|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Gates. Gates are the way to export/import merchandise between cities.
No need a bunch of high level wizards constantly teleporting stuff. Just a few high up wiz who build gates once. That is much more cost effective.
Now the game is about guarding those gates, who gets to use them, the quantity of goods one merchant can send through a gate, sabotage, invasion...
That is the plan, but I wanna make sure I do not give access to a weapon that will be too powerful.
I want to give the weapon a +1 enhancement bonus at level 1 and one more every 4 levels (max of +5 at level 17). I also want to give a +1 bonus for special abilities starting level 3 and one more every 4 levels after that (max of +5 at level 19). The abilities would be limited at first and the list expend as the summoner increases in levels.
Too powerful, considering only the summoner could use it and BaB stays 3/4?
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
So the REAL question is, would you prefer The Genius Guide to Horrifically Overpowered Mythic Feats (which takes existing Mythic feats, and overpowers them horrifically), or The Genius Guide to Mythic Horrifically Overpowered Feats (which would do mythic versions of the existing Horrifically Overpowered feats)?
Bolded part. Super powered mythic feats I do not need them... Yet.
Mythic like Epic, gives PCs new and powerful abilities, introduces powerful enemies and iconic enemies, like Demon Lords, changes the fluff of the game by giving them a legendary aspect or cosmic importance that is not necessarely present in other games, etc...
What did the APG do to do that? The core rules are pretty much the same.
Matt Thomason wrote:
I understand waht you mean. A 3PP designer said so on EW and I happened to stumble on the exchange of posts. This was a few months ago, maybe things have changed.
The D&D boat as sailed for me. Too much money invest in PF to start buying and learning a new edition because it is super important to get new versions of the fighter and wizards. The alpha playtest was rather meh, too. Nothing very exiting.
How do you explain its similarities to D&D 3.5? Cosmic coincidence?
Yeah, I think PF 2.0 will be more a 1.5. Like PF is 3.75.
Some backward compatibility seems to be a must.
Mearls has said they were aware of the problem with the GLS and they will try to do something about it. He does come from the 3PP industry. What Hasbro will decide that remains to be seen.
An open license for some rules would make sense. Enough for 3PP to use, but not enough to make an entire RPG game from it. But again, what VPs at Hasbro will decide...
He isn't being flippant, as far as I can tell. At some point we had to ducttapped our PHBs, cause we used them so much.
Wht I want to know is:
1) Will people complain that there should have been a beta playtest because the rules are broken and CharOp people would have seen all the issues (whether true or not)?
2) Will people complain the alpha playtest was a waste of their time because the final product is very different from what was tested (whether true or not)?
Prime Evil wrote:
One interesting question is whether WoTC are planning to offer some kind of licensing arrangement less restrictive than the 4th Edition Game System License. WoTC pretty much lost the entire third-party publisher ecosystem to Paizo overnight when they abandoned the Open Game Licence in favour of the GSL. While the direct economic value of the third-party ecosystem to WoTC is small, it is important to them in capturing mindshare and building a community around their products. I would argue that the rise of Paizo has been at least in part due to the effort that they have invested in building a strong community of third-party publishers around Pathfinder - this has helped to build a buzz around their own products and to demonstrate their respect for the broader hobby.
What were the differences between the OGL and GLS anyway?
It wouldn't take a slot on the body, but then you wouldn't be wearing it, thus you would need to roll concentration checks when you cast spells. There are no loopholes.
You could invent a unique hand of the mage that bypasses this rule or an archetype that does that.
OK I never really understood why people LOVED Spelljammer. Was it because it WAS D&D in space? Or was something else I was missing. Please explain it to me. Thanks!
In part because it was D&D in space. It opened up an all new location to exploire (e.g. space, moons, asteroids, planets). It also gave us cool micro-settings, like the asteroid city The Rock of Bral and the Astromundi Cluster.
It connected all the settings and had lots of "alienish" elements. In a way, it was an early version of Planescape. I still think the two are complementary and if WotC revisites either settings, it will have t merge them somehow.
It also gave rules to have naval combat with a lot of different ships. Some were pretty cool looking.
A bunch of new races and monsters(e.g. Arcanes, Giffs)and new takes on old ones (e.g. Imperial Elves, Giths, Beholders).
There was lots of silly stuff, but those are easy to ignore. Focus on the cool and what stimulates your creativity.
Gruesome monstrous humanoids has potential. Depends on the templates themselves, but a parasite infested gargoyle or a lepreus hag can be gruesome. Serpentfolk, scorpionfolk, harpies, medusas, etc, have a nice gruesome potential.
Gruesome humanoids too. A secret cult in a village with its members having something gruesome has potential. Humanoids can be used in so may situations, good templates for them are always welcomed.
So do outsiders with the evil subtype.