I appreciate that analysis, but I'll restate that I can't get behind any fear rule that plays someone's character for them. Players shouldn't be told to move or who they can or cannot attack. I would rather represent fear as a penalty, a huge scary penalty if need be.
To say a man with a sword is not going to strike something that scares him is sort of silly. It's even sillier if the Fear effect is the only thing interfering with an otherwise effective attack. Sew the seeds of doubt and danger in the player's mind and the character will act afraid.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. If you state that, you'll have to rip out of the game :
Charm Person (and all charm effects)
Paralysis (you are telling the person they can't move their character)
Those are just the two I thought of off the top of my head. Supernatural fear effects are just that, supernatural. They hit you because of something beyond the pale. I do agree that normal fear effects should just be huge penalties, not force panic/terror, but supernatural fear should be something the player has no control over, just as the character they are controlling has no control over it. It's not because the character is a coward, it's because some supernatural force overwhelmed him. No more different than an anti-magic field overwhelming the sorcerer's ability to channel magic.
I see your point, and I agree that there may be a difference between magical fear and normal fear on this account. I won't make the exception in my games, mainly because that makes magical fear ignominious and not very fun for anyone.
I see the analogs in Charm and Paralysis, but at the same time I never hear quite as much grumbling about the unfairness of those powers. They are effectively similar, but fear is perhaps more embarrassing.
The solution that allows me to spook the players into choosing to run is the one that lets the players and the GM (me) have the most fun out of everything we've tried. There's little reason to expect that this would work for everyone, I'm just putting it out there in case someone enjoys the same solution.
I appreciate that analysis, but I'll restate that I can't get behind any fear rule that plays someone's character for them. Players shouldn't be told to move or who they can or cannot attack. I would rather represent fear as a penalty, a huge scary penalty if need be.
To say a man with a sword is not going to strike something that scares him is sort of silly. It's even sillier if the Fear effect is the only thing interfering with an otherwise effective attack. Sew the seeds of doubt and danger in the player's mind and the character will act afraid.
And from Dryder:
"Maybe you can cancel the whole map folios and give us a better resolution in the pdfs, or put all maps into the back of a pdf file..."
I'd much prefer to have label-free maps included in the original adventure PDF's instead.
There are label free maps in the PDFs, you simply need to use Adobe Reader 8 to extract them. It's actually quite easy then, just cut and paste.
As for canceling the map folios and getting better resolution into the PDFs, that's my ideal solution, but I expect many others might disagree.
This was created in about an hour entirely inside Maptool. It was created overlaying Terry Dyer's great exterior map, so the dimensions should line up.
This map contains no original art. Most of the map uses Torstan's Dungeon Tiles, and the rest of the objects are pilfered from Dundjinni's user-art forums. I owe my deepest gratitude to the artists who post raw materials for maps.
Edit: As soon as Maptool includes a feature for exporting single maps, I will post it here. The real thing is far more useful, as you can manipulate individual objects, turn light sources on and off (I have much darker lighting in my version), pseudo-animate doors, etc. Posting my entire campaign file would violate the C.U.P. like you wouldn't believe.
Edit 2: No windows! How careless of me! They will be in the next version.
P.S => Lord Fyre, I don't know, why you don't like French and I think that's only prejudices. Before, I didn't like Americans because I had prejudices like : Americans think that they are the master of the world, they scorn the other people. I met a American english teacher in the lycee. I have no more prejudices. Americans are different and insult an other people for any reason is a stupid thing. You should open your mind. Prejudices go to wars. And I never have eaten a frog.
P.P.S : I don't said that all Frenchs have no Prejudices about Americans but stupid men are all around the world, but I will don't accept to be insulted because I'm French. I'm proud to be French and to be European.
