|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
First off one needs to ask the eternal question. Is it Bloat or is it gas.
Second to the op question not for very long imo. New material is needed as goodwill of the fanbase while a good commodity to have for a company. Is not a acceptable form of currency at banks. New books equals to bills and salaries being paid.
Actually one can make Beholders in PF thanks to this template: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/eye-king-cr-var ies .If the link does not work go to SRD and search for Eye King. I'm pretty sure that their is other templates which allow us to make use of all the other prohibited creatures from Wotc.
Agreed and seconded. Beyond a few feats and some decent material. Most of it fall into the trap of "great fluff but not enough crunch". Fluff is good and all it does not make up for poorly designed mechanics imo.
As to the Op point. No I don't think their too much material in Pathfinder. First off no one is holding a gun to anyone head to use it all. Second the same material ensures we get more of it and pays the bills.
I know it's off topic somewhat. Is there a way to mix and match 3.5. with Pathfinder using HeroLab? The Book of the Righteousness is getting a update to 5E. Not sure if they will do it for Pathfinder. I recommend it though as I find it better at least in terms of flavor than Inner Sea Gods. As well I also wished that the Holy Warrior Class would have been the replacement for the Paladin in Pathfinder.
I think it's a homage weapon to this movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndpV6qfQJVw Except the movie version is ten times better imo.
Otherwise as usually much fluff not supported by mechanics imo. It's not the wrost weapon. certainly not worth taking by me at least imo. Took a look at the Returning property because of this thread. Talk about missing the point by the devs. I would take it as a weapon property precisely so that I can move and attack. Not stand still.
The thing is through your trying to pass off 4E as a bad idea as fact. When it's opinion. Personally i think that the devs conservtive approach to nothing putting major changes into PF as a bad idea. I also realize that in the short and long term they had to please the majority of the fans who wanted little to no changes.
Sometimes innovation comes from bad ideas. Putting a nuclear reactor inside a sub when they first thought about it. Seemed like a bad idea. In the long term a good idea. We don't know how a product plays out. If Wotc had held a year or two before getting rid of 3E. Who knows how it could have played out for Pathfinder or Paizo.
I just don't think the approch of saying "i don't like a product therefore it cannot be innovative or profitable" the best way to argue one case imo.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Well i'm glad you were able to take a look at Wotc financials and not base it on somnething so subjective as opinion. Unless you have for all we know it was not doing as well.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Again i'm glad you were able to take alook at wotc financial to make your opinion pass off as fact. We don't know if it was profitable or not toward the ends of it's run.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Well your not exactly presenting any evidence that 4E was not innovative. Beyond "i don't like therefore it's not innovative".
I like the game flaws and all and a completist. The worst thing to be in our hobby imo. So I'm going to get it.
I hope so. It will sell yes and well. Though I don't think it will be as huge a succcess like PF was imo. Their no anger towards wotc for dropping 3.5. They came out with a SRD. More importantly a edition that actually fixes the flaws of the game engine. 5E was both familar and different enough to warrent buying again. I'm not sure Starfinder is going to be different enough for some people to do the same. Who knows I could very well be wrong and it ends up another mega-hit.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Which is all well and good if the successful old thing is still profitable. Once it stops being profitable one has to try something new. I'm all for pleasing the people. I'm not going to lose money or go bankrupt for them either.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Deny it all you want 4E was still innovative. Whether you like or not. Why am I surprised. It's more of the usual " I like rpg company xyz and the rpg they produce their innovative. The companies and rpgs I don't like are never going to be innovative nor will i ever admit to it. so much for asking for objectivity.
I think you and others are misjdging the market. A decent amount of the fanbase will not buy Starfinder. Espcially if it does nothing to fix the flaws of Pathfinder. Wotc regained much of the goodwill they lost with the fnabse with 5e. While also fixing some of the flaws of 3.5. At the very least Paizo needs a good marketing campaign this time around. Beyond "buy more of the same thing but this time it's in space. Starfinder can and will be judged by what came before Pathfinder. I plan to buy it as i'm a completist. At least half of my gaming group has no interest.
Then it can't really be considered innovative then at least imo. The same house with a new coat of paint is still the same house. If it really offers nothing new it's going to always be considered Pathinfer but in space instead of it's own game. I'm not asking for PF 2E. It has to be than just a rehash of Pathfinder with new cover and interior art.
