|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Have you heard the good word of Kirthfinder?
I haven't mentioned any particular products as I didn't want to come across as disrespectful against anyone, especially not Kirth. I'm not in the knowing about any numbers (especially as Kirthfinder is basically free), but to be honest, I don't think that it would take a big share from Pathfinder sales either, if sold.
And not to be misunderstood: That doesn't say anything about the quality of Kirthfinder. It's like with the Spheres of Power which I like very much; but that doesn't make their sales numbers suddenly explode. Unlike PFRPG, which basically went through the roof when first published.
But that had also to do with the fact, that they didn't tackle problems like C/MD for sake of backwards compatibility. They tried a lot of innovative things during the playtest, but a lot of those didn't make it into the final version because reception by the playtesters didn't seem romising enpugh.
As far as 5E is concerned, that doesn't count for my argument as it is something else then Pathfinder without CM/D. Same goes for 4E, which also balanced things alot better than 3E or Pathfinder do. Problem for both is that they mainly solve problems I never had while adding things I like much less then the actual state of C/MD.
edit: does Kirthfinder alleviates CM/D by upping martial classes or by nerfing the casters? I guess the first, but maybe I'm wrong?
Though there's still something I'm wondering about: After all these years of 3.0/3.5/PF, I dunno how many discussions about C/MD and as many tries to make fun of those people who don't buy the arguments, there's still noone out there trying to solve this assumed problem and having any form of relevant success with it. I'm guessing that's because of one sentence in this bingo stylesheet actually being true:
Fine, it exists, but it doesn't matter. At least not enough, that so many customers leave the system for that reason that Paizo would be forced to do something about it.
Milo v3 wrote:
Yeah, simply removing them would be one option, though I think that any D&D-derived game needs classes called wizard or cleric. And as far as the martials' suck factor is concerned... I like my martials generally quite fine as they are, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that front.
Doesn't matter though because the one thing they probably will never do is weaken magic users significantly.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
For people who like to play with softball challenges, sure, you can use a mixed team fine. Some people sometimes like to push the limits and see how difficult a challenge they can possibly handle. Those people are not wrong for doing so; just different from you. And their experience limns the disparity sharply and unmistakably.
Though for people who prefer mixed teams combined with a non-optimizer playstyle, those challenges may not be softball challenges at all. It may create another athmosphere and another narrative. For example, I simply don't want to partake in games where you can curb-stomp the challenges as presented by the official adventures unmodified. I wouldn't mind them being generally harder to play through successfully but I also don't want to have to modify every single encounter just because the general power level of an average group of adventurers is much higher than what the designers seem to assume for their modules.
And I guess that's my main problem with all those C/MD discussions. That most often it's combined with suggestions how to make the martial classes better instead of heavily nerfing the caster classes (what I'd actually prefer).
I also happen to think that a bit of disparity should stay in the game no matter what. That doesn't mean that it must be as pronounced as it is today.
Milo v3 wrote:
To an extent "You can convert any RPG to any other". But, that doesn't mean such a conversion will work.
I'm talking about using Pathfinder adventures in other rpg systems, though. And as you said yourself, you can do this from scratch. I'm the first to admit that it is much more work to do this for 4E or 5E than it would be for 3.5 (depending on how lazy you are, you don't need to change anything for 3.5). But no matter what, if done right, such a conversion WILL work. And the adventure will still be the same.
If you want to do this work or if you have the time to do so, is another question. But given that a new edition of PFRPG most probably won't try to reinvent the wheel 4E-style, to say that this would invalidate all the old APs is as wrong as to say the same about PFRPG and the 3.5 APs. And would still be wrong even if PF 2.0 would take a step away from the backwards compatibility dogma.
Milo v3 wrote:
But, that does not alter the fact that there are flaws in many arguments.
