Windjammer's page

Now that the final volume has become available to non- and subscribers alike, what are your overall impressions of the AP?

Super curious to hear what you liked, what worked for you, what inspired you as a GM, and which parts you want(ed) to alter most!

Hi everyone,

Long-time fan of Paizo here - since the days of Dungeon Magazine (Shackled City). Never moved from 3.5 onto Pathfinder 1 but super curious about 2nd edition. Was hoping the community could point me to some high-quality reviews of the game. In my experience, it's pretty hard to find reviews of new editions that don't fall into pre-release hype or non-adopter negativity. Would love to read reviews by folks with extensive experience of the game (not just beta playtest).

Any links/pointers welcome. Thank you!

W.

I've been awaiting something like the Kingmaker adventure path from Paizo for quite some time, but for reasons totally unrelated to the product they finally released I missed out on it. (Not least because I had so much else on my schedule, both non- and gaming wise, but also because I had so much else Paizo product I bought over the years to catch up on. I try not to buy too much stuff in advance, since nothing beats the joy of reading a book you've JUST bought.)

Now, I realize eventually I'll most likely get the whole bunch, but if you had to recommend a single instalment of the current adventure path, which one would it be?

I'd kindly ask you to (also) give a recommendation that is solely based on the actual adventure and not the accompanying sections, even if these add (considerably) to the campaign itself. I hear there's exploration and city building rules in some, but right now I just want to dip into a very good module, and save the plunge into the rules-bits and fiction add-ons for much later.

Just for comparison, I picked up a tendency among Council of Thieves customers that Richard Pett's module was pretty outstanding (if also highly unusual and, in that regard, risky for some groups).

As always, rationalized preferences are much more helpful to outsiders, though I'll as gladly hear which modules worked really well with your group just because.

Thanks for your input!

I'd like to start a thread where we can share our experiences when it comes to building backgrounds plot or background histories into a module.

By "module" I mean any adventure you've at your disposal which is created from start to finish before it hits the table (could be published or self-authored).

1. The idea here is that before the characters even begin to engage with the module, the area or characters they will encounter have a story to tell - something that happened before the PCs arrive, or something that is currently going on. And

2. The idea is also that the PCs have to unearth the intricacies of that "story" to solve whatever problems they encounter there.

So given that I want the surfacing of the "story" to be integral to the players' experience when they play the module, how should I best design the unearthing of the story? How best bring the PCs into contact with the story without this undermining any creative input and effort on their side, and without it feeling contrived?

See, by way of negatives, I'd like to exclude that we have for instance an NPC walking up to the PCs and telling them "oh, this happened, and then that" in a monologue-type fashion. I'd also like to exclude the manner of relating information regarding the "story" to the PCs be them obtaining documents (books, parchments) which contain the entire story.

But once I've excluded these classic devices of bringing PCs into contact with a background story, I can't think of anything. Really!

Whence this thread. It's in the Pathfinder forum because one of the recurrent problems I encounter when DMing running Pathfinder modules is that they contain great background stories but either don't really bring the PCs into contact with it or do so by going for the aforementioned "classic devices". Since the classic devices get old after some time, I'm hoping some of the experienced DMs around here can help me. Let me know what, if anything, YOU do to tackle this problem.

Cheers!

When Pathfinder Beta came out I noticed that it was the first Paizo product in the Pathfinder product line (including everything, adventure paths, Gamemastery modules, and the Chronicles instalments) which lacked that nice orange box on text on the rear - a logo which read "3.5 compatible".

I thought, back then, hey, this is significant. It's the FIRST time this logo has come off, surely there must be a reason. Being a rather simple minded guy, I thought the reason Paizo pulled off the logo was because they saw the logo transport the wrong message. The right message, on this supposition, would have been:

"NOT compatible with 3.5"

Since that logo, I surmised, would have sent the wrong signals to the targeted audience, Paizo rather went for no logo in that vein at all.

Can I tell you how much flak I caught for voicing this supposition?

I can't, because the discussion is deleted.* It was basically boo-booed down as a conspiracy, with Paizo's designers plotting the betrayal of the loyal 3.5 community in smoke filled rooms. Hyperbole and all.

And then Paizo officials responded, in particular Vic Wertz and Sean K Reynolds. And they had this to say:

"The point of that logo on our other products is to tell you what rule system to use with the product. In this case, the Pathfinder RPG *is* the rule system, so it's not needed."

(Source retrieved from other forum. It's a quote, I can personally attest that it's accurate, if sadly incomplete - Vic's statement was much longer!)

