memorax's page

Good suggestions to all who responded. I'm the DM so to speak and like Sean idea of a "iron" version of a monster. I think volume 5 of the Kingmaker Ap also has an article on gorum too.

This thread is guaranteed to become 500+ posts about nothing.

I refuse to join the "Let's Hate WOTC Because....." religion. I've got better things to do with my life than speculate on what WOTC has done.

WOTC decided to open up the process with it's customers. And some folks would rather open up another can of hate rather than go on with their lives. Of course they'd be opening up the same can if they decided to keep development private.

If you're already in one of these camps, you'll probably remain in it long after Paizo and WOTC are dust in the wind.

For myself, I'll treat it like any other new product. I'll just wait and see.

We dont often agree yet one of the few times in total agreeement.

+10000

I give up. This is like Israel vs. Palestine...and likely to be solved around the same time.

The sad part is it does not have to be.

All sides are not equally abrasive. All participants are not equally hostile. All arguments are not made equal.

+1

I think your analysis is really lacking something here. The same business plan won't work for everyone. An OGL could work really well for an industry leader, but may be less likely to help a game with a small market. People have to believe there's a significant benefit to hitching their wagon to the license, and that's more likely to be true with bigger games than smaller ones.

Good point. All that I'm saying is that the OGL while successful for some companies won't work for everyone or be wanted by everyone imo. Too often I hear "if the next edtion of D&D does no have an OGL it's doomed to fail" and that is probalby not the case at all. Wotc opened a big can of worms with the OGL and it was not all entirely in their favor. So I would be surprsied if we see another OGl with 5E. If we do I expected it to be much more restricitve. Nor do I see the rest of the industry jumping on board something like an OGL.

Some of you dudes have simply got to learn that some criticism of WotC is going to occur. Some of it's even justified. Some criticism of Paizo is justified. Some criticism of the pope is justified. There are no friends to be won nor people to be influenced by e-knighting blindly and wholly on behalf of a company you don't directly work for. It's not "groupthink". It's a bunch of people who generally are not WotC roadies discussing WotC's policies/procedures/decisions using critical thinking skills. There's lots to like about the playtest, but everything need not be sunshine and bunnies.

Good heavens.

Here the thing thpugh. I'm not saying everything about the 5E playtest should be all postive. Neither should it be all negative either. What is bothering myself and others is the attempt by some to stir up some sort of anti-5E rhetoric or flamewars. Is the legal document for the playtest slightly annoying yes. Yet nothing that has not be seen already or been done before by another company. Will posters like and not like some of the rules of course. Yet if you hated 4e and want nothing to do with 5E why the helly do you even care let alone post in a forum about 5E. Seems kind of redundant and a waste of time. Nor is anyone being forced to post in a thread. So "its' the internet or himan nature" is not a good excuse either.

When some of us are trying to learn more and enjoy a playest having people rain on our parade all the time is annoying. Disagreeing is one thing. Using anything, everything and nothing as an excuse to stir up some sort of reaction not good on any level. Nor dies it help the hobby either.

<sigh> We all know that any company will deny this until they are ready to launch officially. This has been discussed ad nauseaum before, and is reasonable. Paizo never mentioned that they were going to launch PF (a system not entirely compatible with with their early output) until they did. The only difference is that people didn't pester Paizo about what game system they were launching every five minutes. Who you trust and don't trust is up to you, but some of us don't wear lead-lined helmets.

And it is less about trust, and more about understanding how companies operate.

Now you know why it's frustrating to come on these boards sometimes. It's like posters act like Wotc is the only company to behave a certain way and they are not. Kind of getting tireod of reading "did you see what Wotc did???" My response is suck it up other rpg and non-rpg companies do the same. Why the hell should you hobby be special or any different.