Well, then show me where are the flaws in mine. I already showed that WotC published such adventures, and the most successful RPG here in Germany does it (to a degree) all the time. So, it can be done, it has been done and it supports the opinion that rules aren't an defining integral part of an adventure. That Paizo prints a lot of rules in their adventures for a reason and probably never will do otherwise is no counterargument in any reasonable way. Because if they didn't publish the rules part with the adventures, those would still stay the same.
Milo v3 wrote:
If paizo management agreed your arguments, PFRPG wouldn't exist.
Probably. But the thing is, that while I have to accept the decisions of Paizo management, I do not need to agree with them. Nor does it invalidate my own opinion in any way. I don't need to and I won't look at my arguments through any kind of "what's best for Paizo business" lense.
And I really don't know why such kinds of arguments even come up in discussions where we all state our own opinion. Are you really so afraid that Paizo could do anything you don't like just for people like me stating our own preferences?
Anyway, my advice for wanting a new edition, is go try another game. Fantasy Age, 13th Age, and D&D 5 all try different things and are worth looking at. Or if you want to go further afield Earthdawn 4E is looking pretty good. Paizo is going to keep publishing Pathfinder 1 for a long, long time.
This suggestion is kind of poisoned though. At the moment, what binds me most to Paizo as a customer is that I like their system, their setting and their adventures good enough to use them excessively for my own games.
Now I could change the system (I really like 13th Age, for example) while still using their setting and their adventures. There may come a time though (and probably soon will) when I start playing in my (new) homebrewed setting using my own adventures. If I don't use Pathfinder rules at this point of time, that means that they'll basically lose me as a customer. Being a single person, that may not mean much, but as I like to give my money to them, I think I should probably tell them how to avoid this beforehand. What they do with this information, is up to them, of course.
I did find it funny that the blog post mentions "What system are we playing?" as a Session 0 question. I would have thought that question would be answered when the prospective GM says "Hey, I think I'm going to run a Pathfinder game..."
Well, in my old group, we played through a lot of systems with different players taking the GM's seat. So part of the session 0 questions in fact was: who wants to run a game next and which system do we wanna use. Admittedly, that was a question asked before the actual session 0 took place, but, depending on who would run the game, there were different options which system to use.
but if everyone knows what they're doing having them all in one place to make characters isn't much of a help.
Session 0 mustn't be all about character creation though. For example, when starting a new game, we also talk about which kind of game to run (offical AP vs. self-developed, sandbox vs. epic tale and so on), which setting to use (I've run official Paizo APs in Greyhawk, the Realms, Eberron and naturally Golarion and probably will use them in my homebrew as well), how much influence character backgrounds should have on the campaign (sometimes the players are happy to play through a particular stoyline, sometimes they are more interested in character based games) and so on.
I've also done this for PBP games, so it isn't as if you need to meeet personally. But in my experience, it's much faster to reach a compromise if you have all players at the table in the same room.
But by definition that would not be using the AP as is
Well what I was trying to confer was that his definition of "as is" may differ from your definition of "as is". And mine. And obviously I don't think that it's ridculous at all. When WotC published "Murder in Baldur's Gate" they outsourced the rules part so that you could use the adventure with which system you wanted. 3.5, 4E, Next, everything was possible, but the adventure would still be the same. Meaning you would run the adventure "as is" no matter the system you would use.
That's my approach to Paizo's APs as well. Only with the difference that those include a system (namely PFRPG), but basically I could still do the same as with MiBG. And still would running the same AP.
There are those that like the idea that they should go where their muse takes them and it is the responsibility of the GM and other players to coordinate their efforts to make the whole cohesive.
I'm one of those myself (and I'm the GM most of the time), but as you said, that doesn't speak against a Session 0 at all. So I'm doing some kind of Session 0, but mainly to learn about what players want to play and to and then to adapt the campaign to their wishes.
So from what Neil describes in his blog entry, in my opinion it's not the players and their PCs that pose the problem. It's the GM who created a campaign to his own liking without thinking one second about the players' likes and wishes beforehand.