When I received my hardcover copy of the final rulebook 10 days ago, I saw the logo back on.

I'm sorry to say, but I feel totally cheated on this. Plainly the logo doesn't mean for Paizo what Vic claimed it said. Because if it did, you wouldn't put it there on the final rulebook. But you did.

Which means that the logo always carried the literal meaning ("compatible with the 3.5 rules set") for you as well, instead of that "intended for the use with the 3.5 rules set", and that you were extremely evasive a year ago.

You didn't put it on the Beta because you didn't think it was adequately backwards compatible to merit the logo. And I concur. I still think the new bard is even further removed from 3.5, and much more stuff pretty removed from 3.5, but so be it. I still think the logo shouldn't be there, given the need for a convertion document and for a convertion chapter in the upcoming GM Guide. But that's your choice.

I'm just here to document a - thankfully isolated - instance of personal disappointment with Paizo's PR. You guys never had to pull the tons of bulls##t that WotC has, the amount of being evasive or just downright misleading towards questions brought up by their customers. In this instance, I feel you went down that way, and it certainly tinges how I perceive your company from now on.

*Here's the old URL:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/missing35OGLCompatibleLogoConspiracy

Usually putting in a "archives" fixes the URL, but not this time. [Edit: nor does fiddling with http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/olderProducts/pathfinderRPGBeta/general/missing35OGLCompatibleLogoConspiracy ] Apparently it's deleted for good. Wayback Machine turned up empty handed too. Too bad. I love historical accuracy, and prefer it over personal recall. Apologies for any distortion as a result of this in the above post.

[Beware: a slightly convoluted introduction follows before I get to the main point addressed in the thread title.]

D&D in all of its incarnations has struggled, perhaps somewhat unfairly, with the stereotype of catering to only a fairly narrow range of RPG experience – that of entering the dungeon, killing the monsters, and taking their loot. There are a myriad of ways this stereotype has been countered by D&D's fans over the years, but among the most successful ones in recent times is an extremely insightful Blog entry by James Maliszewski, who mounted the claim that contemporary D&D lost sight of its “end game” as introduced (among other places) in the Expert Set to Basic D&D in the 80s:

This just by way of preliminary. For, while I think this blog entry quoted here merits discussion on its own terms, it sheds an interesting light on the meta-design thinking that has gone into Paizo’s Adventure Paths ever since their inception. My personal impression is that while Paizo adventures include a healthy dose of roleplaying opportunities (e.g. NPC interactions), overland travel and site exploration, not to mention some pretty experimental tasks delegated to player characters (such as, running a fortress, running a casino, infiltrating a household of an inimical exotic race, and much much more), all of these “side-tasks” are always strictly treated as subservient to one and the same overarching goal: kill a BBEG.

Once you’ve identified that meme, it actually becomes scary just how ubiquitious it is in Paizo Adventure Paths. Not only does every single Adventure Path do date focus on defeating a BBEG – with that confrontation serving as the climax of the entire Adventure Path – also, every single individual instalment of Pathfinder, right from volume #1 down to #21 which I read this morning, is shoehorned into this. The climax always has to be to defeat someone REALLY big. Everything else is treated as mostly optional and ancillary to this goal.

My question(s) is (are): why is this the case? Even if defeating the BBEG is most assuredly a core meme of the D&D experience, why repeat it so many times? Whence the homogeneity?

To conclude, I wish to forestall a potential misunderstanding. Paizo Adventure Paths have displayed and explored the limits of what can occur in a D&D adventure like no other company before. But for all its exploration of new adventuring possibilities (some of which I named above), the company sticks to the BBEG meta-plot as if there’s nothing else, no grander goal in the scheme of things D&D-wise. And that’s why James Maliszewski’s blog entry unexpectedly holds the kernel to what one may find limiting in Paizo’s current products. I mean, the creative staff is all there, so why not “unfetter” them?

Or is the heart of the matter this: (a) only by sticking to such a traditional meta-plot (per adventure path and per module) can Paizo explore new avenues? (Because if you experiment with the former, you risk alienating your customer base?) Or this: (b) the aforementioned homogeneity is only visible to (long time) subscribers, but won’t impact customer perception among those who only buy one adventure path or one Pathfinder module? (The idea being that Paizo needs to target that customer group just as much as (long time) subscribers and thus deliver “what D&D can do best”. Every. Single. Time.)

Questions, questions, questions… I look forward to reading your answers!

Dear Cosmo,

Please cancel my subscription.