I also suspect that anyone here who has taken up 4e, but continues to put up with some of the comments thrown around here because they also like Paizo stuff, is likey to be fairly open-minded and looking at the relative merits, rather that having a spasm of knee-jerkism. As Jeremy suggests, there are probably some people who maybe haven't been as exposed to the previous edition wars who, on other boards, are busy fulminating right now. But here, the pointless negativity of the previous edition war has, for those on the receiving end, made such activities much less fun or novel. Plus WotC's general handling of it is much better.

Good point. Just annoying as heck imo to see some posters trying to either get a reaction, disappointed they can't get one the first time and keep trying over and over again. Or take one bad thing. The Wotc legal document and make it like Wotc burned their house down and killed all their pets. Even then one could understand if 5E was not as well received. So far imo from what I can see many posters here like it. So it just seems like trying to a reaction for the sake of it.

So: You've naturally concluded that people who find the terms of the contract less concerning than you see to must be morally bankrupt.

Make perfect sense.

Sure seems that way. I better go to church sunday and confess my sins. I get it not everyone is thrilled with the legal terms of the playtest. Yet calling people who disagree morally bankrupt kind of a stretch putting it mildly.

Just a quick question to Pax Veritas:

Why are you even posting in the D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) subforum when most of your posts are in direct violation of the "Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of the Paizo community, or other companies in the industry, will not be tolerated." clause of the rules for the subforum?

I wonder why also. The ones yelling the loudest and bothered the most are the ones that have no wish to buy 5E let alone support Wotc. Why even post in the section of the fourm where you can discuss 5E and Wotc related topics. In some vain hope that somehow they stop people from buying 5E.

Good luck with that.

It seems unless a mod gets involved directly the ""Personal attacks or insults directed at other members of the Paizo community, or other companies in the industry, will not be tolerated." clause" is imo doing nothing at all.

With respect Gorbacz if anyone is trying to start something out of nothing, anything and everything it's you. It's almost like your dissapointed that some on this board dare to like what they see in the 5E playtest document. That and not being angry or wanting to go after Wotc with pitchforks and torches. So your thinking "that's not good at all time to start some sort of anti-5E revolution on the boards". Which thankfully much cooler heads have prevailed so far. This mught change when the final product is released. Maybe I'm wrong but when one of your post is "why are people not angry with 4E being incompitable" well we have better things to do. I think slowly the D&D gamign community is getting tired of edition wars and people who go out of their way to start them.

So acting suprised that about the lack of angry reaction should be no surprise. They said a new edition was coming from the start. It would be different and it would be playtested. So no surprises unlike 4E. So Wotc was upfront for once. Great for a more moderate gamer like myself. Not so great for those who se hate for Wotc is set in adamantium.

Having an OGL does not guarantee that ot will sell you more products. I also buy books for the Hero System. There are a few third part products that use their system which I have no interest in. Just as I buy mainly Paizo PF and have very little or no interest in 3PP. At least at this point. People need to understand that just because they have certain buying habits does not mean that everyone has such similar habits. If the OGL was a huge success then every rpg would have one. We jave a few yet it has not been adopted by every rpg company. Many are still closed source as opposed to open source in their material.

Yora wrote:

It was successful up the the point where they decided to throw it away. ^^

It wasn't really. They started losing sales big time to third party developers whose success wasn't putting a dime in Hasbro's coffers. Case in point, if I was running a Warcraft d20 campaign and buying up every supplement that came out for it, I wasn't spending my money on the encyclopedia of Forgotten Realms supplements. While the open gaming license generated good will for WOTC, that good will did not translate to additional dollars in the long run.

Rememmber success for a company whether it's WOTC or Paizo rests largely on the balance sheet after all is said and done. Fan acclaim by itself doesn't pay the bills.

+1

Very well said and agree completely. The fanbase forget that fan acclaim and goodwill are not accepted forms of currency. It was a grand experiement that while successful hurt the company that created it imo.

