Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Xanesha

goldomark's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter, 2015 Star Voter. 470 posts (475 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 470 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

That question will be repeated many times during the voting phase.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Fire themed item, you are so boring. Is it because fire themed items can only do damage?

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Still looking for my baby.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Nice gauntlets.

Nice shield idea.

And there is that superstar Bam-Bam item.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

It was only at the stage of ideas.

Bat shield: an animated shield that becomes a bat swarm when activated.

Mage's blade: a sword that could be used as a familiar/bonded item.

Animated armor: when the character reaches -1 hp, the armor lets him move and attack anyway.

The ur-spear: a stone tipped spear from prehistoric times. I could decide what it did.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
I would again recommend you look at the listed sections of the CRB - specific armor, specific weapons, rings, rods, and staves - and look to see if anything in those sections is intelligent.

Forgive my ignorance, but are shields considered armor? In the blog you mention that shields can be submitted, but in the post I quoted you do not mention them and they aren't mentioned here either.

Thank you good sir.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

What does the Leng Ruby do?

Thanks.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Steve Geddes wrote:

It certainly seems to me that 5E was designed to cater to the old school game players rather than the pathfinder players. As such, it's no surprise to me that it's skewed more heavily to the DM-fiat end of the spectrum, rather than the clear-codified-rules-for-everything end of the spectrum.

I think there's a correlation between whether one prefers Pathfinder or prefers the older style of game and where one thinks the 'power' should sit between player and DM.

Wasn't 4e supposed to be close in spirit to 1e like 5e is supposed to be to 2e?

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Like Dispater means bad dad in latin.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Or didn't use the word disaster... Ah the strawman, the internet's best friend!

Anyway, I hardly see Paizo making a new edition of PF that isn't somewhat compatible with the current version. They do continue publishing their rules like they did with 3.5. Although I can't think of a compagnie who is in the same situation they were in 2007. Experienced staff composed of a lot of ex-WotC employees, a good reputation among gamers and a following (the magazine subscribers). Except for WotC. Now that would be funny.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Pathfinder 2.0 or 1.5? If there is anything that was learn in the last 14 years is that compatibility and continuity help when there is an edition change.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Steve Geddes wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Has WotC's crack team of technical experts managed to solve the intractable conundrum of PDFs yet?

Their approach really puzzles me, since they don't actually seem to have a problem with PDFs as such. I don't buy the "anti-piracy" motivation, since they make so much available digitally - I haven't counted, but it seems to me that there was more PDF content produced for 4E (by pagecount) than printed material. It was certainly comparable. They also seem to have re-entered the world of digital distribution via D&D Classics without too much stress.

There just seems to be this strategy of not distributing the core books which I find odd. It's not even about rules (or you'd expect them to make the MM available as a PDF) - it seems quite weird, to me.

The only explaination I can think of is that they want people to pay a monthly fee to have access to the digital books.

If you ask me, 5e won't last too long if it doesn't have PDFs and an OGL.

I also wonder if not releasing a book each month will hurt them. I know, I know, people think it is too much. But it keeps the brand relevant, dynamic. People seem to change buy lots of game now thanks to Kickstarter. Brand/system loyalty seems less present today. People just want more. More! MOAR!

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Kthulhu wrote:
I personally find items that merely make an existing number bigger to be absolutely the most boring items in the entire catalog of Magic items. Even (and especially) the vaunted "Big Six".

Which are?

For those of us who do not think magical items are teh ebil!1!

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

-The Divs plotted to ruin the civilization and succeed. The Divs did this behind the scene. They migh have helped a druidic order who believed civilization was a sin against nature. Maybe they also aided the developpement of magic so that at some point a device that vaporize living people was created and used.

-They inhabitants have reached enlightenment and elevated themselves to a new state of conciousness, leaving their material bodies and possessions behind. A similar trope is that they formed a collective hivemind or a deity.

-Planar migration. Mages found a new plane or create a demiplane that was rich and bountyful. No diseases, no orcs, summer all the time, etc. They just created a portal to go there.