Further, I spotted a minor irregularity with a recent past order of mine, #1005549. I had asked you to add the Legacy of Fire Player's Guide to my order (which you did- thanks again) but just noticed now that, although the order info says that "Pathfinder Advantage" was applied, it wasn't applied to the Player's Guide (like it had been, had I placed the product into my shopping cart myself beforehand) for which I was charged full price.

Windjammer

Hi Cosmo,

I've got two questions about this order:

1. Why did you include Dungeon Magazin #138? You already shipped a replacement copy to me at an earlier point! I guess you didn't update your records.

2. Why did my order package NOT include a copy of the Legacy of Fire Player's Guide? With Second Darkness, you shipped the PG free to subscribers and I (perhaps illegitimately) expected or at least hoped for a similiar bargain this time. Please let me know if that's just an oversight. If not, I'd like to add a PG print copy to my order #1005549 at my own cost (I definitely don't want to pay for shipping twice, being an international customer!). Thanks,

Windjammer

Hi,

I received an automatic email confirmation of this order currently being shipped. One query: the email specifies the 5 items I ordered (and correctly so) but doesn't mention a bonus item you promised to ship me when something didn't work out last time with my orders. Please check my account re my previous order where I reported that Dungeon Magazine issue no. 138 was water damaged - you promised to replace it next time I ordered from you.

Thanks!

Preliminary note. This posting relates to matters touched on in this thread . However, it does so by way of example rather than in its own right.

Racial Builds – a rant and a recipe

The following posting is part of my attempt to sell those people to the Pathfinder Ruleset who aren’t convinced (as yet) that it is sufficiently backwards compatible to 3.5. I am one of those people, so are my players. So let me start off with a rant and then move on to how I think Paizo could sell themselves to us after all. Obviously what follows isn’t very worthwhile for people already sold on Pathfinder . It’s for those who who’ve been loyal (Adventure) Pathfinders so far but are hesitant over upcomig developments on their favourite product line. Because, yes, Adventure Paths will go Pathfinder RPG next summer.

To keep things neat and surveyable, I’m going to stick to races and classes, the two fundamental concepts in D&D character creation. Pathfinder tries to sell me on the idea that the current core classes and races are too weak, and (so) that they need re-balancing with the current level of power in “the game” (Beta Ruleset, p.51). Now that’s an interesting definite article sitting right there. I’m sorry, which “game” is that? Oh yes, it’s the 3.5 ruleset including every supplement WotC ever put on the market. Since Paizo “cannot change the other material”, they level up the new core.

I believe we are looking at a ridiculously flawed argument. The idea is, you see, to make the new core ruleset available to everyone, including people who don’t want to part with some of their overpowered splat supplements. But “everyone” clearly doesn’t, and can’t, include everyone. It may include people keen on playing cat folk crusaders or drow beguilers (beware: contrived examples), but it most definitely excludes all groups who have either never bothered to buy the ridiculously overpowered books these combos came from or who did buy them but houseruled away what they regarded as poorly playtested classes and races. It excludes these groups because, more likely than not, these groups have not retracted their reasoning - and why should they, all of a sudden?

Enter Paizo, the guys who tell us that those groups who thought Tome of Battle set the standard in “the game” are their new core audience. Excuse me? I believe that that core audience has safely moved on to a new edition, and as someone who’s regularly playing that edition I can safely assure you that it will accommodate us better than Pathfinder RPG ever will.

What it won’t do is convince me that this move constitues sticking to a tidied up version of a ruleset that still receives an equal share of my love. That would be because leveling up the core rules to match aforementioned supplements contravenes one of three declared design goals of the Beta Ruleset – compatibility to the majority of 3.5 supplements out there. And it doesn’t visibly aid the other two design goals - a point on which, more than any other, I welcome to stand corrected.

Let’s see what this means. First, increasing the power level doesn’t clearly Improve the Playability of the game as is. In fact, I think it makes it harder for players and (especially) DMs to get their head round what in their 3.5 library is cut out for Pathfinder play as is and what isn’t. Not that Paizo can avoid to (finally) take a (more detailed) stance on that, but there it is. And what’s more, leveling up the core classes and races doesn’t Open up Options. It definitely doesn’t open options which weren’t there already - for those eager to take them before, that is (see above). Rather, it invalidates all options which never approximated that ultimate peak in 3.5 power level. If I ever heard of an undemocratic vote in game design, I’m looking straight at one here.