Problem being that Neil's blog entry comes across more like session 0 should be used to tell the players what's allowed and what not. I have to admit that I have no interest in such a session 0, neither as a player nor as the GM.
Strawman? The blatantly obvious straw man is to claim you can both radically change the system and continue to use the AP 'as is'
Probably less of a straw man but rather another point of view. I'd intuitively agree with hiiamtom, because I don' think that the rules are an anyhow important part of the AP's narrative (which is, what for me the AP actually is about).
To explain: If I'd convert an AP to 5E or 13th Age, I wouldn't consider this as "changing the AP" at all. It's just changing the rules. Similarly, if I'd run the Shackled City-AP with Pathfinder and only did rewrite the rules sections, I'd still think that I run the AP as is.
Admittedly, that's still quite some work to do. So I can totally understand if someone doesn't want to do so and therefore doesn't want the rules change too much.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Because third party and auxiliary material designated as "optional" rules do not have the same level of authority as core rules.
Well, in my world, the only ones to have any authority about what rules material gets used and what not is me and my players. And we happen to like non-LG-Paladins. And a lot of 3PP material as well.
We're simply not lawful enough, I guess.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Found the person who doesn't play enough Civ
Got me there. I'm rather a Settlers and Anno guy. I guess the only Civ I ever finished a single game with was Civ 2.
See my comments above. We're not actually disagreeing when it comes to existential threats.
Also, I still don't understand the difference between it being helpless and you wearing armour that it cannot penetrate or having regeneration.
The one thing protects yourself, the other thing is killing without necessity. Is a police officer evil when wearing bulletproof armor? Certainly not. But killing an unarmed person without need? Very definition of evil.
When a level 20 fighter combats a level one warrior who is a thug in an ally, that thug may as well be helpless, is that evil?
It's not about the combat part. It's about the killing involved, that would make it into an evil act. That's the exact reason why Batman doesn't kill thugs just for being thugs. And Batman isn't even a Paladin.
So if the BBEG waking would result in a great evil, the goodness aspect would outweigh any dishonor that would result from killing a helpless opponent.
I was under the impression that we were talking about any random opponent though. Let's say the goblin guard sleeping in her watchtower (which could easily be subdued and gagged so as not to be able to alarm her clan).
Now I would probably not even mind when the Paladin sneaks on the guard to slit her throat while she's sleeping. But if he slit her throat after the guard was already subdued, I really had a problem with that. And if then the player would begin to argue with "but it's the altruistic, protective blabla" my advice would probably be to look for another idiot to argue with.
Lets also not forget that Ghandi's words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!
Well, they weren't when he spoke them. Plus I'd argue that modern India unluckily has not much in common with Ghandi's ideals.
It's not evil per PF standards anymore than simply killing is.
It's still dishonorable => Paladin falls.
Apart from that it's part of the reason I threw the D&D alignment system out of the window a long time ago. Because there is no thing as "altruistic, protective, concerned reasons" to kill a helpless foe.
The point is that some of the most influential individuals people in our past have championed non-violence. I'm not saying they existed in vacuum or were saintly when they were young but MLK, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were their most powerful and persuasive when they channeled their anger through words and passive resistance. The reality is that protest requires changing the other side's mind, while violence only tends to cement their convictions.
Well, I doubt that the D&D alignment system was developed with people like that in mind. It should have been, though.
Why does the world need to be darker than that again?
Well, about Erastil we'll have to agree to disagree, but that aside, I basically agree with what you said. Golarion already is a pretty dark place, so to me it's more about to pronounce what's already there than about to introduce new stuff making the setting even more horrific. I still remember how I impressed I was with the inclusion of the "Monster in the Closet" scene in Burnt Offerings, just to show what scary little critters those pesky goblins actually are. Not to speak about the next to adventures in the RotRL AP.