And why should it cause an explosion at this point. Those who like 3.5 can still use 3.5 and or their Pathfinder books. Those who like 4E can still use their 4E books. Those who still play 2E and below once again can still use their books also. No real reason to complain at his point. If Pathfinder had never seen light of day would be understandable. No one took anyone toys away. The only ones that seem bothered by it ar the ones using anything and everything as an excuse to stir up something. Only so many time certain elements in the community can get angry before people stop caring.

Gorbacz wrote:

What's really funny is the difference between "compatibility with the previous edition" issue in 4E and 5E development.

2007
"Will it be compatible with 3E?"
"Can I use my Duskblade?"
"What about that 300 USD worth of books I bought last week?"

2012
*crickets*
*tumbleweed*

I think most of that has to do with the fact that we were told, months ago, that 5e would not be directly compatible with any previous editions. In fact, before one of the WotC guys clarified that (some people were under the mistaken impression that it would be compatible) a lot of people were asking those sorts of questions.

Agreed and seconded. They told us from the start it would not be compitable. Acting shocked and dismayed at this point is not doing your research as a consumer. Can't always blame the paret company.

Sorry, I can't be bothered to post in the thirteen other identical threads, but I'm noticing a pattern:

Can't download the playtest?

Wotc's infrastructure sucks. Next is a failure, Wotc doesn't get it!

Can download the playtest?

No one wants it. Next is a failure, Wotc doesn't get it!

Boilerplate legal text?

Next is a failure, Wotc doesn't get it!

Oh, and point this out?

Irrational Wotc shill!

Spoken as someone is probably going to be playing Savage Worlds anyway: Give me a break.

+1

Agreed and seconded. Too bad this will be ignored.

Is it still set for a June or July release?

Forgot about Cerulean Seas may have to pick that up later. Will also take a look at the others listed so far. If anyone else knows about outer settings please pot them here.

Whst has always bothered with feats like CE is that those types of feata as well as the Improved version of feats is that it's a feat tax which I despise to no end.

what does nother me more though is that you have feats tht have no prequistes. Feats that do who sole purpose os a feat tax. either impose a feat tax across the board or none at all. Item and Creation feats require no attribute minikums when they both should. One should have at least a decent amount of int or dex to make something. Instead beyond money no penalty at all. Combat Casting is another one. Fighters don;t have much compared to classes. They hit and do damage. Absorb damage and are on the frontlines. Forced to take an improved version of a feat or take a AOO. With on top of that attrbute requirements. I totally understan the OP frustration to some extent. While casters can turn themselves into walking talking magic item shops with no real penalties.

I was wondering what other Pathfinder compitable settings are out on the market.

I know of:

Freeport

Oathbound

Midgard ( a work in progress)

Anyone know of any others? I will mention that I know of some 3.5 that can be converted to 3.5 yet I have neither the time or interest to do so.

True...but if you're a guy who makes his living by killing monsters (like a druid), why wouldn't you be proficient with the handy chopping tool you likely carry around anyway?

Probably carry around all the time and become very good at using it. Seems kind a weird image imo. Attacked by a bunch of goblins while out chopping wood drop or put the handaxe away and dig out a class weapon. Your not going to get the opportunity to do so imo.

As for harvesting living wood I see no problem with a druid doing so except that unlike dry wood it gives off too much smoke and difficult to burn.

Oh and agree with bows. At the very least shortbows. Fits the iamge of the druid imo.

I like the art for the most part. To be honest though at first it annoyed the hell out of me then I grew to like it. Plus great production values and excellant material for the most part. Even if some elements bother me.

I still finding saying "it's the internet" as a valid reason. It assumes that a person cannot stop himself from acting and posting a certain way. I'm all for a debate yet if I'm acting like a jerk or another poster is well I can't or the other person should be called out on it. Even if it is the internet. I'm not saying we should all be saints yet too often the onterent is imo used as an excuse to engage in bad behavior.