-A death cult actually manage to briefly summon a vestige of Atropus Harbinger of Death, siphoning the live force of everyone in the city in seconds.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Don't wanna see terrain base Giants. Planar, Astral, Etheral, Star, Void, Giants would be awesome!

Demons, Kytons and Devils. We have enough. Give us some Axiomites instead. LN can give us interesting baddies.

I'm divided with dragons. We have a lot, but with psychic magic coming, psychic dragons could be nice a nice twist.

Kaijus and Behemotes. Too high level. Too similar. Too limited plotwise.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Diffan wrote:
goldomark wrote:
Diffan wrote:
goldomark wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Can't be that, since an edition that came out around that time did it's best to marginalize the role of the DM as much as possible.

It is funny, because a lot of people keeping complaining about DM fiat in 3.X.

Really? About what?
I do not know. I never complained about DM fiat.
So you said that people were complaining about DM fiat in 3e but don't know what or why? I guess I'm confused.

So am I. I never had that problem with DM fiat in 3.x, but a lot of people complain about DM fiat. Like you below.

Quote:
goldomark wrote:
Quote:
Most of the fiat I see is often regarding lack of rules clarity and, to a lesser extent, on specific situation adjudication.
Fascinating. Since both 4e and 5e are so rules light this means DM needs to adjudicate all sort of specific situations. DM fiat must be off the charts!
4e isn't rules light, however the rules are pretty clearly defined which cuts down significantly on fiat. As for 5e, fiat is not only a common element within the system but heavily encouraged.

So there is DM fiat with 3.x. According to you.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Bluenose wrote:
goldomark wrote:
Quote:
Most of the fiat I see is often regarding lack of rules clarity and, to a lesser extent, on specific situation adjudication.
Fascinating. Since both 4e and 5e are so rules light this means DM needs to adjudicate all sort of specific situations. DM fiat must be off the charts!
Is that sarcasm?

It was! But not the part you thought I was sarcastic about.

Quote:
Because I don't know anyone who'd seriously describe either 4e or 5e as rules light systems.

Compared to 3.X, of course. Maybe less"complex rules" would be more to your liking? Like no grapple rules in 4e and 5e.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Diffan wrote:
goldomark wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Try making an Orc Barbarian who dual-wields large great axes AND is suitable for a solo encounter vs. 4 PCs and you'll end up making him several levels higher and requiring him to have a plethora of magical gear just so he doesn't go down in the 1st round of combat.
Adding a few levels is that problematic?
For someone who's been playing the system for 14 years? No.

Have you been playing for 14 years?

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Diffan wrote:
Try making an Orc Barbarian who dual-wields large great axes AND is suitable for a solo encounter vs. 4 PCs and you'll end up making him several levels higher and requiring him to have a plethora of magical gear just so he doesn't go down in the 1st round of combat.

Adding a few levels is that problematic?

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Diffan wrote:
goldomark wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Can't be that, since an edition that came out around that time did it's best to marginalize the role of the DM as much as possible.

It is funny, because a lot of people keeping complaining about DM fiat in 3.X.

Really? About what?

I do not know. I never complained about DM fiat.

Quote:
Most of the fiat I see is often regarding lack of rules clarity and, to a lesser extent, on specific situation adjudication.

Fascinating. Since both 4e and 5e are so rules light this means DM needs to adjudicate all sort of specific situations. DM fiat must be off the charts!

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

JoeJ wrote:
goldomark wrote:

2e is the best edition ever! Why? Because it is the first one I ever played and I have many great memories playing it with my friends.

Now I'll just watch the forums burn. Hehehe.

So I'm not sure I agree 100% that 2e was the best edition of the game, but I am sure that I very much enjoyed playing it. And if WotC will just give me the tools to use all of the 2e settings (including the Historical Reference ones) with 5e rules, I will be a very happy gamer.

My post was ment to be funny. I was saying it was the best because of the memories I have playing it, not because of the quality of its rules.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Kthulhu wrote:
Can't be that, since an edition that came out around that time did it's best to marginalize the role of the DM as much as possible.

It is funny, because a lot of people keeping complaining about DM fiat in 3.X.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Kthulhu wrote:
goldomark wrote:
Wrath wrote:
As a man who's DM'd for over 30 years now, (although the first few were pretty damn awful since I was only young), this system is easy and makes game play swift and fun.
I started playing/DMing in 1992. We've had no issue with fun or swiftness.

