5 and 15.5 - which is 10.5. Exactly the same as the average of a d20.

There are no "peaks" with one unbiased die - every number is equally likely. The fact the average is 5.5 doesn't mean you're more likely to roll 5s and 6s.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

It's exactly the same and no more "lucky" (or unlucky) than rolling a d20.

To see this, consider the probability of rolling a 1 using a d20: its 1/20 = 5%

Now consider the chance of rolling a 1 using the d6/d10 method. To do this, you need to know that the probability of two things occurring is equal to the probability of the first times the probability of the second*.

Thus, the probability of rolling a 1 is the probability of rolling 1-3 on the d6 times the probability of rolling a 1 on the d10.

This is 3/6 x 1/10 = 3/60 = 1/20 = 5%

*:
This is true if (as in this case) the two events are "independent events" which essentially means that the outcome of one doesn't affect the outcome of another.

The same is true for every number - there is an exactly equal probability of obtaining any number from 1-20. "Luck" will have exactly the same impact on either method. In the long run, you'll roll each number from 1 to 20 just as often - no doubt you won't remember the 11s the way you do the 20s though.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Still, have others had similar situations where the DM's approach to the game makes certain aspects of pathfinder impossible to enjoy/persue?

Not in pathfinder, but yes. I have a very different approach to playing the game than one of the other DMs in our group. I create characters with a certain theme (like acrobatic, knife-wielding, wade-into-the-middle-and-hit-the-biggest-guy, etcetera). My friend runs excel simulations of ten thousand rounds of combat to maximise damage output and selects race, class, weapon accordingly.

When he runs the game, I've noticed he really has no interest when I try swinging from chandeliers, kicking over tables, bluffing the enemy to sow confusion or anything similar, he generally asks me to roll a dice, looks at the number I roll and then decides an outcome which is always worse than it would have been if I'd just optimised for combat and full attacked at every opportunity.

(My most recent instance being a mobility/acrobatic fighter who wanted to leap down on top of a bugbear who was climbing out of a chasm and attack. He looked up that it was twenty feet deep, decided that was impossible/unrealistic and that I therefore couldn't do it - so I delayed, waited for the bugbear to climb out and then attacked him. He was probably right in the realism judgement but given it gave me zero mechanical advantage, I would have just gone with the rule of cool, personally).

My advice is to accept that you're going to be weaker than you "should" be (if the rules he adjusts penalise you), or better than you would be if the rules he adopts work in your favour. I find gaming to be about compromise. Depending on your friendship, you might mention it away from the table if you really want to play something that is invalidated or overly penalised by his house rules. Most of them probably don't affect your specific character, do they?


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Quote:
Switch has a 50 % chance loss of X, and a 50% chance to gain X.
Your final sentence is correct (if X is defined as the difference between the envelopes). But so is the sentence "Switch has a 50 % chance loss of Y/2 and a 50% chance to gain Y." (Where Y is the amount in the envelope you've chosen).
Y doesn't have a constant value, so you can't use it as if it does. Its a mathematical version of equivocation. The Y you have a 50% chance to gain and the Y you have a 50% chance to lose aren't the same

You have a fifty percent chance of gaining Y and a fifty percent chance of losing Y/2.

The Y isn't changing although it is unknown. It's the amount of money in the envelope you've chosen.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Quote:
There are like six different resolutions to the Liar's Paradox. The simplest one is that all statements have an implicit "It is true that..." attached to them so the statement is really just 'A and not A' so is inherently false and not self contradictory or paradoxical.

Another resolution is to adopt a logic in which contradictions are allowed, but don't lead to absurdity.

I know there's a resolution, it's still a genuine paradox in a way that the Envelope Paradox isn't. Generally, a genuine paradox arises from a seemingly correct logical formulation actually being nonsensical within the logical framework in which it is stated. A pseudo paradox is one that appears to be paradoxical, but which is actually just an incorrect argument that can be shown to be invalid within the logic in which it is stated.

Russell's "set of sets which are not members of themselves" was a genuine paradox within naive set theory and resulted in them redrafting the axioms of sets. The various proofs that 1=2 are only pseudo paradoxes. They don't require any redrafting of the laws of arithmetic, merely finding the error.

The envelope paradox is of the same type as the proof that 1=2.

"This sentence is false" is similar to "the set of sets that are not members of themselves".


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Yes, to be clear - it's not a true paradox as it can be resolved (unlike "This sentence is false" or similar). Nonetheless, it did take 'them' quite a lot of effort to nut out exactly what the problem was. It was a reasonably productive discovery.