Before I expand on this, let me iterate one point. It’s not that Paizo’s design decisions may not work out in the end in precisely the way they want to (who cares if it isn’t 3.5 compliant as long as it’s a jolly good game?). It’s much rather that currently Paizo are outstripping WotC in failing to communicate these decisions convincingly to their declared target audience. Talk of the power level of “the game” is one such case, the definite article being a wilful negation of diversity of power level in 3.5 supplements. Another would be the “standardized system for determining class Hit Dice”, in that HD are now tied to base attack bonus progression (p.51). Hello? What’s BAB got to do with HD? There are good reasons why (for instance) the ranger class, which enjoyed a huge increase in power level and (concomitantly) in player popularity in 3.5, received a decrease in HD. I mean, you seriously want to compare a paladin to a ranger and say they deserve the same HD because of their BAB progression? Paizo, you can do better than that at explaining stuff. Heck, you could actually cut the “behind the screen” designer comments if they come in this variety, because they make me believe you haven’t managed to come up with something better. Or worse, they almost make me believe you don’t fully know what you’re doing when fiddling with 3.5 core classes and all, which I don’t want to believe.

Ok, so much for the rant. Now for a recipe. I’m firmly convinced that the declared design goals are spot on. So let me propose a case in point of how I think re-vamping 3.5 would meet these goals in a spirit that avoids invalidating all but the four most powerful supplements in 3.5.

“Open up Options” – how do you do that? Well, taking a leaf out of Paizo’s book, let’s look at their redesigning the core races, all packed neatly into four pages. As far as I can see, there are only two significant alterations from our beloved 3.5. First, we get ability adjustments: everyone needs to be on a par with catfolk now (minus level adjustment, obviously), since otherwise people would - obviously - just go back to playing catfolk. Obviously! But we’ve covered that already. Second, each core race now comes with two favored classes. Now instead of falling into the same trap of giving players both of two beneficial options at once (being two +2 boosts to abilities), Paizo gets round to confronting players with a choice. At first level you opt for one of two favored classes. Bingo. That’s what options are, folks: they are choices. Choices that I make, not a bag of goodies the ruleset selects for me, in the vein hope that putting a carrot on a stick will eradicate memories of wrecked campaigns and party split-ups.

In fact, Paizo’s idea of having two options in favored class is a very clever analogue of a prominent 4E-ism, class builds. You see, in the shiny new game every core class comes in two varieties. Each variety is built around one of two core abilities. For instance, there are both Strength- and Charisma-based “builds” of the rogue and the paladin class, which consequently impact what you can do in the game and how well you can do it. In particular, some of your optional class features will rely more heavily on one ability than another.

I believe this sets the tenor for “racial builds” as well. Every (favored) class relies on one key ability; spell casters receive bonus spells from their respective key ability, to mention but a prominent instance. Therefore it makes sense to correlate favored classes with a boost in that class’s key ability. More precisely, it makes sense for a player’s choice in the former to directly impact his choice on the latter. There’s no reason why an Elven wizard should receive an Intelligence- as well as a Dexterity-Bonus +2, just as there’s no pressing reason why an Elven ranger should receive a high Intelligence-score as well as a high Dexterity. In fact, one thing which frustrated me in 3.5 was how no single race favored the ranger class before you turned to the Monsters Manual, even though standard Elves with their Dex-bonus were perfectly cut out for it. Well, kudos to Paizo for fixing that. All we need now is to keep in view what’s required for that fix to go through, and what isn’t. I already said it, so let me say it again. Dwarf clerics and fighters don’t need a boost in both Wisdom and Strength. They only need a boost in one of those, respectively. Fix that, and you’ll have silenced the crowd that shouts “power creep!” at those four well-worked pages on racial rules in the Beta version. Was that hard? Did that really upset what you had in mind when creating a streamlined 3.5 with more options? I’m all ears.

I conclude with a neat summary of the proposal, and (dare I say it) a slogan summarizing my rant: MORE OPTIONS, LESS FREEBIES. Because I want to make my own choices instead of the ruleset making them for me.

RACIAL BUILDS

Every race comes in one of two ‘builds’: the core build, which is 3.5/OGL compliant, and the variant build, which is not.
A racial build consists of two interlocking elements:
o Ability adjustments
o Your character’s favored class
All other racial traits are constant across core and variant builds of the same race.

Your choice of race determines your negative ability adjustment and limits your options when taking a favored class.
o Dwarves (-2 Charisma): Fighter (core build) or Cleric (variant build).
o Elves (-2 Constitution): Wizard (core build) or Ranger (variant build).
o Gnomes (-2 Strength): Bard (core build) or Sorcerer (variant build).
o Half-Elves (no negative ability adjustment): Any. You don’t receive a +2 ability adjustment.
o Half-Orc (-2 Intelligence): Barbarian (core build) or Druid (variant build).
o Halfling (-2 Strength): Rogue (core build) or Bard (variant build).
o Human (no negative ability adjustment): Any. You don’t receive a +2 ability adjustment.