Well, play didn't really begin to slow down to a crawl until 2000.

Gee, what happened in 2000 that could have caused that?

A sudden increase in bad DMs?

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Which modifiers are you talking about exactly?

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Astral Projection.

With Plane Shift you can send a messenger.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
I guess I misunderstood the last line of that post of your's.

It's cool. English is not my first language. I'm from Québec and speak le French.

Quote:
I have a feeling that this thread will be closed tomorrow when the Paizo people come back. Many comments in here are getting edition war-y.

You wanna hear a real edition war comment? No? Well you're gonna anyway!

2e is the best edition ever! Why? Because it is the first one I ever played and I have many great memories playing it with my friends.

Now I'll just watch the forums burn. Hehehe.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Adjule wrote:
That complaint about 4th edition is brand new to me, so I would think it was just the vocal minority on the internet making that complaint.

Which complaint about 4e? All I said is that people who liked 4e liked that monster building was easy. People say the same about 5e right now.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Wrath wrote:
- Remembering that all I really need to do is determine if a situation is advantage or not, rather than searching through hundreds off possible situational modifiers

Hundreds? Are you obligated to even give some?

Quote:
- Not trying to find ways to make my badguy fights seem epic because every players character is overpowered to the max like Pathfinder can be. I can run battles now where the enemies are a threat without me having to gear them up or down or whatever else is necessary so the party doesn't roflstomp them. Single monster enounters are viable and scary. Ran a Bulette against my party the other day. It ate three of their horses before they could get it down, and nearly killed two players at the same time. One Bulette is actually a level appropriate threat, unlike most encounters in PF.

Give it time. Splat is on the way! In March the first splat book will arrive. Adventurer's Handbook. At 40$ I bet it will be thick with "brokenness". What I do not understand with this argument is why can't you control your PCs power level? You can say "no, that is too powerful".

Quote:
- Some things that punish players in Pathfinder aren't even things in 5th ed. Sleeping in armour is fine.

It is not about punishment. It is about realism. If you do not like it just don't use the rule. It is easier to remove rules than make some up. This is why I like rule heavy games. You can cherry pick what you like and what works. Get rid of what you do not like.

Quote:
Shooting while in combat just gives disadvantage rather than getting you smacked in the face. Casters can cast in combat without getting smacked in the face. The game is designed to be simple and fun, rather than a complex math chore.

How is shooting and casting in combat related to math?

Quote:
- There's far less penalties for trying something out in this game. Therefore, people actually try things out. The DM just decides if its easy, normal, hard or exceptional and sets DC as appropriate (5, 10, 15, 20 accordingly). Given the lack of exponential growth in the games stats, those DC's are going to work for a long time and helps keep things consistant. It's made DMing really, really easy.

I rememberd 2e with its stats that capped at 25 and PCs rarely had more than 19 in score. 3e really freed us from that paradigm. This is a huge step back. Players and DMs will feel constrained over time.

Quote:
As a man who's DM'd for over 30 years now, (although the first few were pretty damn awful since I was only young), this system is easy and makes game play swift and fun.

I started playing/DMing in 1992. We've had no issue with fun or swiftness. What really affected fun was the people with whom we played.

I guess swiftness depends on your gaming opportunities. I play with close friends in one of our houses and game sessions rarely last less than 6 hours. 8-10 hours is pretty frequent. 12 hours still happens from time to time. I guess if you have two hours in a LFGS you want something simple and fast. With friends and a lot of time in front of you, this is less of an issue. We also do not have a lot of fights per night. 1-2 fights is common. 3 is a lot. Sometimes we have none.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Diffan wrote:
goldomark wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual.
Troll confirmed.

Yeah, I couldn't even figure out what he meant by that.

Didn't have Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha, maybe? Because they didn't need them.

The monsters didn't get abilities scores and it was problematic. It didn't make the game unplayable, but it limited it.

3e gave us monsters that were not arbitrary decisions. You had a road map to making monsters and scaling them.

4e and 5e are a return to arbitrary monster making.