The challenge is to explain why the Expected Value calculation, as presented fails - not to establish what the real answer is (which is obvious enough).


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

You don't know the amount. You have $x so the options are plus x or minus half x.

PS it's not really a paradox, of course, it's just presented as one. Many people struggle to explain it to themselves.

It looks like you're not setting your math up right if the numbers work out but your letters don't. What I'm "struggling" to explain is your math error, not the idea.

You effectively have X as a loss twice. It looks like between going from the word problem to the algebra you doubled the loss of X, framing what is either a gain of X or a gain of 2x as either a gain of x or a loss of X

Switch has a 50 % chance loss of X, and a 50% chance to gain X.

Its not whether you use numbers or letters that create the math error. (For example, if the chosen envelope has $100 there's a fifty percent chance I'll gain $100 if I switch and a 50 percent chance I'll lose $50).

Your final sentence is correct (if X is defined as the difference between the envelopes). But so is the sentence "Switch has a 50 % chance loss of Y/2 and a 50% chance to gain Y." (Where Y is the amount in the envelope you've chosen).

Like all pseudo paradoxes, the issue is resolved by analysing why the second formulation is incorrect, not by repeating the correct answer.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

You don't know the amount. You have $x so the options are plus x or minus half x.

PS it's not really a paradox, of course, it's just presented as one. Many people struggle to explain it to themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

They're great. I'd share a coffee, beer or whiskey with any of them.

It doesnt really matter whether people who work at other companies are also great or not.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Have you also played around with the Envelope Paradox? You might enjoy that too, if you havent seen it before:

I give you two envelopes and tell you one contains twice the amount of money as the other. You're invited to select one and you can keep whatever is inside. You choose, but before you open it I offer you the chance to switch:

"After all," I point out, "supposing your current envelope has $x in it, there's a fifty percent chance that you will gain $x. Contrast that with a fifty percent chance you will only lose $x/2. Clearly the expected value of switching is (0.5x - 0.25x) = 0.25x so switching is a no brainer".

Once you've switched, of course, I make exactly the same argument that you should switch back.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Though it wouldn't be trivial to prove it, BNW's patternless gobbledygook is good heuristic as long as the pattern is obvious. As you get to longer sequences and subtler patterns the problem becomes harder.

As you get to longer sequences, it becomes easier actually but yes.

I'm struggling mightily with Internet searching and I've forgotten the name (something like "Bolaffi numbers" - but that wasn't it). They are essentially a mathematically rigorous definition of the gobbledygook/ordered dichotomy and they are extremely rare once the number of digits reaches twenty plus.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Steve Gedes wrote:
The challenge is to try and reconcile that fact, with the intuitive (and this time correct) answer to the following question:
Thats easy. Its the odds of sequential patterns vs not sequential patterns. "pattern-less gobbledygook" is more likely because its a MUCH larger catagory of answers than a recognizable pattern, even though the specific pattern itself is just as likely.
It is relatively easy (with enough probability understanding) but it's more complicated than that. Your approach does lead to the correct explanation, but if we're going to use "patternless gobbledygook" as a criteria for determining the facts one step is going to be to define what we mean by "pattern-less gobbledygook". That's not as easy as it seems.
Especially since, unlike this example, sequences designed by people to appear random will often have less apparent pattern than truly random sequences.

What I like about this puzzle is that Ive seen the probability-educated arguing on the wrong side against the intuitively correct but maths-naive position. I used to post on a poker site (where people love showing how great at probability they are). There were pages and pages of responses to an OP which brought this up, laughing at him with an argument along the lines of:

"Any sequence is equally likely, you just assign some subjective "specialness" to the first series that isn't there. There's no reason to think either is more likely to be the random one."

It's not straightforward (in my opinion) to explain why we should have confidence that the first is manufactured and the second was the product of a random process. The initial thought (it's extraordinarily unlikely for the first sequence to occur randomly) is undercut by the identical observation about the second sequence.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Steve Gedes wrote:
The challenge is to try and reconcile that fact, with the intuitive (and this time correct) answer to the following question:
Thats easy. Its the odds of sequential patterns vs not sequential patterns. "pattern-less gobbledygook" is more likely because its a MUCH larger catagory of answers than a recognizable pattern, even though the specific pattern itself is just as likely.

