Vancian spellcasting is by now iconic to Pathfinder/D&D and needs to stay within any new edition for me to even recognize it as being part of the D&D tradition.
That being said, I think there needs to be some thinking on making rest periods between spell/ability recovery shorter. The 15 minute workday remains a problem which Pathfinder actually excerbated with their new classes, due to the focus on limited use powers. I'd really like to see that partys can do more in a day than spend their powers and have to rest for a full day to recover. But that's a topic of a future thread of its own.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Also, it shows right at the beginning that actions do have consequences. Kirk chooses to completely disregard the prime directive to save Spock and promptly gets his ship yanked out from under him and sent back to the academy. From where he is rescued by his personal friend into being first officer on the Enterprise and then gets back command of the ship by, um, "luck", but aside from the power of nepotism ( and intrigue ), it is shown that his being super gung-ho and trying to be not accountable to the rules simply doesn't work out well for him.
Spoony did a Vlog for the movie here, if anyone is interested.
What I would like to see with a Pathfinder 2.0:
- A serious look by the developers at what the most constant complaints on the forum are about bad classes ( Monks, Rogues, Summoners, Gunslingers, IMO ) and a revision of them into something more appealing.
And that is just a bad summary of topics which would need to be expanded much more to make real sense, but which all should be examined in more detail when the time for a new edition comes.
No, it does not. Seriously, this is one of the iconic things of D&D. 4E tried to get rid of it, and where are they now?
James Jacobs wrote:
Hm, are you saying that the AP did just as good as other APs or that it did worse? Because if you are saying the former, you essentially are confirming for me that the timeline advance has not impacted sales negatively at all.If you are saying that sales were down for Shattered Star compared to other APs, there is a possibility that its timeline advance did indeed impact sales, although other factors ( it being a dungeon-heavy AP ) might have factored into that.
And I understand that you are conservative with changing things up, because so much depends on the AP line. However, you certainly haven't been so conservative about other aspects of the APs, like setting, sub-systems and other new concepts. Wrath of the Righteous will present its own set of new rules which can turn off costumers.
And what I have observed over the last decade or so of fiction/game development, as a player and GM, is that fans get turned off a setting when the writers/developers rip up that setting and change it into something barely recognizable. i.e. the Spellplague, Third Age Dragonlance or Dark Age BattleTech. Or one of the many reboots of the DC Universe. Fans do not mind if the story progresses, but they mind if the setting is not recognizable afterwards to what it was before. Fans of a franchise like evolution, not revolution.
Saren wanted to be subservient to the Reapers. I don't think you can say that is synthesis.
Really? You just agreed with the Reapers that their viewpoint is the correct one and that you can't stop the singularity. You'd rather non-consensually change creation as we know it, rather than taking your chance at fighting another way, so that you can co-exist with the Reapers. That is pretty much everything Saren was trying to do, only that he didn't have the option to force Synthesis on all of creation in the galaxy, so he tried to be subservient to be useful.
Not to mention that you are being manipulated by the Catalyst, who is a fricking Reaper, into believing that Synthesis is the best option. That alone should ring a ton of warning bells.
How so? It seems like a good blending of rogue and fighter. It's a little heavy on the damage imho but it seems like it'd work just fine.
Personally, I find Sneak Attack on a swashbuckler type character completely wrong. It may work as a real-life analogue for one-on-one fight, but in the world of Pathfinder group combat it means that you need to flank constantly with other characters ( feinting is a pretty horrible method in PF for reliable damage output, anyway ).
As a full BAB frontline class, the Swashbuckler should be able to take on an opponent alone and expect to be competitive in his damage output with other full BAB classes.
Eh, I'll reserve judgement when anything controversial actually happens.
Given how I'm in "Wait until it is clear what they will do with the current EU canon" holding mode with Star Wars, anyway, it is hard for me to get worked up over the whole deal.
<sigh> Your whole approach to how to travel to the actual destination ( which is Minkai, not just Tian Xia ) is wrong. You don't seem to know the actual starting point ( Brinewall in Varisia ), nor the actual destination ( Kasai in Minkai ). Your approach would deposit the group on the far side of Minkai, where they would have to cross at least three nations full of potentially hostile people to get to Minkai. Sailing around the southern edge of Tian Xia also is highly dangerous, as the southernmost part of the continent is pretty much inhabited by giant monsters ( incorrectly colored as being part of Sarusan on that map, by the way ).
I have no idea how you get to the idea of drawing a straight line towards Tian Xia ( I thought the point here was for a ship journey, and that one is at least 1 1/2 times longer than the land route over the pass of Aganhei ), but that also would be a completely different journey, involving traveling through such cozy countries like the Hold of Belkzen ( orcs aplenty ), Ustalav ( undead and other Hammer Film monsters ), Numeria ( actual space robots and a drugged out Mage/Barbarian dictatorship ) and Brevoy ( Game of Thrones in Poland ). And THEN you get to Casmaron, a continent we know basically nothing about yet. And when you arrive in Tian Xia with your straight line, you need to cross the Wall of Heaven ( basically the Himalaya mountain range ) and will enter directly into a giant desert.
So, yeah, maybe taking the trade path which has worked for hundreds of years is not that bad an idea, even if it is not geographically closer than drawing a straight line between two locations, without taking into account what actually is happening on that line.
Stormwind Fallacy, my good man. Having a well-built character doesn't make your roleplaying worse. That a lot of people here are able to recognize that the Rogue/Ninja ( and, yes, the Monk ) are mechanically worse built than the other classes doesn't make them worse roleplayers nor the game less capable of delivering interesting roleplaying challenges.
Mechanical concerns over those classes mostly come from people who like those classes and want to love to play them, but feel that they are not contributing enough to party advancement when they do. After all, if your party dies because your character failed on his job, the campaign is over. And adventure paths can be pretty brutal when played as they should be ( 15 pts buy, 4 characters ).
