|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Allow for Abstractions. Sometimes the story you imagine can get in the way of playing the game. Despite their aquatic nature, Bunyips can be encountered in the Manor House. Caltrop Bead works against Skeletons, even if they don’t have flesh on their feet. Don’t force the cards to fit your story; let the cards tell you their stories.
I don't know if they're going to stick to any sort of order when releasing them once we finish the CRB classes - maybe roughly the order or RPG release?
Nope. There's no huge list going deep into the future. We do them in batches of 3 or 4, and usually, we decide what the next batch is just shortly before the designers are ready to work on them. We factor in obvious things like what we're doing with Adventure Paths and OP (for example, Paladin was the top of the list for new decks because of Wrath) and less obvious things like making sure we space out basic character types (we don't want a bunch of focused spellcasters all in a row, for example). But we also factor in whether or not the designers already have a bunch of ideas sitting around for a particular class, or whether a class might benefit from mechanics that we plan to introduce in a future Adventure Path, or just whether the designers are particularly keen on working up a particular class.
Which is to say, I think we'll keep surprising you.
Blog post says "And let's not forget that every demon they defeat (including Vellexia) has a 1 in 6 chance of summoning Shamira." but the rules indicate otherwise. Vellexia is never defeated, if she would be defeated she's evaded instead. That means she never triggers the 1 in 6 chance to summon Shamira. Which is actually correct so I know how to play it when I finally end up getting my AD4?
The blog is incorrect. Removing "(including Vellexia)."
So basically, until Lucas's death, there CAN'T be a 1080/24p, 7.1 DTS HD MA Blu-Ray of the ORIGINAL original trilogy (and even then, it will require a deal between 20th Century Fox and Disney).
I can't remark either way regarding the veracity of your general statement... but if you want the ORIGINAL original trilogy, you can't have a 7.1 soundtrack. The closest thing would be the original 70mm 6-track mixes, which had 3 front channels (left, center, right), a single surround channel, and a pair of low-frequency-effects tracks. (In modern terms, they were "4.2" mixes.) You want split surrounds and differentiation between rear and side, that won't happen without somebody making additional creative decisions well outside the scope of the original production.
Pizza Lord wrote:
The delay isn't about making you take the time to read it—it's about mitigating voting fraud. We don't want people clicking as fast as possible through all the entries until they spot their own (or their friend's, or just their favorite) and voting it up, then repeating. (Or doing the same to repeatedly downvote an entry they dislike, or just to introduce chaos to the voting by randomly voting on as many pages as possible.) Assuming a number of entires in the high hundreds or low thousands, seeing two entries per minute means you have to vote for hours (on average) between seeing the same item twice (of course, random is random, so it's *possible* to see repeats much sooner, but over time, you'll drift to the average).
Since culls result in fewer entries to go through before you're likely to see your target again, the delay actually becomes *more* important to the process as we cull.
I have previously said:
The Pathfinder ACG actually began when Lone Shark brought the game that would become Apocrypha to us, saying (more or less) "We're working on this game that we know isn't quite right for you, but we think we can make a game *like* it for Pathfinder that you will love."
..to which I will add that it was always clear that Lone Shark was going to continue to develop that game. But in no way is it PACG 2.0—PACG and Apocrypha are separate branches on the same family tree.
I have also previously said:
When it comes to competition, I believe that Magic: The Gathering actually benefited quite a bit from the existence of other trading card games. By itself, M:TG was a successful game, but it couldn't be the cornerstone of a genre until there were other TCG/CCGs. This is why we didn't trademark "Adventure Card Game"—I'd love it if, in a few years, there are a handful of ACGs in existence, giving weight to our game.
Robert Jordan wrote:
Vic, from a different view point I agree that C is the winning option for how to handle things. The issue is that the updates aren't just hitting PFS, they're going to the source material instead of a PFS reference document. Some of my players will buy the PDF or a more recent physical copy than the source I have on my shelf. That causes conflict at tables outside of PFS, where it really shouldn't. PFS is it's own strange beast with it's own esoteric rules and adjustments and that is perfectly fine, when it flows out and begins to twist the rest of the game it becomes a problem.
Following that logic, you would prefer we were selling new players the exact same Core Rulebook that we introduced several years ago, complete with all the problems that we've identified and fixed in the years since? I'm not a fan of that plan.
Words like "editions" and "versions" mean different things to different people.
Officially, Call of Cthulhu has had 7 editions, though the rules themselves changed very little between the first 6, so some people would say there have been just 2. Yet others say there have actually been *18*.
When it comes to PACG, where the content gets completely replaced every year, and sections of rule are added, removed, and rewritten, there's really no point in that kind of naming/numbering scheme.
MTG never got a 2.0 update, so who knows...
There was a time when Magic sets had numbered editions. Alpha and Beta were retroactively considered (but not labeled) 1st Edition; Unlimited was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 2nd Edition, Revised was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 3rd Edition, and 4th through 10th Editions were actually labeled as such. (The next 6 editions were named by year, followed by Magic Origins this year, which, had the numbering remained, would be 17th Edition.)