It is relatively easy (with enough probability understanding) but it's more complicated than that. Your approach does lead to the correct explanation, but if we're going to use "patternless gobbledygook" as a criteria for determining the facts one step is going to be to define what we mean by "pattern-less gobbledygook". That's not as easy as it seems.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Another fun probability puzzle/paradox to work through is based on the reasonably well known idea that any string of numbers is equally likely if you roll a die and record the results in sequence, no matter how "special" one sequence appears. (So 135224653 has the same likelihood as 111111111).

The challenge is to try and reconcile that fact, with the intuitive (and this time correct) answer to the following question:

I've rolled a die twenty times and recorded the results in sequence. I've also made up a sequence of twenty numbers. Which did I roll and which did I make up:

12345612345612345612
22153416323641435333

They're each equally likely from a random process? Right?

Spoiler:
There are many implicit assumptions here, but cluttering probability questions by stating the assumptions is rarely helpful. Everyone knows what they are anyway and if you don't you can ask.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

I think it's unlikely you'd be granted a specific license until you've got some runs on the board. Paizo have previously indicated that prior work in the field is a key component in evaluating potential business partners or licensees. However, as a place to start, i'd try emailing licensing@paizo.com if you want to negotiate some kind of partnership leveraging the pathfinder brand.

FWIW, The Pathfinder Compatibility License is the "standard" way to produce third party products for use with pathfinder (usually alongside the Open Game License provided by Wizards of the Coast).

The community use policy is more generous with IP but is not available for commercial users, only for true fan products where there is no charge for the material.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Jester David wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
The Rot Grub wrote:
I do hope that the upcoming Pathfinder Unchained will give a toolkit of house rules to modify the system, something approximating Bounded Accuracy and counteracting the Christmas Tree Effect is what I'm hoping to see.
I'd really like to see this as well, however I didnt think this was the kind of alternate rule system being contemplated. Have you heard any comment from the design team somewhere about alternatives to the Christmas Tree Effect, in particular?
I believe someone asked about this at a GenCon panel and they didn't have any plans. But that could be me misremembering.

Cheers.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

It's not an enormous part of the story, but the novel King of Chaos has a significant "unicorn bit".


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Probably Wrath of the Righteous - it seems to me (although I havent had much experience playing the system yet, just reading it) that 5E works well in replicating a game where a few heroes plough through armies of lower level mooks whilst still keeping it challenging. I dont think that sort of game works well in Pathfinder and it's always been my impression of how WotR should feel.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
The Rot Grub wrote:
I do hope that the upcoming Pathfinder Unchained will give a toolkit of house rules to modify the system, something approximating Bounded Accuracy and counteracting the Christmas Tree Effect is what I'm hoping to see.

I'd really like to see this as well, however I didnt think this was the kind of alternate rule system being contemplated. Have you heard any comment from the design team somewhere about alternatives to the Christmas Tree Effect, in particular?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Logan1138 wrote:

The discussion over monster "building" has puzzled me because, outside of one session of 3.5 about 10 years ago and 1 session of Pathfinder 2 years ago, I have only played Moldvay Basic (aka B/X) and 1st Edition AD&D, so the idea of "building" monsters is totally foreign to me.

The only monsters I ever encountered in my playing days were the "standard" ones listed in the rulebooks. Do other posters here find it boring to fight the non-modified monsters listed in Monster Manuals/Bestiaries? Is your enjoyment of the game predicated on fighting non-standard monsters?

Honestly curious about this point...

In my case, it's more about toning things down. Our group is pretty poor at playing pathfinder - I don't think we've ever made it past level eight before running into a TPK where we basically just couldn't meaningfully hurt the enemy or couldn't avoid being decimated. We generally play prewritten adventures and the toughest things have often been modified from the standard entry (ie they've had templates added or class levels).

Trying to scale back a monster in pathfinder very much feels like I'm fighting the system, given there's a whole bunch of calculations that went into creating the "official" statblock. I wing it okay, but there's no guidelines within the system for simply dialling things back a notch (the way the 4E monster builder has, for example where you can essentially scale any monster to any level in a snap).

The 5E DMG discussion on adventure building, encounter design and monsters is much more suited to me. I'm hard up at the "DM fiat" end of the spectrum anyhow, so a loose set of guidelines rather than a codified process is what I'm looking for, pretty much across the board.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:

I don't think I ever said 5th is "wrong", just gutted, simplistic, and more arbitrary vs formulaic. People have made it very clear that they like the simplicity, whereas I like formulas.

I personally think they could have done a much better job of dropping some clunky things, but not stripping it down as much as they did. For example, I love buffs, and what they did with them, to me, is horrible. They could have thrown players like me a bone, but they didn't. Full-on gutting mode.

