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

magnuskn's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 6,853 posts (6,855 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,853 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As an addendum to my post, I have completed and am running Jade Regent, because I have two groups of completely different players.

The AP which I enjoyed the most.... eh, torn between Curse of the Crimson Throne and Jade Regent. Both have great character work, but completely different focuses. In the end, I'd probably have to give it to Jade Regent (with the Crimson Phoenix tournament taking the place of the boring superdungeon in module four).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Completed: Curse of the Crimson Throne, Rise of the Runelords (as player), Jade Regent, Carrion Crown, Wrath of the Righteous (mythic sucks).

Running: Jade Regent, Rise of the Runelords (as GM)

Abandoned: Kingmaker, Second Darkness (as player, officially "on hiatus" for 3+ years).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Paizo loves Cheliax. I like it too, but give some other nation a chance in the spotlight.

Exactly. Shouldn't an underutilized place like Varisia finally get a chance for its day in the sun?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cat-thulhu wrote:
I'm not making any judgements. I'll just be curious to see how this little experiment goes, the comment wasn't actually directed at you magnuskn, it was a general expression of feeling toward the experimental APs.

It's okay, I wasn't trying to jump down your throat. I mostly was trying to give a little more detailed explanation why I am not interested at all in an evil AP.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Look, I don't want to harp very much on this, since I already said I am not buying it, which means I'll just get out of the way of the people who enjoy that kind of stuff (contrary to WotR, where I did buy the AP, got most of the tie-in books and actually GM'ed the campaign to its very end, which, IMO, gives me the right to have an opinion on the thing, even if it is an overwhelmingly negative one).

But for me, the problem is not to get my players to play evil "right", but that I can't stand to GM an AP (or even play in one) with an evil party. As soon as they start doing evil stuff, I'd be right on the cusp of throwing out random lightning from the heavens, and I don't want to be that kind of GM. I just can't deal well with this type of AP and so I am just giving my advance notice that I won't be buying it. Heck, even if Brandon were to write all six modules, I wouldn't be buying it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
i wasn't bad mouthing you, sorry if it came across that way, i was just trying to say that you had feelings of ambivalence of the over powered types mythic creates and whether the current model of averaging out challenges in adventure paths can handle the power over load, i think its safe to say no the current model can't support the Avenger Initiative that is Mythic Adventures:-D

Nonono, I didn't mean you, sorry if I was unclear. I specifically meant Tirisfal and Squeakmaan (especially the latter).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tirisfal wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Hell's Vengeance is spring ap. You play bad buys. No, I'm not kidding.
Oh, hey, another opportunity to let my subscription lapse for six months. Woopee.
Didn't you publicly decry the good guy ap, too?

For reasons not related at all to the plot (aside from it being pretty "standard", so to speak). I vehemently disagree about the necessity or desirability of an "evil" AP on moral standpoints, the problems with Wrath of the Righteous were overwhelmingly on the mechanical side of things.

Squeakmaan wrote:
Eh, he was down on it before it ever came out. When you run with 6 players using 25 point builds then complain the challenges don't work I have limited sympathy. But hey, an Evil AP is another reason to re-up my AP subscription.

This is utter BS. First off, it was a 20 point buy. Having six players is something I can't really control beyond chucking friends out of my group.

And while the mechanical problems were surely heightened with six player characters, the problems popped up with a lot of other GM's as well, who had different player numbers. Also, I used vastly enhanced encounters (courtesy of Scorpion_mjd), which were supposed to close the power potential gap. It didn't work out, because mythic rules are utterly broken and the AP was written very much as a sequence of extremely underpowered encounters after module two. Basically, Scorpion was trying to improve on a flawed model and even he fell short, because the base model was just adjusted way too low. I don't know if he managed to patch it up later, since his campaign took a hiatus while mine was chugging along, so he had the hindsight of seeing my guys trampling over what he had built up, but I hope for him that his campaign went better. I really haven't looked at the WotR board for months, because I wanted to put that all behind me.

captain yesterday wrote:
He was always skeptical about whether WotR could challenge high level play, of which his issues with have been ongoing for quite some time, which of course is exacerbated by his Strike Team Megaforce party:-)

Eh, as always it's half and half, three players who do play mechanically powerful characters (still way below what you can read in the maximization threads... the habitual casters don't really believe in battlefield control spells, for example) and three players who are sure to bring mechanically not as well thought-out characters.

