|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Shane LeRose wrote:
Probably the best distinction and reconciliation.
Soul magic vs. mind magic.
John Kretzer wrote:
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!".
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 .
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.
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?
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?
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Ever tried to use a fuel-less chainsaw as a weapon irl before? Ok neither have I, but it would be completely useless as a weapon. The tree branch on the ground you just cut off would be more effective.
I've never tried to use a large great vorpal sword to behead a great wyrm gold dragon either. Have you?
I'm basing my great sword comparison to this pic. Seems like a bludgeoning great sword to me when the engine is not on.
It still a weapon even withut charges. It is not like it become a kitchen utensil.
Heck, I can even enchant it with magic weapon.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
This is the rules forum.
Actually, this is the rules questions forum.
By the rules, you do the damage and damage type the GM says is appropriate.
I thought I did the damage the books said it should do.
Yes, you take a -4 penalty for an improvised weapon. The only thing that removes this is Catch Off Guard or something else that removes the penalty for using improvised weapons. Exotic feat means nothing. And if you, the player, know how to fight with a running chainsaw... we may need to call the police.
Check again. The chainsaw is an exotic weapon. PF Techonology Guide or the SRD link in the OP.
If the chain is not being moved, it won't cause damage.
Or do bludgeoning damage. ;)
Yeah, a beter name than spell could be found. Not easy, but I'm not a desinger.
Meditation? Manifestation? Invocation?
After reading the classes, the Kineticist feels like the 3.5's Warlock. The Medium feels like the Binder (from 3.5's Tome of Magic). The Occultist feels like it is flirting with the Artificer and Incarnum magic.
I'm not complaining. The Warlock and Binder were awesome classes and it is nice to know that they now officially exist (and are upgraded) in Pathfinder. Incarnum was a cool concept poorly executed and the Artificer is something Pathfinder needs. All that is needed now is a Trunamer and Factotum. Wink wink nudge nudge.
I wonder if the book will come with Mythic options for those classes.
I would have expected more of an Indian feel to it, since psychic magic is supposed to be big in Golarion's "India". Maybe that will be for the Golarion supplements and the Adventure Path.
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.