It's certainly true they weren't trying to cater to your tastes, but I don't think throwing bones willy billy is a good strategy.

It seems that most of what you like in a game are the things I don't and most of what I like are the things you call weaknesses. I think trying to build a game both you and I would like is likely to result in one nobody would. To make the point from the other direction as it were:

One of my least favourite things about pathfinder is that monsters are built using the same rules as PCs. I've never liked games which follow that approach, I find it needlessly complicated with the end result of apparently greater "verisimilitude" that, in my view, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Do you think it would be good strategy for paizo to include some rules for building and running monsters differently from PCs to "throw players like me a bone" and thus broaden the market they appeal to? Because I think it would fail miserably and leave everyone disappointed. Far better, in my opinion, for paizo to stick to producing a complicated system with lots of subsystems, options and interacting parts rather than try and be all things to all people.

I feel exactly the same with 5E - WotC have decided to go for a simple, loose rule system that focuses on speed of resolution over nuanced mechanics. Complicating it a little bit would still not appeal to players who like a complicated game and would betray WotC's chosen, underlying design principles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:
Monsters built like PCs level the playing field for both the players and GM. It also gives the GM opportunity to build some really cool monsters!

I was wrong about this before, by the way having now got the DMG.

Contrary to what I said earlier, although many monsters are not built using PC rules, it is expected that DMs will sometimes use the players handbook rules to construct enemies. (So you can beef up the Orc that way, if you wish, though you don't have to - you can just use a monster ability from the monster manual, all of which are listed in the DMG).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Creature abilities in 4E and D&D:Next sort of replace the need for feats IMO. An Orc doesn't need Power Attack, he could simply have a line that says "-5 to Attack, add an additional +10 to the damage roll" or to illustrate Lightning Reflexes "The Orc has advantage when making Dexterity saving throws."

An endless list of feats based on HD isn't required (and good riddance).

Except for those of us who find "advantage" and "disadvantage" limiting and boring as watching paint dry.

I don't think those people should play 5E. Nor should 5E designers put much thought into catering to those peoples preferences.

The ubiquitous (dis)advantage horse has bolted, don't you think?


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Thanks for answering so rapidly, Erik. I'm very glad to hear that.

I figure offering the subscription service through paizo is quite low on the list of priorities, nonetheless that will be great too once it's sorted - the less my middle-aged mind has to remember the better!

I'll keep my eye out for news on the second series. Thanks again. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

I blame that damn butterfly.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Has there been any word from Erik (or Vic, maybe?) as to how this product line has been received and whether it's likely to persist?

Have sales lived up to expectations? Are we going to see a second series? Is the mooted subscription service through paizo.com going to materialise?

I tried this with some skepticism, but have really enjoyed listening to them on the way to and from work. I'm hoping there's more on the way.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Dear Paizo Powers-That-Be*

I spoke to Katina for the first time today. Unbelievably, she was just as friendly and helpful as everyone else I've ever spoken to at Paizo.

Whatever the process is that you use to select customer service representatives, I'd recommend sticking with it.

Cheers
Steve

*:
Except for Cosmo, obviously.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

The pathfinder chronicles books are what the campaign setting books used to be called. So they're GM books (although several were written for 3.5, I think they arestill very good and useful).

Similarly the pathfinder companion line is what the player companion line used to be called - so they're player friendly books, by and large.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
James Sutter wrote:
While I know staffers shouldn't play favorites, it really warms my heart to see all the Kaer Maga love in this thread. :D

Kaer Maga is my second favorite city.

A hardcover expansion, boxed set detailing the dungeons beneath it or AP set entirely within the city walls might lift it up one place, of course... Might be worth a shot. ;)


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Ah, I see. That makes more sense to me. Cheers.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

I often think the designers say "open playtest" and the participants hear "collaborative design". It seems to me that quite often, both Paizo and WotC are criticised for not listening to the community where the publisher says:

"We're toying with this concept, how does it work out at the table?"

and a fan answers:

"I think you should do this instead".


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

I dont quite understand the question. Do you mean what's the page number identifying each magic item (or the online listing)? Or what rooms are they found in?

FWIW, I dont think there's any specific limit on how many items you can get in a module. We picked up about half a dozen permanent items through the introductory adventure in the starter set.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

Korvosa. It remains my favourite city sourcebook. Plus Curse of the Crimson Throne is my favourite AP.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

I think it's the set of D&D boxed sets, each tied to ever increasing level ranges: Beginner - Expert - Companion(?) - Master(?) - Immortal.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

I'm quite likely to use some variant to the healing rules. (5 minute short rests and 1 hour long rests and so forth - though probably not that generous).