I wouldn't call it arbitrary, more like "I don't need a complex formula, or Class XX by level Y to wield two weapons, or Have X, Y, Z feat to make what I want the beast to do work the way I [the DM] intend". The whole 'conform to the everyone uses the same creation process' is one of the worst things I felt was bolted onto 3E and Pathfinder, especially when the system assumes all feats/skills/class options are equal and they're FAR FAR from it.

There is nothing complex about it. Like TAC0 was never complex. It was math a 12 year old should have been able to do. It can be long. That I agree with, but like anything, with practice you start to know the stuff and creation takes a lot less time.

But we all heard this when 4e came out. "Monster making has never been so simple". Yet it wasn't enough to detrone 3.X.

I wonder if the whole "it takes too long to make a monster" is really just a complaint of a vocal minority on the internet.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Quark Blast wrote:

Yes but...

All the spell descriptions are given with the assumption that the Battle grid is used.

Facing doesn't matter in Battle Grid combat - a counter intuitive notion that, when combined with all the more sensible rules (like Charging in a straight line and not around corners (unless you have the Feat for that <sigh>), makes it all the harder to swallow.

Etc.

Which edition are you talking about? 2e or 3.X?

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Quark Blast wrote:
goldomark wrote:
The real big addition 3e brought to D&D was feats. The rest was similar to 2e or improved, like saves. In 3e you had less saves and they actually scaled with levels. In 2e a monster or PC with 10 HD almost always made his saves. Boring.

The Battle Grid. You can't forget that. It introduces a number of absurdities and slows combat down immensely.

Not a pre-3E mook myself but having looked over the rules once or twice and watched some play I'd say combat grinds to a comparative halt with 3.PF though it also typically lasts only 3 rounds at best.

The grid was optional, but it was always there. Remember, D&D started as a war game.

For example, you had ways to determine randomly where your holy water or flask of acid would land on the grid if you miss your target. Than you could calculate splash damage. That is people around the square where the flask landed too damage.

You could also ajust the AC of someone who was using a shield depending on where the attacker was making his attacks (after all the shield doesn't protect your back or side). You could also ajust AC depending on the armor used and the weapon used against it. Than you could calculate the damage the armor was delt and know if it is was going to become useless...

It was always possible to grind combat to a halt if you wanted too. You can also speed it up if you want to.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Adjule wrote:
goldomark wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual.
Troll confirmed.

Yeah, I couldn't even figure out what he meant by that.

Didn't have Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha, maybe? Because they didn't need them.

The monsters didn't get abilities scores and it was problematic. It didn't make the game unplayable, but it limited it.

3e gave us monsters that were not arbitrary decisions. You had a road map to making monsters and scaling them.

4e and 5e are a return to arbitrary monster making.

4th edition had ability scores for monsters. 5th edition has ability scores for monsters.

Yes, I know.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Adjule wrote:

Of course Pathfinder is has more material than 5th edition D&D. It's been out for nearly 7 years, where 5th edition has only been out not even 5 months. This argument has always astounded me. I see it used here, and I see it used with MMORPGs. "Why should I play (new game) which has no content when I can just play WoW?" (New game) just came out, and you are insane if you expect it to have as much content as a game that's been around for 10 years. Same applies to this. 5th edition just came out, and you are insane to expect it to have as much material as a game that's been out for 7 years.

Pathfinder had help when it first came out by saying "3.5 Lives/Thrives!" because it was a clone of 3rd edition, where 4th edition was a whole new beast that was completely different. Practically no one uses anything from 3rd edition with Pathfinder, so saying it has 3rd edition material going for it is disingenuous.

Why did anyone change from 2nd to 3rd edition? 2nd edition had 11 years of material going for it, and it wasn't much different from 1st edition, so it had another 10+ years of material. Because it was different enough for some people to make the switch.

And this lack of material is considered to be one of the things that hurt 4e. This is why the OGL is so important. A new edition comes out and other people have already made compatible material for it. When 3e came out Necromancer Games had a Bestiary ready. This helped people make the transition from 2e because 2e had so much material. 5e's lack of an OGL will hurt it like the lack of PDFs.