Your choice of favored class determines your positive ability adjustment.
o Barbarian -> Strength +2
o Bard -> Charisma +2
o Cleric -> Wisdom +2
o Druid -> Wisdom +2
o Fighter -> Constitution +2
o Ranger -> Dexterity +2
o Rogue -> Dexterity +2
o Sorcerer -> Charisma +2
o Wizard -> Intelligence +2

Brief Comments:

Dear Paizo Team,

Please cancel my AP subscription. This request does not reflect on your products in any way, it's just that even taking the subscriber discount into account, I pay more for my APs ordered from you than I would from using European retailers. So please keep up the good work, you haven't lost me as a customer, just as a subscriber. Thanks for producing awesome RPG products.

Dear Sir/Madam,

My copy of Pathfinder AP volume 11 arrived this morning by international delivery. Unfortunately, one corner was horribly bumped in the transport and I would kindly ask you to send a replacement with my next AP instalment (I'm a subscriber). This is not the first time that my AP module have had damaged corners, but this time the damage is really too serious for me to simply accept it. May I ask you to consider to better protect your softcovers? After all, little extra bits of cardboard around the corners should suffice, and I think the high production value of the softcovers deserve such care. Not least because 45% of the money I spent on my AP subscription goes into the delivery cost, and so this is really, really very bitter for me.

Given my frustration this morning with Paizo, I'd like to relate something else too which I hitherto I hadn't decided to bring up. On my return to my home address last week I could finally have a look at two past orders from Paizo I had asked you to ship there. In one of these orders (no. 962923) you had shipped a backcopy of Dungeon 138 which was water damaged. Since neither the remaining items in that order (another two issues of Dungeon and a Flip Mat), nor the envelope, showed any signs of water damage I assume this copy of Dungeon 138 has left your ware house in this state. I would kindly ask you to better check the state of your products before shipping them in the future. If I want water damaged copies of Dungeon I can get them cheaper at Ebay.

These issues apart, I have been happy with my Paizo orders (regular and subscription-based) and I would hope you keep up the high standard of customer satisfaction I have come to expect from you in the past.

If you could ship those items together with my Pathfinder subscription item (coming up shortly I believe), that would be great. Thanks.

Hi, I'm relocating myself to Munich from mid June to late September and would be interested in joining a D&D 3.5 group or starting a new one.

I'd be particularly eager to join English speaking gamers as I've never played D&D in German (though I'm a native speaker). I'm happy to play or DM any Paizo adventure path (Shackled City, Age of Worms, Savage Tide, Rise of the Runelords, Crimson Throne). I currently DM Rise of the Runelords but our group takes a break thanks to a university term break in the UK.

Please get in touch. Obviously I'd be just as happy to join a German group, or one running something other than a Paizo AP.

I've just heard it on EnWorld. Apparently, there's a paragon path for the ranger class in the 4th edition Player's Handbook (paragon paths are sort of prestige classes) which is called "Pathfinder". The first power the paragon path grants is called "Wrong step".

I think that's a nice, light hearted industry stab at Paizo :)

And I think the Paizo community should repay the honorable mention in like spirit, which means the following. Collect your thoughts, and think of something light hearted, witty, and memorable about 4th edition that could name a feat, a spell, or a monster. No silly puns on the number 4, for instance. To give you an idea of what I have in mind, have a look at "Garyx" on page 33 of your Draconomicon 3.5.

I suggest the winner makes it into the Pathfinder RPG rulebook. What do you say?

My group is starting Burnt Offerings this week Wednesday - wish me luck guys, I'm the DM. My player's have written fantastic background stories, one of them is a cleric of Desna, which I think gives the whole confrontation with the assimar a special twist.

Now, to whet my players' appetites for the campaign I've found this recent trailer on Youtube. Don't know who made it but I think it's excellent and really conveys the spirit of what awaits the players. Wanted to link it. So here you go. Enjoy.

PS. I think this trailer should make it to Paizo.com (honestly, if this kicks off copyright issues I'm going to be seriously pissed - that's the best ad I've yet seen out there!). Seeing it reminds you what all the 4th edition D&D promotion videos should have been but weren't - communicating the excitement of adventure instead of just talking about it!