I agree that innovation can be good and bad. 4E was innovative compared to 4E. Not to everyone liking to be sure but innovative. Saying it was not as because some posters hated that edition. Does not make it less innovative.
I think people are confusing innovation really means imo. It's usally referred to as improving something. Sometimes even changing something on a major level. As much as i enjoy Pathfinder. I do not and still do not think the core at least was anything innovative. Sure it made those who liked 3.5. flaws and all happy. They did very little to fix any of the flaws.
While I will not comment on the card game. Never playing it. Starfinder to be innovative has to implement so changes either minor or major to be innovative imo. Removal of the action economy. Removal of feat taxes. Making it easier to play the game at higher levels. Giving the martial more than just "I swing and hit". if all it does is just offer new art and nothing else then with all due respect it's going to be another rehash of Pathfinder but in space.
To be fair books after the core have made the game different in some respects. Yet nothing innovative or not that much to me at least. it took them forever to give more material for martials. Even then it's still not enough.
4E was innovative like it or hate they tried something new. It alienated some of the fans. Yet out of the two objectively I can say that at least their was some innovation. Now if one wants to see a truly innovative D20 rpg one can look at Mutant and Masterminds. They took the system and tried to do something new with.
That being said Pathfinder is absolutely definitely not a fantasy heartbreaker imo. It's popular, profitable and gets a decent amount of support.
While their were some power gamers when I played 2E try usually were few and far between. As dump stats actually had penalties. A low Con meant one had a good chance of not resurrecting a dead character. Mind you one needed a somewhat optimized character when playing a Paladin in that edition. A 17 Cha minimum to play one.
I'm also with Ka hell in that I don't mind playing with the first or second group. I do not like the third group. Their optimization and then their too much of it. Mind you I can see why some players don't like being told that they do. It's like being at work with a group of ten people. With six being slackers doing the minimum and the other four doing their job properly. Only to be told that their making the other six look bad.
It also has to be done in a respectful and diplomatic manner. Outright being rude and offensive is not going to get your Pont across. Neither is getting offended when one is told they optimize. It has to be handled carefully Imo.
There is always a certain amount of optimization involved imo. While I'm not saying overshadow others at the table. Neither do I want to be the same as everyone else. If I'm a Fighter I want to do more damage then the rest of the group. Sometimes one is going to be better than some players at the table. The main problem is imo that players want their characters to do it all. The jack of all trades. Which is not that easy to do in D&D. One can do it in more generic systems like Hero System, Gurps and Savage World.
Another issue I see as well is a complete and utter lack of personal responsibility by some members in the hobby. A previous poster mentioned a a player who had a Rogue not happy that the Druid was better at finding traps. If one is going to take say 2-3 points in Perception and the other person maxing it out. One cannot really complain that their character is not as good as finding traps. Anyone with a shred of common sense should know that their character if they don't put too many skill points in a skill. Is going to be less effective than the other person who maxed out the skill.
Sometimes players players make good and bad choices during character building. Instead of assuming responsabilites for their choices blames others and call them optimizers. Sometimes it's a actual legitmate complaint. More often than not it's bad choice made during and after character building. If a player want to make a low Strength Fighter go right ahead. As both a DM and player I then don't want to hear the same player saying he can't lift as much. Move less and take a AC penalty due to being encumbered. While doing less damage and hitting less. Putting less points in Perception then accusing someone of being optimized because he or she took 1 or 2.
I have played and seen true otpimization and mostly what I see hear and outside of the internet is really not it. I once had a player who had perfect flight at first level with no time limit. Made possible by system mastery, hacking Hero Lab, the use of 3pp and at the time a more permissive DM. You know who pointed out that the build was truly broken and optmized. The resident optimizer of the group at the time.
Hello to all,
I'm looking to join a Pathfinder group. Preferably on Saturday or Sunday. As my work schedule during the week while stable may require me to work days or nights. It's not to say 8 canthe game on weekdays. Yet two months I can be working from 9-5 or 10-6. Then another month or two 12-8. Send me a PM if interested.