Please don't let one guy on an internet forum speak for all Americans. He's entitled to his opinion, but most do not share it.
french: It's French. You always capitalise it (not just French, either: German, American, Spanish.... ;-))
disapointed: It's disappointed
interessant: It's interesting (I can see where you get that from, it's the same in German)
The basic peasant know: It's knows. Third person singular gets the s.
The basic peasant know so differents thinks: It's the basic knows so many different thinks.
danses: I think you mean dances.
historys: It's histories.
fand: found
scornfull: scornful (I walk into that one myself on occasion.
prupose: propose
wenesday: it's wednesday - though that one probably won't matter in an oral :)
It's great that you're open to corrections, instead of getting all defensive about it. I see that behaviour far too often for my liking. "Hey, I'm a foreigner, I'm not good in the language, so back off."
Sorry to correct you, Teach,
But one, Wednesday is capitalised as well.
And two, It should be "The basic peasant knows so many different things" not thinks
Sorry Paul, but I believe colons would be more appropriate for your list numbers. For example: "But one: Wednesday is capitalised as well." It is also stylistically improper to start a sentence with "but" or "and." I'll let "capitalised" slide as the English spelling.
I look forward to someone else's correction of my post. This is fun!
My preference is that they should have the texture of greymatter, but not be shaped like a brain. Something a little longer and more snakelike, that looks like it could wriggle in there. It can still have claws, but not so distinctly mammalian.
I'd like to share with you my fear house rule, which has allowed us to keep the mechanics in place without the heartbreaking unfairness:
Fear never forces a character to flee. Each stage of fear creates a stacking -2 penalty to all rolls. The afflicted character can choose to remove one stage of fear by taking a withdraw action.
This has worked great for us because it turns fear into a tactical decision instead of "roll to see if you can keep playing".
This I like. I might give it a try. Thanks!
Also, I forgot, I count it against AC as well.
The way I see it, a good fear rule must scare the player. The current rule simply annoys the player.
I'd like to share with you my fear house rule, which has allowed us to keep the mechanics in place without the heartbreaking unfairness:
Fear never forces a character to flee. Each stage of fear creates a stacking -2 penalty to all rolls. The afflicted character can choose to remove one stage of fear by taking a withdraw action.
This has worked great for us because it turns fear into a tactical decision instead of "roll to see if you can keep playing".
1. The term "Epic" should still be retained, IMO. It's concise, easily identifiable, and indicates what type of adventures and stories are appropriate to the genre. Stuff like "post-20" is flabby and pedestrian, IMO, and sounds more like something you'd hear in a modern art school than adventure gaming. "Yes, this is my post-after-contemporary-modern sculpture, 'Melted Mongrels 32'." Blech. Keep the epic stuff Epic.
2. I do agree that Epic shouldn't be used in every other term. Stuff like "Superb Dispelling" is an excellent example of how to name something without falling back on "epic" constantly.
Oh, Bean. I was all geared up to yell at you about point #1, and then I read point #2. There's a lesson in this.
Do you really think that the designers haven't attempted to fill this hole in the game as well? Now I'm not saying that their solution will completely satisfy You or I. We might like their idea and say to ourselves, yeah we don't need to house rule this one.
I anticipate something like this:
Feat: Disrupt Spellcasting [Combat]
Prerequisites: Int 19, Cha 19, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Dazzling Display, Spellcraft 15 ranks, Weapon Focus
Benefit: Choose a weapon for which you have weapon focus. As a full-round action, you can adopt a stance causing any adjacent spellcaster you threaten with the selected weapon to suffer a -2 penalty on Spellcraft checks made to cast defensively. This effect lasts until your next turn, or until the caster is no longer adjacent to you.
So, yes, I think I'll probably need to houserule it!
Eeeew...
you got sarcasm all over the place!
I have higher expectations, I suppose. How else are they to be crushed?
Yes, high-level adventures are a lot of work. But, with all due respect James (and that's quite a bit), RPG publishers get paid for precisely that....their hard work.
Wow, you guys must have the laziest GM's in creation.