What also helped with the switch from 2e to 3e is that they actually produced a guide to help you upgrade your PC. Not perfect, but it helped. It also helped that the fluff stayed the same. You could also recognize spells and magical items with little effort.

The real big addition 3e brought to D&D was feats. The rest was similar to 2e or improved, like saves. In 3e you had less saves and they actually scaled with levels. In 2e a monster or PC with 10 HD almost always made his saves. Boring.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
2nd ed didn't even have stats for the monsters in the Monster Manual.
Troll confirmed.

Yeah, I couldn't even figure out what he meant by that.

Didn't have Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha, maybe? Because they didn't need them.

The monsters didn't get abilities scores and it was problematic. It didn't make the game unplayable, but it limited it.

3e gave us monsters that were not arbitrary decisions. You had a road map to making monsters and scaling them.

4e and 5e are a return to arbitrary monster making.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

memorax wrote:
David Bowles wrote:


It's the default because WoTC is essentially asking me to abandon the $700+ I have wrapped up in Pathfinder to play their game. When 3.0 came out, my default position was 2nd ed. 3rd ed was such a huge leap over 2nd that there was no question to me. So it's natural for me to compare to what I'm playing now.
The problem is that it make no sense for Wotc to release another rehash of 3.5 with houserules a third time. There is 3.5 and Pathfinder. Why would anyone who has access to both of those rpgs bu the same thing a third time. It's the same comments I'm hearing about Call of Cthulhu 7th edition. It's not like the previous six editions. To be blunt it can't be. Why would I invest in the same came twice. Your not making a good case of being open minded about 5E. I get that it's not the game for you. I disagree but can respect that.

The answer is that you get to use your previous edition books. 3.PF books mean that not only you do not lose money, but the money you invested in previous edition books still has value since with minimal effort you can adapt them to the current edition of 3.PF.

It also means that the current edition of 3.PF is vaster because it has more material available than the current editon of D&D. D&D only has the 3 core books out. PF has all it'S books, plus the one of previous editons who are compatible.

This helped Paizo when 4e was released, and it will help them now.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

I was reading the Saga graphic novels and I was thinking: "This fantasy space-opera would make an awesome setting. Paizo should do it!".

In Dragon mag #352 Paizo did just that with the world of Bas-Lag featured in the novels of China Miéville.

I'm not sure if these stand alone/one shot settings would cannibalize PF's fan base or would be too niche to be profitable, but I know I would buy some of them.

Which novel, comic, film or TV show do you think would make a great one shot setting*?

*By one shot or stand alone setting, I mean produce just one book that comtains the history of the setting, some maps, NPCs, new races, class, items, etc. No other supplement needed.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.

+1

Something else than demon lords would be welcomed.

At two pages per demigod, in a 68 pages supplement we would get about 30 demigod. So all the 9 aligments could be incarnated. I'm saying that because the book focusing on Demons and Devils were cool, but something with variety would be welcomed and we wouldn't have to wait 2 years to get an Asura Rana, an Oni Daimyos, a Protean Lord or a Psychopomp Usher.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Adjule wrote:
goldomark wrote:
Adjule wrote:
What is the CR of Tiamat?
30. I'm sure damage wise it is a 30 CR, but it just looks boring. Bite/breath weapon/ignore fail saves, repeat.
She doesn't look more boring than anything Paizo has put out for the final encounter for an AP or adventure module.

I just find that the Clockwork Reliquary, Deskari or Pazuzu (B4) have feats, spells, mythic power, items and abilities that give them more options than bite damage+energy damage in combat. And out of combat. Maybe that is just me, but bite+energy damage is not inspiring.

I also think they have more flavor. Maybe because Tiamat is a bit worn out for me and they are new (except for Pazuzu). It is a shame, I liked her.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Adjule wrote:
I believe the look of Hoard of the Dragon Queen is more on Kobold Press, though I could be wrong. Wolfgang Baur (a regular Paizo AP writer and a regular to these boards as well) could answer that part better than anyone. I probably am wrong.

Some WotC staff did editing. Not sure about layout or what kind of budget KP had to make the adventure or if WotC assumed the expenses.