I don't mind the Hunter's Bond for companions but I wish there was feat that granted you extra rounds like Extra Hunter's Bond that grants you 2 rounds on top of you wisdom bonus. For the animal companion you Boon Companion to make equal to Druids animal companion so why not feat to help the other option of Hunter's Bond.

This is strange. We have "extra" type feats for everything else yet not

I agree though, hunters bond doesn't really get useful till 10th level. At that point you probably have boosted you wisdom enough and you have the Instant Enemy spell. For the 6 levels before 10 the animal companion is definitely more bang for you buck.

As I said not a bad ability just imo too situtional and require both a decent wisdom score and a high enough level.

[I'll be buying the rest of the line just as soon as someone explains how the Premium and Essentials versions work.

The link for the premium version from trhe MWP website: http://www.margaretweis.com/shop#ecwid:category=2262007&mode=product&am p;product=11494047

The essentials edition: http://www.margaretweis.com/shop#ecwid:category=2262007&mode=product&am p;product=11494046

If you have the core book and don't want to buy it twice get the essentials edition. If one does not have toe core book buy the premioum edition. I am tempted. Faserip was one of my favorite supe rpgs growing up yet I'm not sure if I liek the freeform aspect of the rpg.

Arguning wit the intention to actually debate something is one thing. Start a thread on a forum or a conversation in real life when your already made up your mind and unwilling to budge on your position just seems like a waste of time. If a poster starts a thread about the falcata being overpowered it's one thing to say "I think the Falcata is broken and here's why". That person is being honest about how he feels and not starting a debate to validate his point. Too often here and other forums and in real life someone says "falcata broken yea or nay" then when posters or a person disagrees gets angry or is unahppy that the posts or people he talks to don't agree or support his position. To me anyway a major difference to debating a topic when a person wants to hear both sides or enters a debate firmly on one side. The first more imteresting and fun to read. The second not so much because ineviatable it comes down to I'm right your wrong back and forth to no conclusion.

Granted yes as a species we like to argue. That being said though a bit of a cop-out imo. We are not unthinking animals. We think we rationaloize and can make the decision whether to debate or argue for the sake of arguning.Or to post or do something to get a reaction. Nor is anyone holding a gun (at least I hope not) to anyone head when posting or having a discussion. So it's not like a person is forced to post a certain way. What bothers me in these situation is a lack of responsability when a poster beahves badly or starts thread to get a reaction. Too often here and elsewhere it's either "what did I do" or "to hell with you I'm hiding behind freedom of speech". Which is fine post what you like just remember that your responsible for what you post. Which also applies to myself. I'm no saint I have made a few posts that I wish I did not. Just tired of hearing "well what are you going do right".

What's wrong with Hunter's Bond? It's seems pretty good to me. It has no limit on it's uses. You can use a move action to activate every round if you want. Personally if I planned to do that I'd start with a least 14 wisdom.

Comapred to taking an animal companion just feels underpowered imo. Tied to an attrbute that you really don't need more than a 14 in which at most makes it last two rounds. With the bouns given really coming into play only at high level. And only to specific favored enemies not every creature encountered. With an animal compnion the only worry imo is sending it into situations or creatures it cannot wiin against. Or small spaces when it advaces at higher level.

It's not an unsable ability or an option that should never be played. Just that next to the animal companion it just feels flat rules wise. Or maybe the needed more flavorful text I don't know. I read the hunters bond secton and go "meh". Read the animal companion and the first thought is "I got to get me on of these". I would have tied it to another attribute not sure which one though. By the time it really imo becomes useful at higher it realy does not stand out that much as everyone else is doing special things with their characters. It also feels like imo it's a toned down version of the inspire courage ability that bards can do for rangers tied to a specific creature.

Imo the Bonding with the group is underpowered as an ability as opposed to picking an animal companion. The duration of the class feature is tied to wisdom which a Ranger does not really need a high score in. A 14 at most to be able to use all his spells. The bouns provided imo is too low until they reach at least 10th level. Compared to having an aniomal compaion that gets better as you advance in levels just does not seem worth taking imo.