I like breaking ties between initiative in such a way as to alternate actions between PCs and monsters. I think that helps create a feeling of ebbs and flows during combat.

My next campaign is likely to be Curse of the Crimson Throne, so I'll be importing some rules systems from pathfinder - chase mechanics and the AP tie-in with Harrow cards for sure and probably some disease stuff too.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

I never played BECMI, I'd always just assumed it was the same as AD&D. What are the differences, do you think?


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
goldomark wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

It certainly seems to me that 5E was designed to cater to the old school game players rather than the pathfinder players. As such, it's no surprise to me that it's skewed more heavily to the DM-fiat end of the spectrum, rather than the clear-codified-rules-for-everything end of the spectrum.

I think there's a correlation between whether one prefers Pathfinder or prefers the older style of game and where one thinks the 'power' should sit between player and DM.

Wasn't 4e supposed to be close in spirit to 1e like 5e is supposed to be to 2e?

I found 4E to be similar to AD&D in spirit. But I never met anyone who agreed with me, so no - I don't think it was supposed to be. I think that was just how I played it.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
The Rot Grub wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

It certainly seems to me that 5E was designed to cater to the old school game players rather than the pathfinder players. As such, it's no surprise to me that it's skewed more heavily to the DM-fiat end of the spectrum, rather than the clear-codified-rules-for-everything end of the spectrum.

I think there's a correlation between whether one prefers Pathfinder or prefers the older style of game and where one thinks the 'power' should sit between player and DM.

By necessity, D&D 5E had to differentiate from Pathfinder. It was never going to win back the adherents to the edition they had abandoned.

I suspect it will win back some, but not others. I agree with you though - it would have been a silly strategy to target pathfinder players.

Quote:

From a microeconomics perspective, it makes sense. Different people like different things. The idea of winning an argument over which is "better" is too trifling for me to get stressed over.

As someone who prefers Pathfinder, I am looking forward to Pathfinder Unchained because I want to preserve all the stuff I like about Pathfinder but pick and choose rules modules that preempt the Christmas Tree Effect, make running it a little easier, etc.

I'm looking forward to Pathfinder Unchained too, although I'm skeptical about any attempt to simplify things by adding more rules. I generally like Pathfinder subsystems though and it will be interesting to see a kind of "what would they have done if they werent worried about backwards compatibility?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Neal Litherland wrote:

We've all been part of at least one of these "discussions" in our times as gamers. Maybe you wanted to play a Spellslinger and your DM slapped you down hard. Maybe you wanted to be an alchemist that hunts dragons. Perhaps you were asking to bring something out of Numeria. So many players don't want any technology, even alien technology, interacting with their fantasy worlds.

Why do we do that? Where does this knee jerk reaction come from?

In my case it's from experience. I've never played in a successful sci-fantasy game (despite several efforts). After trying something a few times, I give up on the grounds that it's just not for me. (I also expect to not enjoy games based around interparty conflict, campaigns that start with "You're all on the run..." or game systems where combat is so deadly that avoiding it is always the rational choice).

I dont think there's any objective reason - it's just that mixing science fiction and fantasy is not something I enjoy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

It certainly seems to me that 5E was designed to cater to the old school game players rather than the pathfinder players. As such, it's no surprise to me that it's skewed more heavily to the DM-fiat end of the spectrum, rather than the clear-codified-rules-for-everything end of the spectrum.

I think there's a correlation between whether one prefers Pathfinder or prefers the older style of game and where one thinks the 'power' should sit between player and DM.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'd be surprised if they have no strategy. The designers have made various references to "the plan" which suggests to me they've at least talked about it. I don't think it's a very good one, but 5E's development and release hasn't been particularly chaotic apart from the digital issue.
Unless their digital strategy is "punch ourselves in the face," it isn't working. And hasn't been for at least five years. :P

Where I generally struggle in interpreting wotc's actions wrt D&D is that I don't know what their strategic goals are. It makes it difficult to understand their tactical choices.

Someone posted an interesting report from ICv2 regarding the relative sizes of the miniature, board game, card game and TTRPG markets which shed some light, I think. It wouldn't surprise me if they just want the tabletop game ticking along in the background whilst they push all the other bits and pieces. Maybe the lack of a digital presence is as simple as apathy - obviously they had been following the outsourced route to some degree. I wonder if the hesitancy partly stems from lack of resources.

1 to 50 of 7,494 << 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.