At the moment I'm runnning games mostly for my kids, and when using Paizo adventures, I basically have to tone down a lot of stuff. I guess that's part of the reason why I tend to crank it up to eleven when running the same stuff for adults. But even then, what's already there gives me a lot to work with.
The rest has probably to do with my rather pessimistic world view. In my mind, there is no such thing like an idealistic government. There is only corrupt. That's also part of why I don't believe in the past of Golarion having no gender issues. Fairy tale stuff and utterly unbelievable to me. And no interest in playing things like that.
I wrote a lengthy post over at the "retcon" thread before deciding that it probably came to near to make said thread be closed (and therefore I deleted it).
The gist being that I think it is really important to have those things in your game, because I think that roleplaying is not only about being entertaining but also about exploring human nature. To not touch on existing real-world topics like gender issues for fear of some people could feel offended by that diminishes the value the whole activity has (for me).
That's why I applauded the designers to include a homosexual couple in the very first AP issue, and make clear, that while a lot of people were very accepting of this relationship, there were still people out there who would find it "scandalous and offensive".
That's why I liked Erastil being misogynistic because it enables the players to play Red Sonja-style stories and making the statement that even Good-aligned gods can be seriously wrong about some things.
And that's why I like that you have the Pathfinder society as well as the Aspis Consortium being opponents wihtout being honestly able to point at the Pathfinders and saying: They are the good guys.
Joseph Wilson wrote:
Indeed. I'm fascinated by the world content and love presenting the setting, as much as I can, in the fashion intended by the creators.
I started out this way. "Problem" being that in the beginning, it was still 3.5 meaning that my players chose rule options (races, classes and so on) which weren't available at that time for Paizo because they had to restrict themselves to what was available under the OGL.
So me and my players basically had to invent stuff to include those options into the setting meaning that we already had changed the canon before we even knew what the canon would be.
Which is fine though, because I truly believe that this is an integral part of making a setting one's own.
James Jacobs wrote:
In fact, I view the fixing of flavor errors (such as what happened with Erastil) as improving the game as much (if not more) than simply fixing a broken rule.
Yeah, but you (at least I think so) are looking from a designer's standpoint at it. Something didn't came across as intended, you fixed the error, and that's it. As a customer, I only see the result, not what actually was intended and especially not how it had been for thirty years in your home campaign.
Meaning that to me (as a customer), the whole Erastil thing didn't look anyhow wrong (and actually still doesn't). I fully understand why you changed it, but personally, I consider it as an alternative rather than as an improvement.
Now it's not as if I can't relate to your position; if I change anything in my homebrew setting, it's most certainly because I think that it improves the setting. Still, my players' opinion may differ, if they liked the original state better (or don't like the new one).
James Jacobs wrote:
Furthermore... I'm also frustrated at the idea that these are "retcons" and not "errata." There's a weird disconnect RPG players have between a company fixing a rule that's broken ("Oh good, they fixed an error and now the game works better!") and fixing flavor that's broken ("What? They robbed content from my game!").
I guess part of the problem is, that (from a customer standpoint) rule fixes actually improve the game (and apart from that, setting guys like me don't care for the rules anyway^^) while flavor fixes (as long as they don't fix glaring inconsistencies) rather change the setting in another direction. And most of the time, you don't hear from those people liking the change but from those who actually liked the former state of the art.
Though, personally, rather than complain about those minor fixes I just tend to ignore them for my own version of Golarion if i don't like them. I mean, I already change so much (i.e. integrating stuff from other settings) that it doesn't matter if you're doing some changes on your own.
Now, what exactly were you saying? I mean, let's say you see someone stealing from an old lady, and you say and do nothing to stop it. You're saying that what you've done is the right thing, that it's altruistic?
Well, at least it will come back to haunt you. Ask Peter Parker about that.