It's just that mythic makes the overpowered goodies so obvious and even logical to take.

Anyway, let's stop the mythic "nostalgia hour". But I refuse to be mischaracterized by people who obviously haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying some months past and are now trying to badmouth me with false assertions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Welp, going to sit this one out. I hate, despise evil campaigns.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Hell's Vengeance is spring ap. You play bad buys. No, I'm not kidding.

Oh, hey, another opportunity to let my subscription lapse for six months. Woopee.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Samy wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Do they address how the Eagle Knights run around in non-armored outfits and yet mechanically still wear armor? Or did they address that elsewhere?
Are you sure that they are mechanically wearing armor in those situations? Maybe they haven't donned their armor yet in those pictures.

You mean the iconic picture of the Eagle Knight army storming over the hill or the one where two of them confront a slaver? They always seem to be wearing the outfit and very seldomly (although apparently in this book actually not) any sort of mechanically useful armor.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Do they address how the Eagle Knights run around in non-armored outfits and yet mechanically still wear armor? Or did they address that elsewhere?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Personally, I've found that the difference between 15 and 20 point is negligible, if you use giving 20 points as a stick to get your players to not min-max, which is what I did with my current RotRL campaign. The players get 20 points to buy their character, but no natural attribute (before racial and other modifiers) can be bought over 16 and only one attribute can go below 10, with 8 being the maximum allowed to buy down.

Using 20 points in that way results in more rounded characters and it also has the psychological effect of players choosing more MAD-prone classes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I hated the AP, poor story and the kingdom managing aspect was boring, tedious and unbalanced.

Ironically enough, it was the AP which started me having an AP suscription, which I only let lapse for Mummy's Mask (due to disinterest in Osirion and money problems).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, I've GM'ed more than five campaigns (geeze, my memory seems to go with old age...) to conclusion and have also run RotRL and two more homebrewn campaigns to conclusion as a player, so I've spent quite a lot of time at the high levels of D&D/Pathfinder.

Aside from the pure issue that such campaigns require enough commitment from the players to stay with the group and see the thing through, I think the biggest problem is that the system does tend to break down in certain places, unless everybody is on board to not deliberately try to maximize in the usual places (normally super-high DC's for the casters on SoD spells or damage monster and/or unhittable martials). With the published adventures this is harder to handle as a GM than with homebrewn stuff, since the AP's are written for novice groups, with normally too easy encounters.

Anyway, high-level campaigns take a long time to get to and people intentionally or unintentionally break the game by maximizing their characters too much, thus ruining the fun of other group members and then the campaign falls apart. That seems to be, from what I've read on the boards, seems to be the main problem. I myself have almost always (except for Kingmaker, where I canceled the campaign after module two) have seen my campaigns through to the end, because I don't want to ruin the story for my players. Even Wrath of the Righteous, which was really a wretched experience, due to the broken-from-the-start mythic rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My work here is done. <vanishes in a cloud of smoke> ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Seriously, those guys should take a chill pill or a dozen of them. The gender of a good action protagonist does not matter.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

VALHALLA!

Visually definitely the greatest movie I have seen in years. The plot is nothing to talk about, but it was solid enough to provide the framework for all the very impressive action.

