...I thought things like globally renaming brothels "festhalls" were off the table with Pathfinder? Where's this sudden prudishness coming from?
Adventure Paths have always been a little more 'risky' than the Core Rulebooks.
If I had to make a guess, however, it would be that the Dance Hall was written as a concept, and when the two buildings were compared, they had the same bonuses. So the developers decided to go with "Dance Hall" over "Brothel" because it could mean many more things. You can interpret "Dance Hall" in both dirty and not-dirty manners. There's only one way to interpret the word 'Brothel.'
So more likely then not the buildings that refer to the Brothel should refer to the Dance Hall instead.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
...I thought things like globally renaming brothels "festhalls" were off the table with Pathfinder? Where's this sudden prudishness coming from?Adventure Paths have always been a little more 'risky' than the Core Rulebooks.
If I had to make a guess, however, it would be that the Dance Hall was written as a concept, and when the two buildings were compared, they had the same bonuses.
Actually, no. There were no dance halls in my turnover, just brothels. :)
I stuck with the original nomenclature from the KM version.
So the developers decided to go with "Dance Hall" over "Brothel" because it could mean many more things. You can interpret "Dance Hall" in both dirty and not-dirty manners. There's only one way to interpret the word 'Brothel.'
This, on the other hand, is entirely likely. Upon reflection, the devs may have decided to go with a more inclusive label for a place of entertainment, often (but not always) of the bawdy and/or prurient kind.
So more likely then not the buildings that refer to the Brothel should refer to the Dance Hall instead.
Yep. That's what it looks like to me.
When are we going to get PDF's of the sheets within?
I love the book, but I predict that the taxation rules will be about as popular as they are in real life!
I have to ask: Does the mass combat syste stem off from Kingamker?
Cause I didn't like those mass combat rules. It swept away the soldier and personel type. You could have an army of Archer, or an Army of Barbarians and the results are almost exactly the same.
Regarding the retraining rules, I wonder, is it by design that you can retrain a feat you took early to gain a new feat that you did not yet qualify for when the original feat was taken? I.e. does this allow you to create a build that was basically "illegal" without using these retraining rules?
When are we going to get PDF's of the sheets within?
The Kingdom / Army sheets are all in the book. If you have a hard copy, you can photograph / scan them. If you have a PDF, print them out.
I love the book, but I predict that the taxation rules will be about as popular as they are in real life!
Its a weird system to put into the game, that's for sure. It will almost get to the point where you have to actually give the PCs a little more wealth than their level suggests in order to tax them of that wealth ... its not a rule I will be using in most situations, personally.
I have to ask: Does the mass combat syste stem off from Kingamker?
Cause I didn't like those mass combat rules. It swept away the soldier and personel type. You could have an army of Archer, or an Army of Barbarians and the results are almost exactly the same.
It does. My friend / GM / player doesn't like them either for the same reasons you mention.
Regarding the retraining rules, I wonder, is it by design that you can retrain a feat you took early to gain a new feat that you did not yet qualify for when the original feat was taken? I.e. does this allow you to create a build that was basically "illegal" without using these retraining rules?
No. The retraining rules specifically say that you loose access to illegal choices until you either A) regain access to those choices or B) retrain those away too.
For example, if you have Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack, retraining Mobility means that Spring Attack just sits there, wasting your feat slot and providing you with no benefits and no new options.
I feel the army rules are not so much meant to allow you to build a military force for your kingdom, but rather to enable you to quickly turn some NPCs you found into a fighting force to throw against enemy forces. Which I think it does very well.
It's not really an alternative combat system, but rather to quickly determine how a larger battle unfolds between the actions of the PCs.
You could adapt the mass combat rules a bit and add rock/paper/scissors style dynamics like "Spear Infantry gets +4 against Cavalry" etc
Think about stuff like Fire Emblem, Age of Empires or other tactics or strategy games and just wedge them in.
The mass combat rules are afterall mostly there as a relatively small addon to the game that allow players to atleast have some influence in warfare besides isolated missions, because normal combat with hundreds of NPCs is an absolute nightmare.
If you want a strong, indepth and detailed way to handle mass combat you're probabbly better off adding a ruleset from a different game into the mix like Warhammer or something, but then you're essentially playing a different game at that point.
Just my thoughts though, it's maybe not as good as it potentially could be (I dunno, don't have the book yet) but it's nice that it's there anyway.
Meh. I have the Warpath rules already. I have no need for a system that I don't like.