Jester David wrote:
Plan A: We ignore the problems, refuse to answer questions that people keep asking, and force people in PFS to deal with balance issues. A lot of the audience is unhappy, but hey, you're happy.
Plan B: We fix the problems and you are forced to incorporate them into your home game. A lot of the audience is pleased, but you aren't.
Plan C: We fix the problems, and so long as you're not playing in Pathfinder Society, you ignore all of these changes. (Or just the ones you want to ignore, if that makes you happier.) Yet everybody who values them can have them, so everybody's happy!
We have decided not to go with Plan A. *I* certainly think Plan C is the best, but it turns out that if you really want to pick Plan B, I can't stop you.
Le Petite Mort wrote:
Rather than tracking everyone's 'seen list' in a centralized database, you assign to every account a list variable. Every item you see is added to this list. Whenever the page is bringing up the next set of items, it quickly iterates through your own personal list to check if the items present have been seen by you before or not. With 800 entries, iterating through the list twice even without any intelligent/efficient searching algorithms and assuming you had already seen 99% of them, would take < 1 second.
Thing is, if you've already seen A and told us you like it more than B, you haven't necessarily told us you like it more than C, and that's a pretty valuable comparison to be had. Now, we *could* do what you say to make sure that we don't show you A vs B when you've already seen A vs B... but that's a lot of crunching for something that doesn't come up that often... and there's also a chance that you will actually give us a different answer, which is statistically useful as well.
Because they're a full set of 7 RPG dice, and if we put them in the PACG section, some people would be confused about why they all have a d10 numbered in tens, and why the RotR and Wrath sets have a d20.
Why are those not in the game box, but generic boring blue ones?
Because it would make our $60 game a $70 game.
Tanis O'Connor wrote:
I'm really excited about the...
Do you really want to click this?:
How you like them spoiler tags now?
Yet the Emperor kicked his ass so badly that Yoda fled to the far side of the galaxy and hid in a swamp for the next couple of decades before dying of old age.
Not sure why you're downplaying that—dying of old age is a pretty remarkable accomplishment for a Jedi. Much better than being chucked off a ledge.
Sometimes I get caught up on one element of a costume that makes me weirdly ignore everything else. For example, the fellow dressed as Damiel at PaizoCon had a thoroughly amazing costume, but I was most impressed by the fact that he made his own barrel, and it was really well done.
Here, I'm getting caught up by the Red Mantis headgear, which is pretty awesome.
But I still pick Amiri.
Unfortunately, it's not our problem—it's a limitation of the PDF format.
Adobe insists that PDFs are a "destination file format," meaning being able to get information *out* of them is essentially an afterthought.
A really good example of how this impacts things is that they care more about what characters *look like* than they care about what those characters *are*. For example, you and I both believe that the difference between a lowercase letter and a capital letter is important, but when a PDF uses an all-caps font, Adobe has actually thrown away the knowledge of whether a character in that font was a lowercase character or an uppercase character. When you select the text so you can copy and paste it, they actually have to *guess* which it was, and they often guess wrong.
Similarly, when they encode letters like "fl" into a ligature, all they keep track of is where the "fl" glyph goes, and when you select the text (or when you search for a text string), they have to reverse-engineer the characters that make it up. While they seem to always get the characters themselves correct, they frequently screw up the spaces on one side or the other (or both).
To solve either of these problems, Adobe needs to be convinced that their "destination file format" concept is a load of crap that makes their products less useful.
Vic Wertz wrote:
If you can’t construct a valid deck from the cards your group has available because you don’t have enough of certain card types, nothing in the rulebook prevents you from taking a loot card of the appropriate type (with an appropriate adventure deck number or owner trait) from the box. Indeed, in the section of rules that explains how to do that, you're specifically told that "loot cards count as cards of their type."
The only thing that *may* have stopped you from doing that is what Mike said a long time ago, and he is overruling that statement now. So yes, you can take such a card when the option presents itself.
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Of course, it's made up for by the hilarity of how they constantly think things get jinxed. In Runelords, our Seoni explored with no other cards, and got a devastated look on her face, to which I sarcastically responded "What, an Ogre"? She revealed the card, and Ogre, and the whole table got mad at me -- apparently the Ogre wasn't really an Ogre until I asked lol
I believe that phenomenon is known as "Schrödinger's Ogre."
If a bane says an effect happens if or when you do a particular thing, it applies to any character who does that thing.
If a bane says "If you play a weapon, the difficulty of the check to defeat is increased by 5," then if *anybody* plays a weapon on the check, the difficulty is increased by 5.
And if it says "When you play a boon that has the Divine trait, banish it," that applies to any character playing a boon with the Divine trait during the encounter.
If it limits the things you can do, that limit applies to any character who wants to do those things.
So if a bane says "succeed at an Arcane 8 check or you may not play spells that have the Attack trait", or "you may not play blessings on this check," those would apply to everyone, not just the character encountering the card.
Or, hey, every case is likely to contain one....