The ideal of self-determination was well-served by this movie. Furiosa, played very well by Charlize Theron, pretty much was the star of the movie, not Max.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oooh, a sighting of Rasturin the Mad Monk. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes, yes, I want a new edition in the middle future. But I'm not having this discussion again so soon, after we just had this thread a few weeks ago.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Gee, it's as if the game expects us to play heroes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

The new full round really consists of either two strong attacks and a buff, or three mediocre attacks.

Ultimately that's where the game finds balance.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

The classes still work, the full round doesn't.

That isn't bad design unless you can't get over the full round action, which it seems is the case here.

Yeah, it kinda is the basis around which many of the new classes have been built. So, a new system which breaks those new classes (not even to mention old functionalities like "cast spell - cast quickened spell - move") is automatically very suspect to me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

It's only crippled in the sense that the full round no longer exists.

The only class that's actually less effective is the magus, only because they made spell strike a specific action.

Unless I am mistaken, this is wrong. You need swift actions to activate lots of abilities for the three classes I mentioned. There's also to consider that using Quicken Spell with a normal spell suddenly means that you cannot move anymore aside from a five foot step (and I have no idea how Sorcerers who use other metamagic feats and Quicken Spell are affected, given how they need a full round action).

Porridge wrote:

Do you think the system would work well if one adopted something like option #2 above, where you essentially make all swift actions free actions that can't be performed more than once per round?

(I think I'll probably go with option #1 instead, as my players don't tend to use those classes, but I was wondering whether you had any further worries that wouldn't be addressed by adopting something like option #2.)

That seems to be one solution to the problem, yes. But I'd really like to hear from Mark why they didn't put something like this into the actual rules. I mean, it's easy to say "if you houserule this, the alternate rule works fantastically!", but in the end the actual alternate rule does not include this provision.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, it seems my initial impression, that classes dependent on many swift actions are screwed in this system, seems to be the correct one.

Too bad, it sounds like the system otherwise has some definite upsides. But since Paizo build so many new classes which heavily rely on swift actions to be effective (looking especially at the Inquisitor, Swashbuckler and Warpriest here), it seems like a really strange design decision to neuter them in this variant system.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Another question which comes up with the whole "you only get one skill point per two points of intelligence" is "how do we handly headbands of vast intelligence"? They normally have one maxed out skill associated them per +2 INT. Since you can't know when that +2 is going to get a full +4 on the character, I guess the solution would be to associate a skill only tentatively, in the vein of "If this enhancement bonus raises the intelligence of the character so that the he is entitled to another skill point, the character gets the full ranks for his level for skill X"?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Another question: With the consolidated skill system, you get x + 1/2 INT modifier skill ranks (x depends on the class). Does that mean need INT 14 at least to get an extra skill rank or do you get an extra skill point already at INT 12?

I know, I know, it's probably a stupid question, but since there is a marked difference between in building a character with INT 12 (often you can still dump two points into INT) and building a character with INT 14 (a serious investment of 5 points on a 15 point buy), I thought it a question worth the asking.

By the standard rounding rules, you'd generally round down. That said, it being Unchained, feel free to round up if you like!

Thanks for the fast answer, Mark!

Any word on what happened to the Hard Minded and the Ki Pool talents? ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Another question: With the consolidated skill system, you get x + 1/2 INT modifier skill ranks (x depends on the class). Does that mean you need at least INT 14 to get an extra skill rank or do you get an extra skill point already at INT 12?

I know, I know, it's probably a stupid question, but since there is a marked difference between building a character with INT 12 (often you can still dump two points into INT after allocating the other scores) and building a character with INT 14 (a serious investment of 5 points on a 15 point buy), I thought it a question worth the asking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Hard to Fool (APG), Hard to Fool (UC, great job keeping those talent names separate, guys ^^), Ki Pool (UC) and probably others?

The APG talent is called Hard to Fool, the UC talent is called Hard Minded. But hey, never let facts get in the way of confirmation bias.
NOt originally at least.
Yeah, I guess someone didn't get a first printing.

Oh no, the rabid fanboy Gorbacz failed to slavishly support his Paizo overlords with an early purchase! Noooooooo!!!!!