Depending on the person it may or may not be easier to run. Too many would probably run a Dhampir as a vampire from Twilight imo. Even then what is the standard to be measured. That's the issue their no really measurable standard beyond the DM. Which if he/she is already against allowing non-core. Chances are good one is not playing that Dhampir. Tell me upfront yes or no to a non-core race at the start. I go to a session to play D&D. Not So you think you can roleplay a non-core race.
My personal opinion about exotic depending on the type of campaign or setting. I may or may not allow them. At the very least I'm upfront with a yes or no to allow. To me someone telling that I need to convince a DM that I can play one correctly. Is just another way of saying no without saying it imo. Oreads or Undines don't exist. So beyond a description in the books. Their no real benchmark for a player to properly mimic one. What exactly is the standard where measuring the players performance in convincing a DM to allow a exotic race. Just be upfront and say yes or no.
It's like people saying their not against change simply because at the start they "well it's not because I'm against change" then proceed to show that yes they are very much against change they are also in denial about being against change.
Back to topic figure out what as a DM what one wants in terms of races before the start of the game. Tell thep layers. Don't bother with "well you can play a Ratfolk you just need to prove to me you can properly portray one at the table". Guess what players are not going to take the DM up on their offer. Were their to play D&D not Fantasy Shakespeare at the table.
I can kind of understand not wanting exotic races at the table. Any DM that tries that with core races is going to see me walking away as well as some others from the table. If anything come across as a warning sign to players to stay away from a particular DM. Is when one needs to convince a DM to play something else other than human from the core.
I'm still more a fan of it in any edition. Iit just feels like it's unnecessary and to be blunt unfunded Imo. Already it's hard enough to pay a class that can fall like a Paladin. When it's a evil act committed under the effect of a spell or cursed item. I don't see why the pkayer needs to be punished for playing a certain class.
I prefer a more codified alignment system. Where you told from the start what a character can or cannot do. Such as from Palladium Books. Are you allowed to steal from someone yes. Instead of the more vague less defined D&D system. Which instead of helping solve problems at the table make it worse sometimes. I almost never had any problems with alignment when I played or ran Rifts or Palladium Fantasy.
I dislike the older screw over player style mechanics from 2E. What I mean is if one is say a Paladin or Ranger. If one commits a evil act one falls or becomes a Ex-Ranger. Which I have no problems with. If the player willingly commits a evil act he deserves all the negative consequences. What bothers me if one unwillingly commits a evil act. One is still screwed. That makes no sense. If as a Paladin I'm mind controlled why the hell would I fall from grace. When clearly it's not my fault. It's the one mind controlling the character. Same thing with the Ranger. I cam across it yesterday I maybe joining a 2E game soon. what horrible poorly written mechanics. Damned if you do and sure ahs hell damned if you don't.
One thing I like that many player seem to dislike imo. Is having monster races use tactics and traps. One player in a Pathfinder game could not get past that "Kobolds were nothing but cannon fodder and useless" in a campaign I played in. Granted the way they were portrayed in earlier editions did not help. In 3.5. then Pathfinder if they can place traps they can and are a threat. It just seemed to bug him almost to the point of ruining his enjoyment at the table.
To be fair it's both Dms who hate Paladins. As well as player who do their best to give us their impression of Lawful Stupid. Ever have a family member going on the latest health fad. Then when one is eating something goes "don't eat bread it's not good for you. Don't eat food xyz it's not good for you etc..". Now replace that "you can't act that way it's against your alignment. You should not that it's not a good act" It gets annoying real fast.
We don't hate Paladins. We dislike DMs who screw players over when they run their games. As well as players who don't know how to play them properly.
As for Fireball it does cause damage to it's surroundings.
The spell can also cause fires on a ship. It's in the spell description. Even Lightning Bolt can do the same to items with a low melting point. I let my players know upfront that certain spells have secondary effects. Even though it's in the spell descriptions.
In my games spells can and will do damage to their surroundings. Player sometimes forget how damaging their spells can be outside a dungeon. So if the group is staying at a inn, ambushed and a arcane caster casually tosses a fireball it's going to leave a whole in the wall. Or the the very least do damage. I know it's not something everyone enjoys.
i was never on board with touch attacks guns but they are totes not better then bows and crossbows (well maybe crossbows) but its such and investment to use them i think they should of just gave them higher damage dice to make up for all the negatives and been done with it
They kind of are actually. Touch AC is incredibly easier to hit than regular AC. Their actually two APs where gunslingers should be banned as it's a turkey shoot for a Gunslinger. Rise of the runelords and Giantslayer. At the very least not without major changes to the enocunters. sure a Dm can taget the gunslinger main weapon. Yet like other melee style character. The smart player carries a backup. So when the fanbase tells you not to implement the rules as they are. Then get ignored making one aspect of the game unusable for some of the fans. I can see why people would be unhappy. Given they were told plenty of time before the rules went to print.