I haven't played a pre-pack module since we were kicking around in the Temple of Elemental Evil circa 1992. Frankly it was more fun as a GM to design the story I wanted to see unfold, and likewise as a player it was fun to see what sort of ripping yarn you'd be swept up in fresh from your mates mind. Don't get me wrong, pre-packs are great, but they are for beer and pretzels sessions.
HEY! I'm the laziest GM in creation!
No seriously, don't hate on modules. I'm pressed for time and I'm a detail-obsessed GM. Without modules — without adventure paths in fact — I would play exactly zero RPGs a year. I can see that it's not for you, but please don't dis me and the product that lets me play.
Yep, and I haven't seen anything that addresses the mechanical disadvantage 3x placed upon melee classes. Just some more feats.
Whoop-de-doo...
Well, it was certainly discussed in the playtest. Just because we haven't seen it in the teasers does not mean it hasn't been addressed. A real fix would necessarily be a rule in the combat and/or magic chapter, not a feat or a class feature.
If they do increase casting time for highest-level spells that should rectify the problem, or at least narrow the gap in actions. If they give the warriors some way to get more out of their multiple attacks (as per our conversations on interception during the playtest) that shores the warriors up on the other end a little more. Nerfing of problem spells should cover the last of it, giving us a conservative, multi-lateral solution to the power gap, which is definitely the stated preference of the designers.
It's too early to declare nothing has been done. If it turns out that they did nothing, I'm on your side grumbling about it, but I'll just fix it in a house rule.
Domains are one that I know about. We are told there is some sort of compromise that has reverted them closer to 3.5 — but they've been careful to qualify that there is some kind of change at work, just not as drastic (evidently) as the Beta.
I don't know if anyone has created an aggregate list of spoilers yet.
there are people who think the familiar is broken, really? I have never in my 6 years of gaming met someone who thought that. That's not doubting you, I'm just really surprised to learn that there was anyone who thought the familiar was too powerful. I can see the argument that the wizard was too powerful, and that it was just an unneeded extra, but not that the familiar itself was in any way powerful.
I think part of the discrepancy comes from the fact that a lot of people, even those playing spellcasters, do not really read the rules. Thus they tend to forget about all the wondrous things their familiar can do and just write down the bonus it gives them.
For example, they forget what an incredible boost to skill checks the familiar is, as it is allowed its own check and does posses the same skills as its owner. And it can use the Aid Another action for boosting other characters' skills checks.
Make good use of Vaznutt Parooh, the gnome cartographer in Sandpoint. He runs an exotic map shop called "The Way North". All from Pathfinder #1 but if he's obsessed with cartography, this is an NPC that is likely to be useful.
I think our best hope for a preview that explains how Maneuvers work lies with the monk.
Once again, I'd be pleased if they got a bonus to maneuvers beyond the equivalent of a full BaB.
It was mentioned int he playtest that because they rock the unarmed damage, they have a good interest in performing maneuvers. I suspect we may see class features reinforcing this type of play.
what about legendary? or mythic? something along that line epic this and epic that is played out
I could see epic being used in the blup but something I dig about Pathfinder: Legendary rules set or some such
Thing is that those words are no better than "epic" to denote this type of play; they're just as arbitrary. Worse, since they're not already associated with post 21st level play.
So yeah; the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that epic is pretty much stuck as is.
James, my plea is not to change it as the descriptor for 21+ games (that looks strange in print :) ) but please don't use it in game mechanics.
Epic Levels, ok. Epic this and epic that, please no. I'd love to see the wordcount on the ELH, they might have printed the word "epic" as many times as they printed the word "the".
Also, I believe that the world's most popular fantasy game has an even more venerable tradition for the upper echelons of adventuring power. I should imagine that revisiting that old system would have quite a few supports here. Or better yet, take what works from everything else, and add some more.
Like it or not, the word "Epic" means 21st and higher level play nowadays.
