|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I still don't understand why they don't just reproduce Season 6's special rules directly in the guide to organized play (I humbly suggest the section entitled "Season 6 special rules").
That would instantly and completely address the issue in a way that should be acceptable to everyone. Then we can go back to arguing about whether the rogue is under powered. :P
as everyone knows the big issue with doing 2.0 is that paizo would likely invalidate previous A.P.s, that's probably the biggest issue, before paizo most companies survived on rule books and splat books, so it made sense to redo the rules ever 5 years or so. with paizo a lot of it comes from the AP's so it might not make economic sense to have a new edition.
I think if they did a 3.0->3.5 level transition, and focused on the presentation and organization, they could produce a rule-set that would work with the existing material with very little adjustment...roughly like running one of the OGL adventure paths using Pathfinder. Though admittedly, there would still be some work involved.
Agreed, and I would add that I see no reason why it wouldn't go in the Guide. Frankly, putting it there seems like a no-brainer.
Jail House Rock wrote:
Absolutely, unequivocally not possible for Paizo to "put WotC down." D&D could disappear tomorrow, and WotC would continue merrily along with Magic.
Besides, why would you want such a thing? Enjoy people being laid-off? Think competition is bad? :P
Quark Blast wrote:
I think at best it could be called evidence of that. Then again, look at the 2E->3E transition. I don't think it's that simple.
Andy Brown wrote:
Strongly disagree. It's hard enough to keep up on the hardbacks.
Also, supplements shouldn't impose changes on the way core rules (skills) work.
Couldn't this problem be solved by including the relevant rules in the guide to organized play? People who want to take the feat would still need to buy the book, but everyone would be fully informed.
As it stands, people who don't own the tech guide and don't see threads like this one have no way of knowing that knowledge skills don't work normally against tech items. This is a recipe for table variation.
Unless you have a hangup about having to purchase a new book, I don't see why you wouldn't just use the rules. But whatever, I'm certainly not the PFS police.
The problem is people who haven't purchased the tech guide -- or read this thread -- will have no idea that, say, plain-old knowledge (engineering) isn't supposed to work on tech. As a result, the potential for significant table variation exists. Happily, this can be addressed by adjusting the guide to organized play.
These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.
The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.
I really like that solution. It rewards people who have spent the resources but doesn't punish people when no one in the group owns the technology guide.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that as PFS GMs we are afforded the latitude to choose which rules to enforce...hence my resolve to avoid running tech-heavy scenarios.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Yeah, it's a train wreck. Put a rule that changes how a scenario works in a book not referenced anywhere in the scenario. *sigh*
I think I'll avoid running any scenarios involving technology for the time being.
You are right. I think Paizo should take their fan's opinions seriously. As long as those pinons are not "rewrite the system from the ground up or you will go bankrupt".
Don't get me wrong -- I do understand that some of the changes I would personally like to see would probably be unpopular. And I would guess that the safest course of action for Paizo, at least for the time being, is to keep doing what they've been doing, and so that's what I fully expect. I'd still like to see a re-write of the core to make it look a lot more like the beginner box, but I'm not holding my breath. :)
You can argue there needs to be changes made but as long as Paizo continues to make money and be successful with their current strategies, that's not going to happen; Regardless of your opinion.
I'm sorry, but the tone of your post is very much "if you don't like how things are, shut up, because they aren't changing" and I just can't agree with that. Customers can and should offer feedback, whether you agree with that feedback or not. In the case of play tests, Paizo is explicitly asking for feedback.
I think you are mistaking fanbase with forum-base. The only people that talk about PF problems at PFS are forum goers IME. The folks that just show up to game are quite happy with PF and its direction.
Right up until they're not, and they just stop showing up. And no, many of those people don't come to the forums...they just go away. In fact, many people refuse to come to these forums because this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all critical of Pathfinder. But that's another thread.
Its possible that you and yours are not, but I urge caution in trying to make a case for the majority. It might just be the case you and Paizo/PF are not a good fit. Though numbers wont lie despite making the same mistakes over and over, PF remains successful and popular.