Quite honestly, as of this moment you sound more like you are actively seeking reasons to not play Pathfinder, rather than coming at this with an open mind. If you think we are collectively unable of roleplaying, I'd invite you to peruse, say, some of the frequent alignment threads, where you will see a lot of discussion of the roleplaying aspects of the game.
To be totally honest, I am somewhat against bringing out such a book for evil characters, especially since I fear that the writers would take a look at the classic Star Wars quote from Yoda and write a bunch of overpowered abilities in there.
It is already hard enough to keep player wanting to play good characters without having a book which mechanically incentivices them to want to play evil characters even more. Given how APs are written ( generally for good characters ), I'd think that Paizo would want to avoid that, too.
Totally fine with the other alignments, though.
Well, here I disagree. The magic-medieval stasis is necessary to preserve the feel of the setting. When everybody and their mother gets firearms, this gets very much into steampunk territory. Which is an interesting setting, but would risk splitting the fanbase much more than just advancing the setting storyline a bit.
I know James doesn't like me declaring that advancing the timeline for Pathfinder 2.0 (many years down the line, etc.,etc., you know the drill) is the right way to go. But I really believe that it would be a disservice to the setting as a whole if it were to always remain static. And for multiple reasons:
1.) The world keeps getting smaller. Let's be realistic, there is a limited amount of nations which make for an attractive setting for an AP for the prime audience of Paizo. With the expectation that AP results can not be canonized, every AP cuts down the number of potential adventure sites by one. And that means that a few years down the line you can't have an adventure path in most of the popular places on the map of Avistan and I don't see Paizo beginning to write AP's exclusively for Tian Xia or Casmaron.
2.) In the same vein, even if the writers have an excellent idea for another AP which would fit perfectly in, say, Korvosa, the current canon house policy prevents them from selecting the city again for said adventure. That means static settings kill stories.
3.) And as for that last sentence in point two, a completely static setting will prevent Paizo novels from ever attaining the popularity even Forgotten Realms novels enjoyed. If you write stories where the protagonists actions can never be felt in the world, then you'll never be able to build up an iconic character/group of characters, which will have a long series of novels. Maybe that isn't even the plan, but I'm pretty sure nobody at the Paizo office would be too sad if they had their own Drizzt or Elminster or Raistlin, i.e. a character which immediately is recognized by every fantasy RPG fan.
And, before that counterargument crops up, I don't want constant RSE ("Realm Shaking Events", trademark of the Forgotten Realms novels), but I would love characters with a supporting cast and appearances over multiple novels/APs. Although a bit movement on the politic map of Avistan would be lovely, too.
And Geraint, Pathfinder 2.0 will happen in some years. That's a given. When the current edition has reached a certain point in the development cycle, Paizo will be faced with the decision to either stop producing new rules material and lay off a good number of their employees or get to producing a new edition of Pathfinder.
Charlie Bell wrote:
Yeah, well, I totally disagree with everything you said here.
In other news, the OP made me buy my first Forgotten Realms book since 4E came out. Not because I still care what happens in the Forgotten Realms ( still too much heartbreak for that after the disaster of the Spellplague and all the other insulting nonsense it entailed ), but because the book sounds like it has fantastical material on daily life in a medieval fantasy world.
I happen to speak from close to a decade of observing people complain about Elminster, so I'm not exactly just making things up. Of course I am not saying that *all* people have this particular attitude, but there are a lot who just can't deal with NPCs running around who can't be just intimidated and pushed around.
That is a GM problem, not a setting problem. God NPC's have been a problem forever, which can be easily seen when perusing some of the "My GM sucks!" threads which can be found also on this messageboard.
Turin the Mad wrote:
Not to far along into 2e my circles began calling it the Forgettable Realms. Elminster became Elmonster. The Seven Sisters became the Seven Babysitters. It was ridiculous.
I really dislike this sentiment. Those are in total eight mages ( not even that, some of the Seven Sisters were heavily multiclassed or not arcane casters at all ). Sure, they are powerful, but they can only do so much.
This whole "Wah, wah, why isn't Elminster on this?" sentiment is just people being b#~!&y that their characters ain't at a level themselves where they can slap around other people at will.
I've seen few people complain that most really high-level casters in Golarion are evil and only there to be killed by the party when they reach the last module of an AP. More consistency in your b#!#&ing, people!
Grumpy TOZ wrote:
Oh my gods, did your regular avatars eat too much hamburgers or what happened?
I hate to bring up my own topic again, but it appears from the FAQ button at the top that the question was answered in the FAQ.
Um, where? I looked at the CRB FAQ, at the Bestiary FAQ and at the CRB and Bestiary errata. I downloaded the last version of the CRB. Nowhere is this topic addressed.
Could a developer clarify, please?
Personally, I'd like to see full rule support. System agnostic VTTs are already pretty common, after all. If Paizo wants us to spend money on their support material for their VTT, its better if it offers some advantage of just going with another already established VTT.
Also completely true. The campaign was kind of borked right from the start. Not to forget that the group is apparently all about letting everybody play whatever they want, but then the disruptive player is not ready to deal with the consequences.
For sure it also was the GMs fault for not making it clear to the player what really was happening, but the problem is for me the aftermath, reaction and general lack of caring about having killed scores of innocent people of the character.
As for "preverting a player's character", it's not your character anymore at this point. And that was a clear agreement at the campaign't start, which I state normally multiple times when players are making characters. I don't mind morally ambiguous characters too much, but I won't countenance evil characters at my table.
Definitely this. The character is, in my assessment, a sociopath and therefore neutral evil. Utterly incapable of feeling empathy and remorse.