I have to speak up.
Overuse of the word Epic in 3e was actually something that ruined those books for me. The designers seemed to think they were creating something new by pinning that word on it and doubling the number. That's an outrage.
If Paizo ever does an Epic-level book, my fervent wish is that the word "epic" should only appear a handful of times.
Bonus points for a sidebar explaining what "epic" actually means. And it doesn't mean "fantastic".
I don't expect it to be easy to perform manuvers, but 5% to 15% is not worth trying IMO.
It should be more than that, but probably not against big opponents. During the playtest we looked at several models, as quandary has noted, and we found that in nearly every case it came out to be easier to pull off AND closer to 3.5 than the Beta version. IIRC the "strong grapplers" were looking at numbers around 40% or more, depending on the opponent.
I'll see if I can dig up the analysis for you, but I feel we were very thorough. Your example above is probably a little more optimized. In my opinion, grappling shouldn't be a mirror-match 50%-50% because grappling (especially when swords and armor are involved) is very risky. Once weapons enter into it, it becomes very hard for a person to initiate a grapple, even against an opponent of equal skill.
Grappling is best left for situations where it makes sense: a clearly weaker or less skilled opponent. Read: spellcasters.
I fully support Paizo's right to rectify the copyright situation. I trust they can manage to do it without being jerks. Heck, they probably don't even want to be jerks about it.
I understand the sentiment; it's cool to see something from a product we love out in "the real world". But (and I'm sure the lawyers on the boards can comment on this) does not copyright law only apply when the holders actively protect their rights? That is, if Paizo allows an unauthorized use to go unchallenged, it makes it that much harder to defend against some other use that later comes up? Hence the community use policy, or Vic's permission in the past for the YouTube Pathfinder video, providing specific language was added to the ending specifying copyright. Paizo has to protect their interests, no matter how "neat" it is. And, really, somebody in the administration of the Fair knows this.
Sigh.
I really, really hate being put in this position, but what you say is correct.
That's about all I can say until I hear from legal counsel.
I know it's not "fair use" but doesn't this fall under "awesome use"?
I need to also be very clear that I do very close work with Paizo and to be honest, do not want to build a competing product, nor one that will jeopardize the map projects I do for the GameMastery line, nor my working relationship with them.
I have heard directly from Mr. Mona and Mr. Jacobs on these boards a rather enlightened understanding of digital media distribution. It appears they don't believe it competes with print sales. They're right, and maps are no exception.
The peculiarities of materials cost make a user-printed map a different product than a published printed map. I really don't think the two compete.
You're now offering a product to a completely separate demographic, one that will never consider buying the other product line because it is simply of no use to them. I don't think there's much cause for concern about competition.
All I really care about is maps that don't look blurry when I zoom in a bit. And ideally I also would like a "player's version" of the map (presumably as a different layer of the image) without secret doors, etc. And I would like a pony.
You can already get a version without key or secret doors by selecting the image in Adobe Reader version 8 and copying it to your favorite image program. I've had some trouble doing this with Pathfinder #1 and #2, but all of my other Pathfinder PDFs work fine in this way.
What are some relatively simple ways that Paizo can support and nurture its Virtual Table Top players? The Game-Mastery sets aim to make face-to-face play efficient and beautiful, but as an exclusive VTT player I find these products make me sort of jealous. Primarily, I feel we're missing out on some great mapping fun with the flip mats and tiles! Why shouldn't VTT players be able to use Maptool's Tables functionality to play with Crit and Fumble decks? (okay, I already do that, but it isn't easy)
In this thread it has been discussed that Pathfinder can support Virtual Table Top gaming by increasing the availability of digital maps for its modules and APs. It looks like a great first step.
Making PDFs available (and free to subscribers) is another thing that already endears Pathfinder to the VTT community. For those who don't know, it's easy to fire up Adobe Reader and copy just the images of maps and portraits without text. This can save hours and hours of prep time. Recent developments in the fantasy gaming world have conspired to make Pathfinder the highest-quality source of PDF modules that can be decomposed in this manner. Advantage: Paizo.