It's usually fun to the OP. Not to the person disagreeing with the OP. Better ways to have fun then tweaking the verbal noses of the members of the community.

I've done it one or two times. Gotta watch myself to not repeat that mistake.
+1 BTW.

Nothing wrong with posting or starting a thread where you mind is made up on a topic already. It's making it open ended with a yes or no and then getting angry or dislike the fact that posters don't agree with your OP.

To be fair and honest on occasson I have done it myself.

Unfortunately, as a general rule, people ask for others' opinions of their thoughts looking for agreement, not for a debate.

True yet to me that is not someone interested in a debate. It's someone looking for validation on something they feel strongly about. Which ususally is not going to happen. Too often I see poster assuming they are going to get posts agreeing and then get unhappy when that does not happen. What's the point of posting if as poster you don't want to hear a view different from your own. Just seems counter productive and just asking to make yourself miserable as wel as other posters.

Any weapons that you think classes in Pathfinder should have and are not listed in their class features?

For myself handaxe for the Druid. If any weapon imo is a no brainer for the class to have it's that one. Good luck trying to cut braches let alone a tree with their current selection. Scimitar and sickle just are not useful for the job imo. A picture of the current version of one and one I used when I went to Italy on vacation: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-63692071/stock-photo-an-old-farm-hand-scyth e-on-a-white-background.html . That thing is not cutting through any thick branches let alone a tree trunk. And yes they can use it off screen so to speak yet I see no reason why it should not be part of their lsit of weapons they can use in combat.

It's not so much being right imo as in someone already convinced about a topic then posting a thread. Say for example a poster starta a thread called "pathfinder rules bloat does it exist". The poster feels very strongly that it does. More often than not most posters who reply in a usually disagree as opposed to agree with the poster then it goes downhill from there. I see too many threads started as yes or no threads by posters that are really "this is how I feel about this topic and you better feel the same way". Then when the opposite happens those who started the thread in the first place don't like the responses given to their thread. Not always of course yet it happens way too often. My advice is this if your mind is set on a certain topic and nothing will change that then imo don't begin a thread if your not going to like responses to said thread. I respect that posters have a difference of opinion then mine yet a big difference between having a different opinion and starting a thread to feel validated on a certain topic a poster feels strongly about.

They can't just aurvive on APs and Golarion specific books imo. The problem eith APs is that eventually a DM will want to make his own world and not want to rely on only Aps for adventures in their games. It's also a cost factor imo. Picking up all the modules in a AP plus map pack is a 120-140$ purchase. Which not every DM can afford to do. Producing just Golarion specifi material is something they should never stop doing yet not rely on. Not everyone wants to play in Golarion or use material from the setting. As well many PF players came from 3.5 where the majority imo want a certain level of support. Paizo also wants a profitable business. To do so they need to publish a certain level of support to pay bills and staff. They may have the good will of those who liked playing 3.5 except good will is not recognized as a form of currency by people and banks. With the added bonus of not having to use everything they publish. It's almost like because a certain segment of the gaming are impulse buyers and/or can't say no to their players they make seem like a crime for Paizo to publish newer material.

Because your attention is on the boosting performance, not on the skill in question.

A good point yet I'm assimung your doing the same with Inspire Courage which the bard is allowed to benefit from. One can also say they are boosting the groups morale not their ability to do better damage or hit better. It just that I suppose I don't see anything game breaking in allowing a bard to benefit from a +2 skill bonus. Everyone else can so why not the person using the ability. I guess I can houserule it in my next game if it includes a Bard.

Probably balance concerns, and not wanting them to absolutely destroy the other skill monkeys at such a low level.

True yet imo they are doing it anyway because they can still boost other memebers skills to beat DCs. With my decent charisma stat and extra performance feat I can boost my parties memebrs skills 13 times a day fi that is all I do with my bardic performance. That's enough imo to thrash other skill monkies at lower levels anyway.