Or ... he is rabid enough to have both printings. :D

Guess you should have double checked, then.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
The rogue talents from Pathfinder RPG line products that are not in the sidebar or the running texts are intentionally omitted, generally because they were subsumed into something else (for instance, all those skill reroll talents are just one talent, opened up for any rogue's edge skill of your choice).

Erm, did I miss the Hard to F..., erm, "Hard Minded" advanced talent in the new Rogue write-up? Because, as written, this is one of the best talents a Rogue can ever take and it does not seem to have been duplicated for the Unchained Rogue, nor is it in the list of advanced talents. Well, there is Slippery Mind, but it is strictly worse than Hard Minded, given how you only get one reroll, instead of one per round.

Also, Ki Pool is missing and a lot of Ninja tricks need Ki to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Hard to Fool (APG), Hard to Fool (UC, great job keeping those talent names separate, guys ^^), Ki Pool (UC) and probably others?

The APG talent is called Hard to Fool, the UC talent is called Hard Minded. But hey, never let facts get in the way of confirmation bias.
NOt originally at least.

Yeah, I guess someone didn't get a first printing.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Reposting this here, since it didn't get a response in the product thread:

Am I wrong, or is the "Unmodified Rogue Talents" table on page 24 missing a lot of talents which have not been modified in this book, like Hard to Fool (APG), Hard to Fool (UC, yes, there are talents named the same way ^^), Ki Pool (UC) and probably others?

Or have those talents been eradicated for the Unchained Rogue? Which would, btw, make the Ninja Trick talent not worth that much, seeing how many Ninja tricks require a ki pool.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Am I wrong, or is the "Unmodified Rogue Talents" table on page 24 missing a lot of talents which have not been modified in this book, like Hard to Fool (APG), Hard to Fool (UC, great job keeping those talent names separate, guys ^^), Ki Pool (UC) and probably others?

Or have those talents been eradicated for the Unchained Rogue? Which would, btw, make the Ninja Trick talent not worth that much, seeing how many Ninja tricks require a ki pool.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Saw it yesterday. A great summer movie and it was very nice to see all the familiar characters again. Yet it didn't have the feeling of "Oh my god, this is so awesome, I can't believe I am seeing this!" of the first Avengers movie, which of course is almost impossible to replicate.

Spoiler:
Really loved that Paul Bethany is getting a bigger role, guy really deserves being a bigger star. Although with Thanos coming after the infinity stones, I kinda fear that the Vision is headed for an early demise.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
voska66 wrote:
For main rule system sure but from setting they have room to grow there for another decade. I'm not sure what other books I could possibly need for Pathfinder on rule base point after Unchain and the Occult book. I'd love to see more Golorian hard cover books on different continents.

Oh, definitely. There is a lot of room to grow for the Golarion books, with many interesting places still unexplored.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wait, didn't we have this exact same thread just this week?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
BTW, do NPC's have their own progression table for the Big Six-less system or do they get the same bonuses players get? If they do get them, that'd be a huge upgrade to NPC opponents in AP's. ^^
You should probably put them one level lower, as their CR is considered one lower. This will indeed still be an upgrade (with a size that varies depending on their gear allocation and how much was in the Big 6 already), but honestly, it's probably more in line with what their challenge likely should be, there just wasn't a way to do it before without overloading your PCs on gear every time they win a fight.

I don't know if there's a method to high-five someone through the internet, but consider yourself high-fived. Because that was exactly one of the main problems with NPC's, that they suffered from a distinct lack of equipment compared to PC's, but you couldn't give it to them without overloading the WBL system.

Thanks, Mark. :) Although I probably won't be able to convince my groups to change to the new system mid-campaign. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

BTW, do NPC's have their own progression table for the Big Six-less system or do they get the same bonuses players get? If they do get them, that'd be a huge upgrade to NPC opponents in AP's. ^^


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
A 50% chance to get reamed by a save or don't play for several hours is bad odds.