In my opinion, an important missing ingredient is a well-organized resource like d20srd.org. Note that because that site uses a standardized URL for spells and other rules, it is simple to reference them from within an HTML compatible VTT (like maptool). Good VTT support necessarily must include a similar rules reference with identical functionality. I know this is in development, but I feel the need to stress the need for standardized URLs — no incomprehensible PHP strings please!
What are some other things, ranging from the simple to the whimsical, that we could ask of Pathfinder to better support VTT players?
No offense, James, but your thinking seems stuck in the print world. It's your bread and butter; I get it. But the recurring threads on this subject are customers telling you that high quality digital maps have significant value to them. Sure, the way the work is comissioned and paid for may need to change in a digital world, but as I've said before, *someone* is going to get this right sooner or later...why not Paizo?
I wholly agree with you, but in the interest of fairness I don't think Paizo is wrong for taking their current approach.
It would be a huge mistake for the company to plunge into digital only material recklessly. There needs to be a viable revenue scheme first. Paizo rests on it's quality, and I would hate to see that compromised.
The first steps in support of VTTs are being taken. Foremost, check out this thread. If you want Paizo to jump in with full VTT support, put your money where your mouth is and support this first digital offering. I am sure that more products will follow suit, since like you I am sure that this is the future of RP gaming.
Beta defensive casting/"concentration" wasn't too easy. Not as such. It was just wrong.
For a wizard, it was indeed too easy because of their high int, while for clerics it was too hard (because they don't tend to have high int).
And that's just the opposite of what should be: wizards should not be as good at casting in the thick of battle as clerics, and clerics really need this more. Plus, int doesn't fit. Con or wis are better fits.
In my playtest campaign, I eliminated casting defensively and simply allowed a fortitude save to keep your spell with a DC based on damage taken. So far, it has done exactly what you recommend: only burly casters cast in melee. The rest do what frail casters ought to do: use their ample selection of mobility spells to distance themselves from their victims, and rain terror down from above.
You'd be surprised how much this one change alters the dynamic of the game. We've been seeing a lot more of the fighter playing "linebacker" because if the wizard/quarterback gets his spell disrupted, it's all over. Like the good old days.
Chances that the PRPG final does this? Slim to none. But I enjoy it as a house rule at present.
I think dungeon and battle effects might warrant it's own release, Krome.
Vic: This differs from the WotC maps maps tiles in that it will encourage all levesl of map creators a set of tools to enliven their maps and enhance their skills at creating an visually enlivened gaming table. Wow, that almost sounded like professional product copy.
More tidbits to come.
Don't oversort!
The trouble with paid mapsets is that you need a mix of things for a good map. It the sets are oversorted, we'll have to buy all of them, which means I won't buy more than one.
If bloody footprints and viscera must go into an appropriate set such as "Murder most foul" which might be good for Pathfinder #2 and the like, fine. But a full release of just gore? Not likely to buy. Maybe I'm alone in this.
You can hyperlink the HTML in the chat window, so it's just a matter of making sure that your spell words are hyperlinked to the SRD. d20SRD.ord has a nicely standardized URL for spells (I think it is case-insensitive.
I don't mind all of the pages, I just wish when I scroll all the way to the freakin' bottom of the threads, choose one, and then go back, that the page would automatically flip back where I left off. Instead, it starts at the TOP of the thread list again and I have to scroll all the way back to the bottom to where I started.
I love that it portrays an arabian-like culture in a fantasy setting without crossing the line into racist caricature.
I love that it doesn't get preachy about drug use: whoever wrote about pesh in Dark Markets clearly researched real world opium and didn't overdo the "drugsarebad" message with the mechanics of pesh.