They were told numerous times by many people not to implement the current gun rules. Then made it look like they would listen to fan feedback. When it came time for the gun rules to go to print. We received "too bad so sad were not changing anything". With the end result that their a ranged weapon that is better than the other two ranged weapons in the rpg (Crossbows or Bows). It's almost impossible to miss a target with gun weapons.
Or to put it another way Paizo can't be given a free pass for criticism because people have a lot of emotion invested in it.
I like criticizing rpg developers. I know some in the hobby dislike that. Yet if a rpg developer keeps making the same mistake. Or releases material that the fans have repeatedly told them not to (Paizo gun rules I'm looking at you). Then I don't see why a fan should not be allowed to do so. As long as their rude or not disrespectful.
If a player decides to make a fighter that has low strength. Or a Rogue with low Dex. Then complains that at the table that those who do the opposite are more effective then their character. I'm the kind of guy to politely say I told you so. I know some people dislike that. I really dislike when someone takes a low value in a primary stat say like Strength. Then is unhappy when he can't lift as much and everyone else refuses to be his or her pack mule. Build a character your way take personal responsability for one choices and suffer in silence.
Well it's not a big thing. I simply don't like the retcon. No matter what kind it is. It was done to pander to a certain segment of the fanbase. I also don't like how they did it. To me at least it does nothing to help the character. The thing is they know need to write that aspect of the character into stories. It's all good to out a character as gay. It means nothing if they never use it again in stories.
I know what a retcon is thank you very much. I dislike it when they claim that the retcon was always part of the character. Their is no real proof that the character was gay. The only thing that stood out for about the character was that he was underused by the writers. With them writing him as being very unlucky with relationships with women. Hardly a case for the character being gay. To put it another way. Imagine if a writer decides to retcon that Foggy Nelson is a LMD. Then instead of saying it's a retcon. Instead claims it's the oppiste with Foggy Nelson always being a LMD from the first issue of Daredevil. It's the reason why Captain America being a Hydra agent was a retcon. Then Marvel tried to deny it claiming he was one from the start.
Gay Conversion Machine I mean really. Your better than that.
A gradual buildup of the character coming out of the closet slowly and trying to come to terms with his new found sexuality would have been nice. Instead to me at least it was "which character can we make gay to show were sexually progressive and all inclusive". You have to admit it was kind of out of the blue and it had no buildup. One minute he was straight the next he was gay. Personally I prefer he was bi-sexual.
Even then it's still pretty bad imo. Given that it's from a novel during 2E D&D run where the requirements to be a Paladin were very high. If it was a movie script the Paladin would be more wooden than a entire forests of trees.
After finishing a Forgotten trilogy of books I can see why some Paladins are poorly played. It's one of their older books. The love interest mentions to the Paladin he could have bought the item cheaper if he haggled for it. The hero replies "Paladins don't haggle it's dishonorable". (Facepalm). In the same book after what appears to be a obvious setup where one of the villains pretends to save the Paladin and his love interest. With the love interest pointing out the obvious to anyone except the clueless Paladin. How convnient that the person who saved them just happened to be close by to the alley where they were ambushed. Clueless Paladin acknowledges she might be right but "Paladins don't lie" then proceeds to tell his entire plan to the villain. (double faceplam). Either one or both of the authors are fans of Lawful Stupid fans or were trying to make some kind of point about how bad those who play those kind of Paladins.
One can't make that kind of stuff up.
It's also because those above the writers also seems to let them just do anything and everything. Espcailly if the writer is popular. As long as writer xyz sells comics no matter how poorly written. They will just be doing whatever they hell they want with characters and titles. I like Bendis yet he is a perfect example. If it's one of his favored characters they can and will be written as being able to do anything and everything in any story he writes. I remember one of his character taking a quinn jet full of Avengers. Spider-man was one of them. Yet his spider sense does not go off at all. Simply because a character ability got in the way of his telling his story he ignored it. No writer seems to talk to another.