Quote:
What is the CR of Tiamat?

30. I'm sure damage wise it is a 30 CR, but it just looks boring. Bite/breath weapon/ignore fail saves, repeat.

Quote:
I don't have access to that adventure, so I don't know. I do know I was greatly underwhelmed with Paizo's Demon Lords, which are basically like lesser gods. Yes, Tiamat's a greater goddess. Do you fight actual Tiamat, or an aspect/avatar of Tiamat?

Tiamat. Paizo's lesser gods are more diverse and fun.

Quote:
Paizo's APs are great, but I don't know if comparing Wizards' adventures with Paizo's APs is a good comparison. I think a better comparison would be with Paizo's adventure modules (Dragon's Demand, Wardens of the Reborn Forge, and the other recent ones in their new format).

Even compared to the modules Paizo is way out of their league when it comes to layout, art, maps and bonus material. And I'm sure they would have their digital materail on their website if they said in the adventure that it would be on their website. It sounds like DDI/VTT all over again.

Quote:
Of course, Paizo's bread and butter is the adventures, so I would expect those to be better. Would Pathfinder be as successful as it is without the APs? Maybe, maybe not.

From WotC release schedule it looks like they are going for a similar business model. Next year they are release to adventure that are connected and a few plug-in books. Splat books. I believe. It is called Princes of the Apocalypse. Yup, old Elemental Evil adventure. Again.

It is a third party who is desgining that. Sasquash Games I believe.

Quote:
I would love to see WotC make actual APs, like what Paizo is doing. 6 installments, 2 APs per year.

So far it looks like 1 AP a year with 2 instalments.

Quote:
They want to make Forgotten Realms their default, but they also seem to keep a few of their others alive. So, the AP that starts in January/February can be based in Forgotten Realms, while the AP that starts in July/August can be based in one of their other settings (an Eberron adventure, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, etc). Or they can have 3 per year (4 installments each). Honestly, I think that would be awesome.

They seemed to have said they want to visite new setting ech year with their AP.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

I saw Hoards of the Dragon Queen and Rise of the Over-Used BBEL. Looks cheap. The formating, the maps and the lack of art work give it a very late 90s 2e look. You know, when TSR was broke. AP are better done and have a lot more bonus material. Plus at the end of RoT they say to check the WotC website for the full stats of an item and surprise surprise it is not there. Right now Paizo's AP and modules are in another league.

I saw Tiamat's stats. No very god-like. It makes you wonder why she is a goddess. Cause she has 5 bites? She just deals a lot of damage and can ignore failed saves. Like a 5 headed Tarrasque. She has almost no magic. What sort of goddess is that? Not very inspirering. In 2e's Power and Pantheons her avatar felt epic. Not sure the result of 5e's mechanics are very sexy.

So far, all I see is some time spend learning, mastering and teaching 5e for very little return.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

But can a barkeep see the difference between a cleric, a druid, a wizard and a psychic? A ranger, a fighter, a barbarian and a paladin?

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Lord Gadigan wrote:

Since there's six slots in an AP, I'll list six things I'd like to see.

* I'd like to see Azlant during its old glory days.
* I'd like to visit the Jistka Imperium, as I'm a fan of its infernal golem-crafter stylings.
* I'd like to see Triaxus in summertime.
* I'd like to see Eox (and the worlds of the Diaspora) before their destruction.
* I'd like to see old Sarkoris before the Worldwound formed, mostly to just see a society with active summoners as a part of it.
* I'd like to visit things before humanity came around to see the world in truly ancient days.

I like this idea of visiting one of the dead planets (Eox or the Twins). The ones who ruined the planet(s) could be the same threat that is travelling though time and will have to be fought in the future (AP book 6). Althought I always imagined the Divs had a role in one of those destruction.

All the AP becomes a cautionary tale for the current civilizations.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

From the wikipedia article, the term "psionic" comes from:

Quote:
John W. Campbell, an editor of a science fiction magazine, became enthused about fringe science, and according to the The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, he went on to define psionics as "Engineering applied to the mind". His encouragement of psionics led author Murray Leinster and others to write stories such as The Psionic Mousetrap.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shane LeRose wrote:

Psychic = spiritual. It relates to the essence of things. So outsiders should play a strong part of it as should some fey and some undead.

