|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I was kinda hoping paizo would produce differently coloured bases (blue, red, green for instance) though your suggestions might work too.
I have expressed the same wish myself; however, it probably isn't worth it for them. :-/
On the bright side, I find that the "loom bands" are cheap, easy to find, and work on all three bases sizes. Just stretch them over the clip that holds the pawn before placing the pawn in the base. Works great for me.
Thanks again for everyone who had provided updates.
Not really any surprises here. Occult Adventures looks to be the most interesting (much more so than I expected, at least), followed by Bestiary 5, and then by Ultimate Intrigue (in which I really have no interest). A very...conservative slate, imho. I had hoped -- though not expected -- to see a revised core or something else which would really shake things up. Oh well, maybe next year.
In the meantime, I'm really looking forward to Flip-Mat: Bigger Basic.
From my outside-looking-in POV, the card game seems to be doing fine. I'd be more concerend about "splitting focus" with the card game if they didn't have a dedicated set of developers working it.
I appreciate that there are separate folks working on it; I just think extra people means extra coordination overhead, splitting mgmt attention, etc. There is much to be said for small and focused.
Then again, my perception is probably colored by my personal feelings about the card game. I find it to be decent, but unremarkable, which isn't good enough to compete in the midst of a card and board game renaissance. There are just too many exceptional card games out there (Sushi Go, Coup, Machi Koro, Love Letter, Smash Up, etc.) for me to care much about PACG.
It also seems like a new core set every six months is a tough sell. Sure, lots of people will buy the first, and maybe the second, but then what? I can't see much of a market for a fourth or fifth variation on the same (expensive) game.
Time will tell, I guess.
PFO looks, to me, like a blackhole. It's sucked in a bunch of resources and hasn't produced much. At least the impression of my players that jumped on the KS is that they are wholly unimpressed and wouldn't bother with it at all if it weren't currently getting KS benefits. Maybe Paizo/Golblinworks will turn it around, but I'm not holding my breath.
Truthfully, I've never been able to see why anyone ever thought that PFO was a good idea. But again, time will tell.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I have no data either, just anecdotes and speculation, but what amounts to tossing the whole game every six months just seems like a fatal design flaw to me. The card game also seems tertiary to the the RPG, and so possibly germane to a discussion about whether Paizo is splitting its focus.
So don't make it sound like I'm invalidating anyone, that was not my intent. Sorry if that was unclear. I guess I see a difference between want and need.
Sorry for getting my hackles up.
If you want to be technical, I guess I don't need indoor plumbing, but I sure as hell wouldn't willing live without it.
Why do people need HeroLabs? I seem to get by just fine without it.
First of all it's HeroLab. Singular.
Second, good for you. However, people are different, and probably feel that they need for Herolab for a variety of reasons. Just because you don't share those reasons doesn't make them invalid.
I definitely think companies have a tendency to grow, grow grow, sometimes without even a clear reason why. Is Paizo there? I frankly have no idea. However, in my opinion there have been some warning signs:
1. Trying to write a VTT in-house. Pathfinder definitely needs VTT support, but please just get in bed with Roll20.net already.
All just my $.02, of course.
Bill Dunn wrote:
That, and the latter being (poorly) disguised as the former:
"This game is clearly for ROLLPlayers..."
Ah yes, the "other guy must be disingenuous" gambit.
Again, I don't care what the ruling is -- I just want it to be clear. While you may think it is clear, I do not find your arguments convincing. This does not mean I'm (a) lying, (b) illiterate, or (c) stupid.
Do you guys really not get why your behavior is a problem?
Nope. But gross misrepresentation of an argument -- which is clearly what you engaged in -- is. Words can be ambiguous != words have no meaning whatsoever. Clearly fallacious.
It's OK; people on the Internet willing to admit when they're wrong are as rare as hen's teeth. I won't hold it against you.
Things I have learned in this thread:
* I don't know the difference between RAI and RAW.
Oh well. :P
And that, my friends, is as close to a white flag as you'll ever see on the Internet.
The kicker is that monsters don't actually follow the rules for characters, because whenever a designer wants to fudge the numbers, he simply throws in a "racial bonus."
Besides, why would monster design require the same level of detail character design does? Do we really care whether the blacksmith has knowledge (local)? No, we don't. We only care about craft (blacksmith). Do I care whether that orc has X ranks of stealth? Nope. All I care about is the final #, not how you got there.
Designing monsters using character rules is crazy talk.
Also, assumed bonuses need to die in a fire. :)
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think that was one of the big missed opportunities of Pathfinder. In 3.5 swift and immediate actions were a bit clunky and poorly spread because they were introduced in later supplements. Pathfinder had them baked in from the CRB onward.
Agreed. Things like the 5E shield spell are amazing cool uses of the immediate action.
You know what? I'm sure you making this argument for the 16th time will totally work better than the last 15. SURELY IT WILL BE DIFFERENT THIS TIME!
Given that it's been nearly a week and over two hundred posts without any clarification from the design team I'm inclined to believe the text was made purposely vague because they didn't want to make a decision one way or the other on this matter and there's nothing wrong with that.
I disagree. Part of what I pay Paizo for is clear rules, because I don't want to think through the balance implications myself.
In essence, making these decisions is what being a game-designer is about.
PF 2 is not inevitable. Neither is humanity living to see tomorrow.
Both are quite likely, however.
And let's face it, that's really what this thread is about: People who don't want a new edition -- ever -- arguing that, despite how this has gone every other time, it will be different this time.
Maybe I'm just grumpy this morning, but...good luck with that.
It doesn't say that it replaces the strength modifier. Its, raw, a bonus equal to your dex bonus to damage instead of your strength modifier. That would be 1x dex on an elven curve blade, and 1x dex on something for two weapon fighting.
Interesting; I hadn't considered that.
Hopefully this will make it to the top of the FAQ list.
Chocolate Thief wrote:
Unfortunately as a public sector worker here in the UK where a new Conservative government has just been elected I am getting poorer all the time. I'll have to cut at least one sub. Oh well, with a sense of perspective that is not what I call hardship.
I wouldn't expect things to get better. Stateside conservative ideology pretty much views public sector employees as being welfare recipients. :-(
Andrew Betts wrote:
I run all my games online and any higher res for the maps would make it unplayable. The files are already plenty big enough that it takes players and me too long to download.
I can't imagine why they couldn't continue to offer a low res version. Or you could make one yourself before uploading the map to your VTT of choice. Throwing away data is easy, after all.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Actually, adding more people to the labor pool doesn't increase demand; it increases supply, pushing down the equilibrium price (i.e. salary) of game designers.
While I'm sure the cost of labor in RPG design is very significant, my guess is that this particular change is largely driven by increased printing costs.
Re-pagination is a definite concern. Personally, I would gladly suffer it for a cleaned up book; then again, I'm more about saving time/ease of play than I am saving money on books. I completely get that that equation is different for each of us.
I'd actually like to see the return of the PHB/DMG split.
That would allow things like archetypes and traits to be added to the Core Rules (aka the PHB) without making the book even larger. Between re-organization, re-writing, and trimming the GM stuff, they should be able to get the Core Rules down to 384 pages (or even 320) pages (and maybe even down to $39.99).
Sure a separate GM's guide would mean a higher barrier to entry for GMs, but it would probably be a win for most players. It would certainly make for a stronger binding. ;-)