From a customer standpoint, I'm more of a setting guy than a rules guy, and I'd rather prefer a new setting doing something new than being just a rehash of what the Big Leagues did before. So a setting using new mechanics and thereby creating a unique setting experience is something I'm absolutely interested in. And if, for example, you'd be using the Spheres of Power, that might net the creators' of those a bit of money I'd normally not necessarily spend for lack of need (I buy a lot just out of interest but more often than not, my money already goes in things I really want to have, so budget is a bit tight on that front).
From a worldbuilder's standpoint, I like to see what other people are doing with mechanics. Even if I don't like it, it still leaves me with ideas how to do it "better" (being a totally subjective term, of course). In creating my own homebrew I don't feel limited to official Paizo stuff and I like to peruse other sources as a means of inspiration (or sometimes outright stealing), so again, I'm highly interested in seeing such a setting.
So I'd suggest to take Luca Palosaari's advice: DO IT! :D
Orfamay Quest wrote:
if you think that insulting me is going to make me start liking 3PP material in general, you're simply wrong.
I'm sorry if you felt insulted or offended by my reply. Didn't know that the term "unfair" would mean a red button to you, especially as I didn't direct it against you as a person but against something you said.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of 3PP to begin with (quality control issues)
I think that's a bit unfair, though. Not only that quite some of the paizo officials started out as 3pp writers (which probably means that hteir former work wasn't too shabby), there are also quite some names out there whose work compare quite equal to the stuff Paizo produces. But ok, YMMV on that.
This essentially doubles the cost of your material to me (and to everyone else that needs to reference it).
AS the rules material most probably can be found over at d20pfsrd.com, you don't need to spend money on it, except you wanna have it. So while such a setting would probably increase the sales of Dreamscarred Press' products (or whichever system you use) a bit, It's not like everyone would have to do it.
As far as I'm concerned these are good closing words.
From a marketing view, being a 3pp seems to be already gamebreaker enough for a lot of players (at least I guess so given what I know of their sales numbers.
From a personal view I'd love to see a setting which actually embraces new options like those you mentioned. Golarion is kinda restricted to be dominated by the core rules stuff, the rest having, if at all, rather rare occurences. So a lot of things I really like don't get the exposure in products I would wish for.
I also don't mind variant magic systems (loved the Wheel of Time RPG system for example), so I'd rather buy a setting doing something new instead of the next generic D&D heartbreaker. The Sword's advice may be sound though, new things may be easier to swallow if integrated into stuff the players already know.
And now a wrench in the works: can the player of a character have that character do certain things without that character knowing? And is that considered a house rule?
I'm not quite sure if I get what you said there so correct me if I'm wrong.
Why should this be even necessary? What we're talking about here is about people who, though not belonging to the paladin class strife to adhere to the ideals of a paladin. No, they won't lose their class abilities if they fail. They may decide not to use them to punish themselves for their failure. But as they didn't belong to the paladin class, there's no mechanical reason to strip them of their powers. So yeah, house rule.
The other thing we talk about is, how such people would be considered by the common people, who may not be able to differentiate between a true paladin and someone living like a paladin. Chances are they would also be called paladins. But that clearly depends on your GM powers to decide so and is nothing advocated for in the rulebooks themselves. And if you don't like it just don't do it.
And just because I allow one player to play a character like a paladin without actually being one doesn't make my world explode with non-paladiny paladins. Though I still think it's possible that the Holy Order of Life may have members who are not paladins who are called that out in the world for the lack of better knowledge.
There's one thing I keep thinking about: Where I live we yearly celebrate Saint Martin's Day. Martin of Tours was a catholic bishop and is one of the best-known catholic saints. To get elevated to this rank you must have done(I think at least three) wonders accepted as such by the catholic church. But you know why St. Martin is as famous and popular as he is today? Because he did the simple act of cutting his coat in half and sharing it with a naked poor sitting at the street in mid-winter. That's why common people consider him to be a holy man, not because the catholic church says so or because of the powers he got.