I would have prefered an actual in game reason then just bards can't use that ability. Hell Whiskey Jack your reason even if I may not agree with it would have been a bnetter explanation imo. Even then I see no reasonable explanation why a Bard cannot help himself use his own abilities to improve his skills. While I'm not singing when I'm training someone or learning something new I'm still for the most part improveing myself. Maybe the Devs thought that at highler levels it would make the Bard too overpowered in terms of beating skills DCs. Then again they are helping other memebrs of the group to beat skill DCs. Just seems a werid nerf imo.

I'm in a PF where I just levelled up to third level and while reading the description of Inspire Cmpetence it say a Bard cannot use it on himself. Helping other characters chances to use their skills yet not your own. Makes no sense at all and seems to me at least as a heavy handed attempt at game balance. I work in customer service I have improved new employees abilites with their own customer service skills. I'm also using my knowledge to improve my own. Even game balance imo seems like a poor excuse as I'm giving for the moment a +2 to skill checks to other members in the group at least 13 times. If I were to use all my bardic performances to improve skills in one sitting. How does that not break game balance. Seriously. They give a class the ability to improve other party members skills yet not their own. Yet they allow the same class to inspire courage and allow the bard to use that ability also I can see why some fans give the Paizo dev such a hard tiem. For the most part they have a solid ruleset yet sometimes they either include rules or alter rules that make you go WTH sometimes.

Irontruth I know your not happy with the situation if I implied otherwise I apologize. Just that a large part of the frustration is because of GRRM and also with GR in that at this point the number of attmepts to do a core book they should have nailed a perfect core book or at least as perfec as can be with their eyes closed. I would cut them slack if they were a new companies it's no longer the case imo.

I'm also not impressed with how they are handling the situation now. Yes they implement a solution except it's heavily slanted in their favor. To get a corrected print version I'm required to buy the PDF and the print version. a purchase that at first was supposed to cost me 50$ is now going to cost me 70$ (50$ core book 20$ PDF). I could purchase the PDF yet it's one of those core books that is not just useful yet also a beautiful book. A PDF version in this case just does not do it justice imo. I posted a simialr post on their site with an added suggestion of including a free PDF of the errata (not including any new rules) to the fanbase. It would go a long way to win some of the fanbase confidence back. As it stands GR curren solution comes across as the company wanting to get their cake and eat it too.

I'm not saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is that due to GR's resources and the circumstances surrounding the license, it was not feasible to assign/hire a full time developer for the line.

We can wish for more support for the product line, but it's not going to happen. Now, I don't think they really did much to market the game and drive sales up as well as they have with some of their other stuff and that has hurt them too. But at this point, I'm pretty sure that SIFRP is far behind Dragon Age and M&M in terms of sales, so they aren't going to devote more resources to it. It's a vicious circle.

From what little I've pieced together, the license is pretty strict, they don't have any room to make up new content and have to hew really close to the books. Plus, several products have sat on GRRM's desk waiting for approval for months at a time. That has killed sales as well, because they released the game, but all the follow up stuff took forever. Not because they didn't have a writer/developer, but because GRRM didn't approve it for 3-4 months.

I could go on a rant about GRRM and his taking forever to write the novles let alone review other material for it but won't. All I will say I'm not impressed with the man. Respect yes but not impressed in the least.

Irontruth I think others and myself are being so harsh on GR this time around is because while you are correct GR does not have the resources and the license is not an easy one to publish for it's not the first attempt on this book. Nor the second but the third attempt. Speaking for myself I can give a free pass to a rpg publisher once twice not three times. That and the overall feeling of GR rushing the product out to take advantage of the series. Unless they signed a contract saying they were forced to do so it's not something they had to do. The series to my knowledge is popular and doing well. With no signs at least for the moment of being cancelled. So why the rush. It's something that may have hurt the the rpg line as a whole. Maybe even permantly.