Psionic = mental. This relate to the mind, or the intelligence guiding a something. This focuses on living, thinking beings. Humanoids and abberations are prevelant here.

There can be overlap, just as you can combine the arcane with the divine. YMMV, but this works for me and will be a part of my campaigns.

Probably the best distinction and reconciliation.

Soul magic vs. mind magic.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

John Kretzer wrote:
Rakshaka wrote:
This is sort of 'Dragon-lancey', but I'd love to be able to journey Azlant right before Earthfall.

That sounds like a very short campaign....

The PCs just arrive in Azlant....look up at the sky and wonder what that fiery things coming down from the sky at them....

It could work for one book of the AP. "The clock is ticking and the PCs need to find items X,Y and Z from the Azlanti capital while the Starstone is hours away from impact! Quick, if you fail the Consortium of the Hack will get some advantage in its future invasion plans!".

Same principale with dino age adventure book. "Save the clan or Kru'k! the clan of Kru'k is responsable for the bloodline that produces Aroden! They also made this totally rad legendary magical mask that you will pick up in two adventures! Aberrations riding dinosaurs! Grrr!".

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And here is a report from our Numerian corespondent: 01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101100 01101111 01110110 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00101110 00100000 01001111 01100010 01100101 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011 00101110 .

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Seems like a modern setting. By that I do not mean it was set in our time, but that it reflected modern expectations of a setting. Maybe post-modern would be more accurate.

It was conceived to contained everything. The setting felt whole from the start and not full of holes that needed patching over time. That clearly influenced Golarion. Magic was an integral part of society too. Which makes a lot of sense. Why wouldn't there be a magico-industrial complex?

It could have used better described deities and more high level NPCs, but those were not there because it was also ment to be the anti-Forgotten Realms settings. It is ashame because in many ways it what the FR should have been with a 100 years jump in time.

I'm guessing it will receive minimal support from WotC. Maybe a AP.

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

Who was the first occult adventures iconic revealed?

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

mikeawmids wrote:

But there are dinosaurs around in present day Golarion!

I doubt a whole AP will be based around the Dominion of the Black as the fanbase seems pretty divided on getting Lovecraft peppers on their fantasy pizza.

An evil organisation of time travelling wizards would be fun to fight. I would like to see something similar to RoW, where you're jumping to a different time period in each of the six books. Anything that reminds me of Timesplitters is going to go down well. :D

I'm not too attached to the Dominion of the Black as the BBEG. Maybe I shoul have went with a more generic Time Travelling Wizard.

I still like the idea of going to the future to fight an invasion. I just wonder if the invaders aren't responsable for tinkering with the past, what would be the Time Travelling Wizard's motives?

Marathon Voter 2013, Star Voter 2015

The future AP wish list made me think about a time travelling AP and historical moments I would like to visite.

In no paticular order:

1. Age of Destiny: The founding of the Yixing Empire in Tian Xia.

2. Age of Enthronement: Make sure Iomedae can get access to the Starstone and see her become a goddess.

3. Age of Serpents: Dinosaurs and cavefolk!

4. Age of Legend 1: Visite Thassilon in the past and maybe make a cameo during the RotR AP.

5. Age of Legend 2: Visite Azlant at its peak and one of its moon colonies.

6. The Future: The Moon half blown up and is an outpost of the Dominion of the Black. This is the place from which they want to invade Golarion.

Maybe the theme of the adventure is to correct some events the Dominion of the Black changed in the past to help its conquest of Golarion in the future. Like they try to make sure Karzoug rises because that would cause chaos in the Inner Sea region. With Iomedae not a goddess Golarion would not have a leader to lead the charge against the invaders and their gods. Delay the rise of Yixing and you thus make sure humanity is less advanced when the Dominion invades.

Other stuff the PCs could do is steal some powerful items from the Azlanti. Taking them doesn't change the future since the items were going to be destroyed during Earthfall anyway. Prepare a cache of weapons on a Azlanti moon colony for the future.

Which Ages would you like visite?

1 to 50 of 470 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.