And that's kind of my approach when it comes to the second part of this topic
Well, there are crazy amounts of misinformation going around in-universe. It's probably not as worse as in our own universe, but it's not much better either. From Ed Greenwood to the designers of Golarion, there has been stated more than once that information presented in the books must not necessarily be totally accurate, because like Herodot, the author of said book could have fallen prey to misinformation.
"I lied to save my friends from certain death and I retained my holy powers, and I am a Paladin." (Paladin is a Warpriest)
"Be it be openly known that you are hereby stripped of your title of paladin and banned from our Holy Order of Light for the sin of lying." (His Excellence Ario Dertharsi, First Light).
Suddenly, word gets around that (insert God/ess here) doesn't care if people tell little white lies, if they are trying to save someone's life. Then 4/5 "Paladins" confirm that, in fact, there are extenuating circumstances to certain parts of the code.
No one said that suddenly the number of paladins would explode, if you count non-class members adhering to the same strict code. I highly doubt it because it still would be damned hard to follow the code. Yeah, there might be black sheep (if they dare to face the wrath of true paladins) but those are already here anyway (I mean come on, there are humans in this setting).
No one has argued, that someone who'd aspire to the ideals of a paladin would break his code or lie or do something else unpaladiny. I don't know if you can't imagine, but there are people doing the right thing withhout being forced by the threat to lose some power and probably would deserve to be called paladins even if they don't belong to the game conctruct class. That's actually what the OP already stated.
So either A und B don't deserve the title or they wouldn't talk this way. And I really hope that fear of losing his power is not the only reason C doesn't break his code, because if, he doesn't deserve the title at all.
No one argues against them being magical, as they are defined as such:
"Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like."
Problem being they are not spell-like. Which, as long as that isn't stated elsewhere, means, that they don't have magical auras to register with detect magic.
There are people, in the forums, who will argue tooth and nail that getting turned evil by a cursed object has no effect on character behavior unless specifically stated.
Yeah, and as far as I can see, by the rules, they are right. As far as I'm concerned, I handle it otherwise, because I don't think that that makes for interesting roleplaying, but's that just my opinion and other people may see that otherwise. Now if those people say that that's the only way to do it because of RULES, I only shrug, because in my game, I still will handle it my way.
And it's exactly the same here with the Paladin. The rules don't say how to integrate rules terms in a setting (be it Golarion or something else), so different interpretations are possible. And I'm sorry to say, but you keep claiming things about the rules, I find no reference for (If you can show me why spellcraft apply to supernatural abilities, I would have learned something new).
I would assume the average person knows the basics of what a Paladin can do.
Depends on the setting, the location in the setting and how prevalent Paladins are there. In Varisias Sandpoint, there are two paladins, for example. One is working at a brewery, the other at Sandpoint's merchant league. We don't know much about there behavior, only that one's faith may be shaken by private tragedy, the other one staying devout even if having given up the life of an paladin adventurer.
As I interprete it, there's no reason for either of them to use his paladin powers in daily life. So as far as the inhabitants of Saindpoint even know of their former career, they may know nothing more than what they heard in tavern stories and fairy tales. They still won't immediately recognize the next paladin coming to town.
And that's how I handle it with all classes no matter which setting I use. People don't necessarily know the difference between a Cleric and a Paladin, as they don't know the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer. When they see a Paladin lay on hands on someone, they might say something like: "This man is truly blessed by his god with the power of healing".
Well, you're right in so far as that my post could be misinterpreted as HW saying that there is a (and only one) right way to play the game. Which wasn't the case.
Though the part you quoted was meant more in a general way, because it's something we all tend to do more or less with things we are enthusiastic about. I didn't want to single out HW with it. I can see where my shortcut can be seen as intentional, but it wasn't meant this way. I have to be honest though, that from reading his posts,I do think that HWalsh is thinking in absolutes regarding at least some parts of the game. I could have done better separating my thoughts from what I actually tried to transfer with my post though.