Ony so many times the fanbase is willing to excuse your mistakes before they get fed up and don't buy your products anymore. I know that unless GR releases a second printing I'm not buying this book. I like GR yet this is happeing too often lately. It's not just the core book from what I have read online. Even the campaign guide has some small amounts of errors. While I respect and I'm glad that they are issuing a corrected PDF they also seem at least to me unable to understadn why it's a big issue. Yes GR has a PDF ywt to get a corrected version I would either have to buy the PDF. Buy both the core and the PDF or wait for a second printing. Either way it ends up being more work and costing more for the consumer.

That being said I may buy a used copy of the latest core book. Yet GR needs to get their act toghther because where I would buy a book from them without hesitation I will take wait and see approach.

Imo the problem with how too vague and open ended the alignment system has always been. It's fine when you don't have classes tied to an alignemnt like fighters. Yet you need to have some sort of codified alignm,ent system when you have classes such as Paladins and Clerics. The only system I never had problems with in terms of alignment was Palladium. The alighments have a description and what you can't or can do in point form. A Diablolic (neutral evil) npc is free to lie and cheat everyone. A Princcipled (Lawful Good) character never breaks the law unless conditions are deseparate. Almost never had problems at the table with alignments and what you can or cannot. The only time we did was with an ex-player who liked to play way too loose and fast with alignment. Type of player who took good alignemnts and tried to do evil stuff while jusyifying it under a good alignment He hteded playing any Palladium rpg because he could nit get away with most of his BS.

Sure it may not stop debates about alignment yet a codified system would reduce the arguments by half imo. To the OP I actually like your code and may borrow it for a future D&D game. I rather be playing D&D then debating the finer points of alignment at a gaming table.

So is throwing a developer into a project at the last minute very close to the release date like GR did with the song of fire and ice rpg. I get that not every company does not have as much resources as every other company. Yet this is a big screw up on GR part. Why would they not do what is becoming standard in the industry of releasing PDF first to find errors then release the print version. It's not like they had to worry about the TV show being cancelled. It's way to popular and has at least 3 more seasons to go. Word of mouth has gone around that the latest version of the core book has not only errors but the same errors from 1E. I don't know many gamers who want to buy a 50$ book with the same errors in it twice for the sake of a small amount of new material. If sales are low then we won't see a corrected second printing.

As I said in another simuliar thread. Green ronin has takeon on too many projects too quickly with not enough resources. It's starting to show in more recent products. While mistakes happen given the populairty of both the TV shows and novels they should have pulled out all the stops for this one. Instead from what I read on the GR site they tossed a developer into the project at the last minute who tried to do his best. The line did not even have a full time devloper which imo is inexucsable.

Find new players.

Seconded. Or if not new players learn to say no to the ones he has.

If the OP does not want spicy taco flingng feat at his table it's not allowed. It drivers me crazy as both a player and a DM when DM who can't say no blame the options the system gives you. And it's not like 2E did not have a wide variety of options. I had alot of 2E material. I had to be careful what I allowed and what I did not allow. Hell every rpg offers many options to players. So I'm not sure why the OP is pciking on PF.

So far I see no major differences between 3.5 and PF. I a few new rules, a clarification here and there. Rules that imo make things worse such as the change to flurry of blows. To the OP you have to ask yourself are your group happy with 3.5 with alls its flaws and postives. If you are I say stick with it. I'm not saying not to buy PF far from it. it's just that unless your plannning to buy more than the corebook and bestiary your kind of reinvesting in material you may have aleady. For myself I sold off all my 3.5. when 4E was released thinking I would never never play 3.5. The opposite happened so for myself it make sense to get into PF. Not so much for the rules so much as wanting a new material. I also agree with gamer-printer in that once the APG was released PB became it's own game.

