emky's page

16 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Naarg wrote:
without requiring the player to constantly refer to a glossary.

Came here for that, too. Apocrypha may never actually hit my table because of that (and its huge mechanical-flavor disconnect, a problem PACG before it didn't have).

Someone else mentioned foiling some cards: please, no. Foiled cards don't shuffle well, wear differently, and, most importantly, can't be read except for the person holding it.

For a cooperative card game, the game is often not interactive enough. When you want to help your friend, the game generally tells you that you can't unless you have a card that does so. It's a co-op game, so it should feel more cooperative.

I really don't see how this could be said. The game is a constant back and forth between characters/players to determine who's going to do what and help each other. I've seen very few co-op games more interactive than PACG.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This seals the deal for me: PF2 is not for me, for much the same reason I don't like 5e. Background/character fluff like this should not have a bearing on the mechanics of a character. To restrict background to specific lists, and to make it so your character's backstory has to be a certain set to make a complete character is not proper for a roleplaying game to me.

I'm out if this is to remain.

Will Alchemy be easily stripped out and ignored for those of us who don't like it in our FRPGs? Or is it so integrated to the game that you're missing too much/balance if you drop it? (Really: Alchemy and Goblins should be in splatbooks, not the core book. They are a niche conceit, and not core "fantasy tends to have this!" material.) I'm going to feel doubly bad that so much of the core rulebook with PF2 will be content that I won't be using AND that the game's likely to be worse-balanced for doing so.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of alchemy in my fantasy, and it's disappointing that something so niche as alchemist is being made core when there were plenty of other classes to choose from instead.

It's the same thing (to a lesser degree, though) as goblin being made core. Things that should be relegated to splat books are core, so if you're "banning" them from your game for thematic reasons, you're losing parts of the tightly balanced system and large parts of the core book. And, since they're core, they'll be more supported in all the future splatbooks as well, rather than kept where they should be -- more niche.

While it's great to see this sale -- when's the next set of promos coming to the store? The Rise and S&S promos were put up in a giant batch before, but the Wrath and Mummy's promos haven't been available for purchase yet.

And still waiting on the digital assets -- the character sheets, etc, since Summoner. I saw threads addressing that though.

(And to chime in on "which set?" Only bother with Wrath if you've played and enjoyed every other set first. It's a frustrating -- not just challenging, but frustrating -- experience.)

Mel, that egotist of "yor". Did you go to print yet? Speaking of fixing typos -- we haven't gotten updated PDF sheets in ages. I'm going to be starting up another round soon and hope to use some of the newer characters. Any idea when we'll get the PDF sheets updated with them? http://paizo.com/products/btpy914x/

Did anyone playtest all this "don't roll too high" mechanics throughout the adventure path for fun factor? That scenario previewed makes me scream seeing it. I haven't started MM yet (finishing Rise Wednesday, already have MM Ch1). I know Ch1 had some of it, I thought it was just there, but I see it's continuing, and gets even worse.

And the monsters are so close to that punishing 19.

Can't Paizo just publish bundles of JPG/PNG images (maps, handouts, portraits, tokens) that we can then buy and use in our VTT of choice? All of these "exclusive use" from each of those systems does nothing but generate lock-in, plus none of them recognize the concept of software ownership and they all use DRM schemes rather than just selling software.

PLUS, above all that, I still find the free and open-source MapTool better, after my experiences seeing what the paid ones had to offer.

How does the difficult compare to the previous sets? I'm hoping it's not as hard (and certainly not harder!) than Wrath?

"Charm Person" doesn't link to referenced spell.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedPlayersGuide/advancedNewRules.ht ml
There are multiple HTML element "id=" tags duplicated. Example: #campaign-traits . This makes it difficult to link directly to what's desired.

Chris Lambertz wrote:

September 30, 2015 Update

We've also corrected all bugs indicated up to this post.

Not true. My mentioned bugs about the Witch page are still not fixed.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/baseClasses/witch.html#natural- disaster

Right under this, the Witch's Familiar table has big issues -- as in it's paragraphs in a table instead of as paragraphs, no word wrapping, etc.

There are also TWO divs with the same ID "witch's-familiar", which is why I couldn't link to the appropriate one directly.

Please create a print style sheet that, at a minimum, drops the navigation bar when printing a page.

Vic, I see a lot of this thread agree that that the release schedule is too aggressive. Is that something Paizo is willing to address?

New to Pathfinder after taking a few years off to non-d20 games. This thread brought the +3/+4/+5 equivalences to my attention. My first taste of reading that is "yuck!"

Anyway, the way I did it in 3.5, at least for non-cannon-fodder foes, was approximately this:
DR5 was unchanged
DR10 was "half the attack's damage, then DR5 to the remaining"
DR15 was "quarter the attack's damage, then DR5"
and so on.

You don't quite as easily get the "immunity to armies" from that, but it brought things like power attacking in check against DR. An example 20 point hit against DR10 became 5 damage (20 -> 10 -> 5) instead of 10. Against 15, it would be fully absorbed.

I was a golf bag carrier when I played, too. You need your cold iron weapon, your silver weapon, your adamantine weapon -- and it's trivial (by the time you really need to) to make them +1 as well. Alignment usually would come via buff... And then I was also saddened by seeing the other guy just power attacking with a 2-hander through the DR with his one big-plus weapon.

It's too expensive. Your question is about the base set, but purchasing the base set is, more or less, a commitment to getting the rest. That's a very expensive $120 board game (using discounted prices from buying elsewhere) that doesn't get as many plays as it could because of dedication required to it (time to play, setup, cleanup, deck management...).

And that's excluding all the very-off-putting extras, like the $30 (THIRTY!?!?!) for the UltraPro little piece of cardboard character mats that somehow have game content.

And then there are the promo cards -- as a completionist, I like to get all the game content available for a game I commit to. ROTR showed me that's simply not going to happen for a PACG game unless I go and take another mortgage. And the rampant errata/misprints (that alone is enough to make me want to wait until after an entire line has been out for a good long while!)

And then there's storage. The box inside looks nice, like everything was thought out, but it's actually not useful at all. Even if you don't sleeve the cards (and I'm not one who does), there's all the time, effort and materials spent finding a decent way to store the cards.

AND THEN the guild adventures are a new thing for S&S that cost even more money (each sold separately, of course!)

So, ROTR is probably it, unless Paizo changes the way it is going to do things for the future. Ideally, boxing the ENTIRE line up in one bulk-priced bundle instead of doing reprint runs on the separate content.

But, that's unlikely because here we are with zero delay in the next one coming out. I might be able to overcome dread of the excessive costs if the release schedule were not so aggressive.