Apart from that I still stand by the part of my post that I'm actually critizising HWalsh's choice of words with
You'll probably also see (further down the thread, when talking to Kirth) that I don't try to be one-sided. Because I do agree, that piling on anyone doesn't help to make a case. It only helps stopping meaningful discussions.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I think it was pretty damned overt!
Hey, I put it in parentheses. :D
It's something I tend to do just in case that I read too fast and misunderstood something. I've learned the hard way how easy it is to misunderstand things even when using my mother tongue. So I guess I'd rather be twice as careful when reading things here.
I'll probably not making many friends saying that to one of the cornerstones of this community but after I called out HWalsh for his condenscending way of talking about other peoples' gamestyle, I think it's only fair to mention that those kinds of (veiled) personal attacks are equally unconstructive.
I really would like to see us go without that. And as I'm surely no paladin, feel free to call me out in return at the next opportunity.
Ed Greenwood's license to TSR (now Wizards) is what bloated Forgotten Realms. If a year goes by that an original FR product is not released (novel or supplement), the setting reverts back to Greenwood. So to keep their setting, they must bloat it.
Well, It's basically the same as with this discussion here. I never considered the Realms canon as bloated myself, yet other people claimed the exact thing to be true and unluckily (for me) the designers of the 4E Realms agreed.
The thing is (and it doesn't matter if we're talking about setting or rules stuff), that with the bloat argument we could basically argue that Paizo should stop producing new material for every single line they're doing right now. I'll never be able to run or play all those adventure paths they already did, so why write another one. I'll never be able to use all the player options from the companion line so please stop it already. And so on.
And please stop producing under the OGL license already because that basically allows 3PPs to multiply the bloat. Now I have to put up with all the stuff Wolf Baur and his kobolds crank out and worse, I have to find room for this 900-page behemoth Rich Pett just forced on me. And that's only two of the bigger ones.
The simple truth is, and I want to quote Ryback here: FEED!ME!MORE! I might not have use for everything and I surely cannot afford to buy everything. But as long as other people have use for the stuff I don't, everyone wins.
and no longer is bravery and clarity eminating from Tronan.
Hm. To be honest, paladin auras don't function in my game this way, because if they did, you wouldn't need detect good to detect them (and that's in the description of the spell.
So in my game, the sheriff might not have a clue at all, that Tronan is a Paladin (Class). And if Dalmert had proven as especially worthy, benevolent and pure of heart in the past, this might get Tronan actually in a lot of difficulties, even if he can prove that he has the class abilities of a paladin.
The thing is, we (the players) know that a paladin (class) won't lie. The sheriff most probably only knows that paladins claim to never lie.
I think of class names as a shorthand for certain rule options more than as a description of their role in the setting. Not every fighter in the setting has to have levels in the fighter class, not every thief must have rogue levels. And not every Shoanti has levels in the barbarian class. The same goes for Paladins. Not every person worth to be called a paladin must have levels in the Paladin class.
Now as I'm way behind in reading, I'm not sure if there even are any Paladin-only orders to be found on Golarion. But even if, they would probably have a catchy name (like the Knights of Ozem) and wouldn't be referred to as paladins by the commoner.
The people of a world don't tend to think in rule terms. So the main reason to use those rule terms in setting for me is not to confuse the reader too much. But in my version of Golarion, the term "paladin" could probably refer to a lot of those people described in "Champions of Purity" (at least as far as the common people is concerned).
I think one of the reasons I hate the bloat argument so much is because that's what basically destroyed the Forgotten Realms (though I know some people claiming that everything after the grey box already had done a fine job with that; obviously I don't agree).
But letting my feelings about that aside, I think it's worth remembering that this game is played by a lot of very different people with very different tastes, so(and no matter if you call it options or bloat) not every offering is intended to be for everyone. from this point of view, I'm with Milo v3 in that not adding a new book to my pathfinder library doesn't equal cutting out anything.