As for power creep it's inevitble in any rpg. A few months back I bought Hero system 6E and later a book for it called Chmapions powers. I did not need the powers book since I could on my own build all the powers in that book on my own with the core rules yet it makes my life easier having a book with premande super powers on hand. I never understood why they said they would attmept to keep power creep to a minimum. It was an almost impposible promise to keep. Paizo also needs to pay the biils and staff. Which comes from them releasing new books. It's not like I or others are going to be being multiple copies of the core book or bestiary over and over. New releaases also offers Paizo the ability to try and showcase what they can do with the system or offer say another alternative to the core classes with new spells. I'm also sure no one is being forced to buy the new material. It's like rather than blame themselves for an impulse buy easier to blame Paizo. I have a shop that sells really delicious fresh bread in my area. I'm not blaming the baker for doing his job because I can't stop buy stuff from his store.

My take on the later material for the most part I like it. A few things I will never use such as the gun rules unless I'm playing a Gunslinger. A few archtypes that imo I don't think they are worth the paper they are printed on and would have to play me large sums of money to play or ever use. My own real complaint if it is one is that they try and be less conservative minded with the options. Take the system and show me what you can do with it. As opposed to keeping the material balanced sometimes overly balanced imo. Which is why I'm one of the few looking forward to a new edition many years down the line. The first attempt had to be backwards compaitable with little or few changes. The second attempt should not be tied to backwards compitable and I want to see the devs go wild so to speak.

Wish I could tell you. I hope it's soon. Maybe they want to get more feedback on errata first.

memorax wrote:

A word to the wise. This version does not include any errata. They rushed it out to meet the release date and left all the errors from the frist edition. Unless you absolutely have to buy the book stick to the cheaper pocket edition which includes all errata.

Where did you hear that? Every where they are advertising it revised and updated...

I had started a thread on rpg.net asking when the book was going to be released and another poster mentioned after looking through the revised PDf and his first edition that he was seeing the same errors in the PDF that he had in the first edition of the rpg. So unless you have to have print buy the PDF as it has the errata. It's too late for the print versions to be altered. I feel sad for the developer because it seems the tossed him into the project at the last minute. The game line did not even have a full time developer. Which imo considering the popularity of the books and TV series to be inexcusable.

Green Ronin has taken on too many projects too fast and it is starting to show. Too many of their products from what I am hearing are beginning to suffer in that they are containing more errors then usual. It's all fine to say "well the PDF has the corrections" except the print version with tax is going to retail in my area at 50$. I'm not going to spend that much when they had a chance to fix the errata. At the very least not until the second printing which may not happen because word of mouth is spreading. To the point that the book is starting to be called Game of Thrones Error Edition.

Of course mistakes happen yet this maybe a costly one for GR and the license in general. It's one thing to make a mistkae it's another when it happens twice and espcially when it could have been prevented. Not to mention beyond the developer no mention of any apology or error on the part of Green Ronin. It's like they think that by saying nothing and burying their heads in the sand that the entire mess will just go away. When they should at the very least admit to screwing up. Not to say it does not have any new material. From what I have researched it does have a small amount of new material. It just side by side with errors from the first edition.

A link to more information on the Green Ronin forums and for those tha don't believe me: http://www.greenronin.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=10704

A word to the wise. This version does not include any errata. They rushed it out to meet the release date and left all the errors from the frist edition. Unless you absolutely have to buy the book stick to the cheaper pocket edition which includes all errata.

If Urgathoa doesn't have devourer clerics already, she will after reading this thread.

Well here hoping this thread inspires others. With Council of thieves having many infernal elements made sense imo. Plus a desire to change things up somewhat in the AP. I just hope somoene else player group does not result in a TPK. They are deadly creatures imo.

What part of "devourer" would the goddess of undeath and gluttony not like?

Probably nothing. She would imo definitely make more. Would also like to see Paizo make one the main villian of a future AP.

Davor it not only has a high int (19) but also a decent wisdom (16). I kind of figured they could yet wanted to get some feedback and suggestions first.