Yes, Pathfinder is popular. So is McDonald's. Personally, I play Pathfinder in spite of the rules, not because of them. Neither of us has any idea how many others feel the same.
Southeast Jerome wrote:
It would also be easier to use at the table, which to me is a paramount concern.
They have said that the digital ebooks available through the DungeonScape app will not be subscription based and will be a one time purchase.
If that's the case, why not just sell industry-standard PDFs?
If they're trying to employ DRM shenanigans, all they'll do is annoy people. And someone will crack it, especially on an open platform like the PC. That's the open secret of content encryption -- you have to give your customers the key in order to read the content.
Cintra Bristol wrote:
Interesting. The gallery on Miniature Market makes the figures look absolutely terrible. Especially the faces.
Are the minis you received noticeably better?
Never thought I'd agree so strongly with the bag man, but...this. Exactly this.
My guess is the PDF isnt available because it will be under morning forge or moning star, whatever that company is thats doing their digital stuff. Not sure if you wil be able to get PDFs through them eventually or if it will be a new DDI type thing.
Unfortunately, the data not living on my hard drive is a deal-killer for me.
I also think it is a very clear sign that someone over there just doesn't get it. I had hoped that they would learn from 4E.
Maybe it's time to give some serious thought to starting that 13th Age game instead.
But everybody knows PDFs are what pirates use to steal your corporate bonuses! Heard that at the golf course last week. Also, Earl told me about this crazy new Iphone thing. Wonder if Microsoft's gonna have much success with it, personally I'm sticking with my Nokia. Reminds me, gotta check how much my shares of them are.
I may have gone with "Blackberry." But otherwise, this seems spot on. Sadly. :(
...and with the PHB officially released yesterday, still no PDFs. In fact, they seem to be pretending PDFs don't exist.
Lame, lame, lame. This is a fear-driven decision that does nothing to reduce piracy while completely eliminating PDF revenue. Frankly, this is tone-deaf enough to make me re-think the entire edition.
13th Age in PDF? Check
And somehow I have still purchased EVERY SINGLE ONE (in both formats, for heaven's sake!)
David Bowles wrote:
I don't like the one square diagonal rule. However, 1.5 isn't really correct, either. When it gets right down to it, √2 is irrational, and therefore any decimal representation must necessarily be imprecise. It just depends on how much approximation one is comfortable with.
Irrespective of whether such flaws exist, the Core Rulebook has presentation and organization issues that could be addressed without actually changing any rules.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Except we are explicitly talking about Wizards who do spend time training with weapons. That's the point of them being proficient! Whether they spent a feat on it, or have a racial benefit, the idea is that this isn't some random scholar who just picked up a sword, but someone who actually has spent time and effort learning to wield a blade. Why shouldn't they be perfectly capable of swinging the sword with skill, if they have the stats and proficiency to do so?
Because that's not how D20 games work? Seriously, it really isn't. The game is designed so that the majority of one's ability is defined by class; ergo, if you want to be good at fighting, pick a class that's good at fighting.
I'm not saying that's good or bad...it just is. Fighting the design of system seems like an unnecessary headache.
I do not understand the current rules-light fad. Completely not to my taste. I hate going back to square one, and I love the complexity. That's why I play Pathfinder.
Out of curiosity, how old are you? Do you have kids?
When 3E was released I thought it was brilliant. Now? Ain't nobody got time for that. :)
I use D&D Dungeon Tiles quite a bit in my PFS games since I have a lot of them and not very many PF map packs or flip maps (slowly collecting, though!). I had a very good representation for each of the maps in The Confirmation, but, not exact. Some rooms were a few squares too big or small. I like to err on the side of too big when a cavern or room seems just too small for 2 large bad guys and 6 PCs. Is this allowed or should we draw the maps on blank battlemats if we don't own the actual map pack or flip mat?
I think that's an excellent question.
That is: No one cares who produced the maps, but are we free to use close approximations when it comes to size, etc.? I would think not. Obviously the impact depends on the situation -- making a 50' wide room 45' wide means a heck of a lot less that making a 10' corridor 5' wide -- but in general the campaign leadership errs on the side of consistency.