I love that gnolls (and most pathfinder monsters) have a logical geographical range. They don't feel "spawned" like video game monsters, something that a few other game settings have seemed like to me.
I love that this AP (and pathfinder in general) treat the readers as adults, and can offer adult themes without placing them at the center of the story. That makes for good adventure.
Thanks, Jonathon. Those are very positive numbers and encouraging with the "yet-to-be-named" map tile project. I have some titles in the works, though. I did post s sample image on the cartographer's guild newbie welcome post area. More previeew next week...I have to finish a Paizo deadline first.
If it otherwise matches the "Maneuver AC" concept, there doesn't really seem a need for a separate "CMB" stat, since Maneuver Attacks would just use normal Attack stats...???
Not exactly — the most widely cited variant mAC during the playtest involved "flipping" the size modifier to be a bonus rather than a penalty. All other attack modifiers remained.
This means that although medium creatures will almost always have the same Standard attack bonus and Combat Maneuver Bonus, it is worth having a space in the stat block for creatures of size other than medium.
I'm crossing my fingers that this is how it works, because I love the idea of a unified maneuver rule that can be explained in two sentences. ("Flip the size mod for offense. Add the touch AC to that for Defense.")
If they do, it seems VERY close to "Maneuver AC", though apparently Deflection Bonuses were added in. Weapon Training was called out as applying to Maneuver Attacks/ against Disarm & Sunder, but I wonder how the remainder of Attack Bonuses (Flanking, Enhancement, etc) will be handled... If it otherwise matches the "Maneuver AC" concept, there doesn't really seem a need for a separate "CMB" stat, since Maneuver Attacks would just use normal Attack stats...???
Close enough for me.
Now we can keep on using Maneuver AC (might need a new name now) without people looking at us funny!
I am very pleased that they closed the vulnerable high-dex character hole opened by the beta method. Woot! Very happy me.
Paizo's "blessing" to create content for those items is specific to their intellectual property and would entail some legal hurdles, not to mention the business aspects; management, art direction, budget, marketing for product tie-in. That said, it isn't a "no", but it isn't what I have discussed with Paizo at this time to work on something outside of the products they produce.
Talks have begun on things, that is all I can say. Nothing like a surprise announcement of D&D 5.0 or the My Little Pony RPG. Pixel development is far easier than coding development. Period.
Awesome, it is great to see that you have an open ear to suggestions. Just don't listen to me to much. :)
That said, I think it is still a good idea to try and provide unique products, even if they just skirt the limits of the IP. If you're selling the art here (on Paizo.com), you have a good idea of the maps people might want, with the adventure path as a guide to Pathfinder material. I would start there, and release bundles accordingly. LoF is running right now, might be a good time for some desert themed art sets. When Council of Thieves launches, it might be ideal to have some diabolical themed feudalism, and so on.
As far as pixel vs. code — as far as I'm concerned, I'm begging for art. Granted, it is a specialized form of art that fills a niche (VTTs), but all I ask for is the art, and organization. The code will write itself, strangely.
All of these things are possible, and they are all getting much closer. It's just not there yet. I'd say that the next year will see a lot more interoperability between the softwares that will bring the goal of a unified gaming framework closer to reality.
More Maptool musings:
Spoiler:
I'm convinced that the biggest obstacle to a fully featured campaign framework using Pathfinder is the lack of a final version. Once we have an SRD equivalent that can be implemented without concern of copyright infringement, very high quality Pathfinder frameworks will appear.
The biggest uncertainty for me is whether the Pathfinder open source reference site will copy d20srd.org closely enough to be of real use. I have reason to believe this is so, but can't be certain.
As soon as the final is out and the SRD equivalent is available, I suggest that some Paizoans band together and try to make the best possible Maptool offering to support Pathfinder. It would be very nice if that "electronic versions" clause of the OGL could be somehow nullified, at least for a freely distributed framework. I'm not sure if that's even an issue these days...
Posts