Continuity is thrown out the window. At one point they brought back the Brotherhood of Mutants a evil one that also included both Mystique and the Shadow King. If the writer actually did some research. He would have known that Mystique would never ever work with the SK because he killed off Destiny. With fans pointing it out. The writer kind of fixed his mistake one of the reasons she joined the Brotherhood was to get revenge against the SK. To make it worse she does nothing to him. It came across as the writer wanting to include his favorite characters in a story and did no research in the process. It's bad when the fans point out your mistake imo.
Then their the making major changes and then coming up with excuses to hide it. It's like "Were not turning X-men gay because of we want to have more sexual diversity in our comics...he was always like that from the beginning". If a comic company is implementing changes to please a certain segment of the population just come right out and admit it. They not fooling anyone imo.
Well it also reflects the attitudes of that era Imo. People forget that the way we act in 2016. Is definitely not the same when X-men # 1 was released. What we consider inappropriate behavior was not back then. It's like someone on another forum tried to convince me and others that one of his uncles came out in the 1970s and everyone was OK with it. Having been born and lived in the 1970s. One was straight if one was gay one kept it secret and hidden. In some places one could lose their job. Without out being able to do anything about it.
the David wrote:
By that logic I should be gay. All that means is that he may have been a late bloomer like I was when it came to women. It's not to say I was not interested in women. Neither was I howling at the moon everytime one walked by. Then in my late 20s I became interested in women.
the David wrote:
Ah yes the infamous Cloud scene which people hold up to be proof positive he is gay. He went to sleep with Cloud in her female persona. Walks in later to find Cloud turned into her male persona. It's a awkward moment for Bobby. It's a awkward moment to be sure. It's still not proof he was gay.
Again the character was made gay simply as a sacrifice on the altar of sexual diversity. So Marvel can say their "hip, progressive and all for diversity".
I'm still not convinced that Leadership is broken. Nor unbalanced. As I said their were version of it in previous edition of D&D. So I'm assuming either those who find it unbalanced. Either never played 2E. Or simply forgot that it existed. Or need to control everything and anything at their table completely. I like Third party products. I find them ore interesting and informative. With more viable options than the standard PF products.
I like non-standard fantasy backgrounds in rpgs. If it's one thing I'm sick of in too many fantasy rpgs it's humanity as the dominant race because "reason". Sometimes the reason don't make any sense either. I actually prefer the divine magic from 2E as well as the speciality kits fpr priests. I just feel like they make Clerics more interesting. At first I disliked now like how in 2E D&D dump stats actually had real penalties. Want to dump that con score. Good luck coming back from the dead. Low Cha well you better have a lot of gold as your hired npcs are not going to be loyal.
I disagree about it needing to be a feat tax. We already have too many of them. We really don't need another Imo. We had a form of it for certain classes in 2E D&D. No one at least to my knowledge disliked it in that edition. Why suddenly in third edition. The only difference in third edition and later is that everyone could acquire followers not only certain classes. Your follower ia two levels lower than the pc. Magic in the game is strong Leadership I concede is good feat. 9ne of the best I don't think so.
I don't get the hate for Leadership. Did those who dislike it never play 2E D&D. Where Fighters at 9th level not only could attract soldiers. As well as a elite guard. Fully equipped with weapons and armor. Paladins at 9th level received a castle and could purchase men at arms like a Fighter if they had gold. Rangers at 10th level could attract 2D6 Followers. A mix of human and animal followers. All RAW. So either they disallowed players to get the above in 2E or simply don't understand that Leadership while powerful is not that broken imo.
I find Bard to be better than Rogues. Unless it's a specific build which allows a Rogue to benefit both from mobility and defense. Most vanilla Rogues at least at the tables I played at and do. Tend to live short lives. Most Dms simply don't allow intelligent npcs and creatures to sit still and ignore the Rogue sneak attacking them over and over. After the first sneak attack and due to low AC and hps thend to gets quickly injured and or knocked out.
I tend to like the Fighter Archtypes more than the core Fighter class. I find the core Fighter bland and uninspired. Nothing really unique in terms of class abilites. If given the choice I rather play the Samurai Sword Saint Archtype instead of a Fighter.