You can say that for a lot of classes in Pathfinder, so the Unchained Monk is hardly unique in that respect. I think it'd be a worthwhile topic for the developers how they can give an option on how to prevent such time-outs for players in some future Unchained product.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Hmm, I hadn't seen anything on a new alignment section. That gives me hope, certainly. I was certain that the Lawful restriction was going to be gone, especially with Seifter working on it who (judging by his work on the Kineticist) would know exactly the sort of character Lawful-only Monks can restrict.

We each took the lead on different sections of the book. For instance, Jason was the lead on the new classes, and I took the lead on some of the other subsystems, so the kudos for the cool new style strikes should go to him; I love so many of the style strikes!

Also...let's just say you'll have an option for something pretty similar to Zaheer some day soon, and despite mentioning discipline several times in the description, it won't be restricted in alignment at all!

Well, I hope that means that you went full Korra on the Kineticist.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Many people don't have the book yet, since it's only out for suscribers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm really surprised and a bit dismayed how this new system nerfs spontaneous casters. Oh, well, I guess since it's optional it doesn't need to be used.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, the new system is not very good, from what I can see. Too bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:
So the answer to, "there are too many trap options," isn't removing trap options - it's nerfing the one class that managed to escape that problem?

Pretty much, yes. A lot of us GM's use AP's, because we don't have time to build our own homebrewn campaigns anymore. AP's are built to a very low standard of optimization, hence the writers almost never (and then most likely purely by accident) provide opposition which actually uses the power options which are bandied about on this board. Initiative scores are low, caster DC's are low, RAGEPOUNCE is not used, even the occasional Summoner is not even using that option. Hell, I've GM'ed four AP's to completion and played in a fifth one and I think I've seen Pounce being used in one of them (by a Shadow Demon), as far as provided opposition goes.

Hence I'd vastly prefer the power combinations to remain obscure, because if they were common and easy to find, they'd break the current AP metagame. That was exactly the problem in Wrath of the Righteous... the power combinations were too obvious in Mythic Adventures and the AP was not nearly written well enough mechanically to deal with.

Not even to mention that if both sides were fully optimized all the time, the game would turn into rocket tag.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
christos gurd wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
I'm very surprised Mikaze isn't here to fanboy over all this.
"sigh" i miss mikaze, haven't seen him around lately.

Well, he hasn't posted for two weeks, but that has happened in the past. He'll turn up shortly, I hope.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hm, how does that affect Sorcerers? If they spontaneously use any other metamagic feat, they now can't also use Quicken Spell? That's a harsh nerf to spontaneous casters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:

Most action types are eliminated, and most swift, move, and standard actions become single acts. Casting a standard action spell is two acts, and most full round actions cost three acts. You get three acts each turn.

Soooo... drastic nerf to Quicken Spell or has it been turned into "no action"?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm very surprised Mikaze isn't here to fanboy over all this.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A second edition is pretty much inevitable economically. At some point, people will get enough of the constant release of new classes, feats and items into the existing system, not even to mention inconsistencies in the current rules and unwanted synergy effects. Sales will taper off as people turn to other, less convoluted systems. And the Paizo staff will want to keep feeding their families.

A new edition will have some die-hards who will stop buying Paizo products altogether, but if the developers manage to make the system substantially better with their new iteration, enough others will keep playing, return or start playing that it will work out.

Pathfinder Unchained pretty obviously is a way for them to probe what kind of changes the fanbase reacts positively to. The developers can gauge the feedback and use it as a core around which to build a new edition of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm at a loss how to mimic the headache inducing shakycam.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
archmagi1 wrote:
*cries over a 30min, 1200 word review that was eaten by the preview button*

Yes, that is one of those forum things which can make for some enormous frustration. I always back up my posts at least with CTRL-C before hitting the "post" button.

1 to 50 of 6,853 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.