I may be wrong but sometimes I'm under the impression that at least a part of the people complaining about bloat actually mean that there's too much stuff they a) cannot afford to buy, b)simply aren't interested putting up with and/or c) not like at all for whatever reason. What does irk me about that is that, while all fine and good for the person complaining, it may actually not be true for a lot of other players, who love those options. (and next time it may be the other way round that an option liked by the person formerly complaining about bloat now gets called bloat by the other ones.
To me, it has ever been the case that it's much easier not to use options available than to create those options by myself. Even if I end up not using a particular option (like say, the Mythic rules). Which makes it hard for me to understand why other people don't like those options to exist at all. I clearly don't get this feeling of "it's there so I must use it and that's a bad thing". I also didn't get this problem when referring to the Realms.
Though to be honest, the one gripe I have about the "rules bloat" is, that it may bind ressources I'd rather have the designers use to create more "setting bloat", so obviously there's bloat and then there's bloat.
So, congratulations are in order, I'd say. To Mr. Pett and the FGG crew for sure for yet another successful kickstarter. And naturally to all of us for getting our hands at another unholy piece of work from Mr. Pett's genius (and may I say slightly deranged?) mind.
Can't wait to get my hands on this thing.
Norman Osborne wrote:
Frankly, as open as the tag-team of the OGL and SRD made v3.5, a competing system that used some variant of 3.5 was a certainty.
Well, the fact is, there wasn't. Noone was even trying to compete with WotC at that time, because a) noone would have stood a chance and b) why even try it when most of the (core) rules were already to be found at the SRD site?
And even Paizo didn't create Pathfinder to challenge WotC's spot as the RPG industries' #1 (at least it wasn't the primary goal; don't know if Lisa and Vic foresaw what would happen as a consequence of how WotC handled 4E) but to support their own products which an existing line of Rule Books.
So while Pathfinder RPG only was possible because of the OGL, It didn't come into existence before 3.5 support was officialy stopped by WotC.
Norman Osborne wrote:
Some people LOVE to quote the ICv2 numbers, but the truth of the matter is that for almost the entire time that Pathfinder held the #1 spot, WotC wasn't actually publishing anything. You can claim you beat Usain Bolt in a race, but if he was sitting down the entire time you ran, it's not nearly as impressive of an accomplishment.
True, but even when WotC was publishing, Paizo made quite good. I was following the amazon listings at that time and was guite surprised to see how Paizo held its own against WotC, especially when considering that they sell a lot of their stuff over their own store. So it wasn't just that WotC was sitting it out what made Paizo #1 at ICv2. It was Paizo being faster.
In general, I agree with what you said, though. Paizo's rise had a lot to do with WotCs problems they had with 4E. Still, you have to take such an opportunity AND you have to produce quality material to even have a chance for this kind of success, and Paizo did deliver on every level. So I think that it would be unfair to attribute Paizo's success just to WotC's "catastrophic failure". Because they worked hard to deserve it.
Hm, I guess I'm with GM Rednal in that I'll probably sit at the other side of the table, but for some reason, if I got the opportunity to play, I'd probably gave on of my older characters a try I started to play in an adventure called "Where Madness dwells". It was a Psychic rogue turned Paladin who ended as an Shadowbane Stalker and I'd love to reeimagine this character because she died a most horrible death by friendly fire at the start of said adventure.
That's when you will actually see money leave your account. That is usually close to the time the books are ready for shipment.
Wait, so money not leaves automatically at the end of the kickstarter at January 18th? Any idea hong long this will take afterwards?
I'm just asking because
b) depending on the answer I might up my pledge because those adventures look tasty (I'm not sure how they smell though, because the Styes seem to have destroyed my olfactory sense - which makes my day-to-day work as a nurse so much easier :D)
edit: wait I just saw Mr. Pett saying something about July. Does that mean that my account will be charged around then?