I love the book, but I predict that the taxation rules will be about as popular as they are in real life!
The taxation rules are a way for a GM to do two things.
First, to reduce an unintended over awarding of gp/loot to the players with in-game justifications.
Second, they provide another avenue, as with certain movies and novels/written works, to toss plot hooks at the players.
The one thing that I had hoped would be in UC was not, at least not after a first pass through the PDF.
A system that eliminates the need for the "Christmas Tree Effect" / that eliminates the need for the "Big Six Magic Items".
Meh. I have the Warpath rules already. I have no need for a system that I don't like.
I did an adaptation of the Warpath rules to specifically integrate with the kingdom building aspect of Kingmaker. I'll probably update it once I get this book. PM me if you'd like me to send you the link once I'm done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that I had hoped would be in UC was not, at least not after a first pass through the PDF.
A system that eliminates the need for the "Christmas Tree Effect" / that eliminates the need for the "Big Six Magic Items".
You're right; that's not in this book. Eliminating the need for those items doesn't really fit the theme of the book, however.
I'm trying to make sure I completely understand the Wealth by Level and Item Creation section. Is the additional 25% the amount of wealth they use to determine what they craft, and the original WBL spent as normal? This is my assumption reading it. Or is the additional 25% added to the standard WBL and then you just spend money like you crafted everything you could. I think that's the game breaker.
You spend the additional money from WBL due to having item creation feats "at retail price", not at cost, as I read it.
I would suggest requiring one of Brew Potion/Scribe Scroll/Craft Wand 'consumable item creation feats' and both Craft Magic Arms and Armor *and* Craft Wondrous Items to get the bigger bonus to WBL. At about 9th level I would add Forge Ring to the requirement.
I have to ask: Does the mass combat syste stem off from Kingamker?
Cause I didn't like those mass combat rules. It swept away the soldier and personel type. You could have an army of Archer, or an Army of Barbarians and the results are almost exactly the same.
Actually, special abilities have an effect on armies. An army of barbarians will have the rage power, usable once per battle. It increases the army's OM, decreases DV, and increases Morale against fear and routing. It also prevents certain tactics such as cautious combat, sniper support, and withdraw.
OK thats better. But Warpath is just SO much more detailed without needing extra rules.
Il get this book anyway because I like the Kingdom building rules and all the things they mention in the blurb sound like things I want.
Actually, special abilities have an effect on armies. An army of barbarians will have the rage power, usable once per battle. It increases the army's OM, decreases DV, and increases Morale against fear and routing. It also prevents certain tactics such as cautious combat, sniper support, and withdraw.I have to ask: Does the mass combat syste stem off from Kingamker?
Cause I didn't like those mass combat rules. It swept away the soldier and personel type. You could have an army of Archer, or an Army of Barbarians and the results are almost exactly the same.
That's certainly better than the Kingmaker version!
So are the retraining rules more like the 3.5 PHB 2 (which required you to exchange feats and other retrained features for choices that were legal at the time you took them) or more like 4E (where the only requirements were that you not lose a feature that is a prerequisite for another current feature and that the new feature must be one that you qualify for now)?
The example of a character with Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack retraining away Mobility would not make much sense either way. By the 4E method, that would be strictly illegal, since Mobility is a prerequisite for Spring Attack. By any other method, it would simply be a bad idea -- why would you not just retrain away Spring Attack instead, since you are going to lose access to that feat anyway?
|
There was a blog post about this. You cannot retrain a feat in a feat tree without losing access to all the later feats in that tree. So yes, in your example, retraining Mobility would lose you access to Spring-attack until such time as you relearned Mobility which would then grant you access to Spring-attack again.
But can you retrain to a feat which was illegal at the time? Such as a second level rogue retraining dodge to weapon focus?
Anybody feel like this is PHBII for 3.5 and this means Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle? Mythic rules and other books make me feel this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody feel like this is PHBII for 3.5 and this means Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle? Mythic rules and other books make me feel this way.
Honestly, it makes me very excited about what's coming next from Paizo. With this release, it seems to me that Paizo isn't concerned with a continued onslaught on feats, spells, archetypes, and so on, so much as they're concerned with creating a well-rounded and full game experience for us gamers with rules for much more than just killing things in a thousand different ways.
It's just a different, and refreshing (in my mind), approach to the game than what we saw in Wizards of the Coast's D&D 3.5 days, and I'm extremely excited about the 2014 announcements.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody feel like this is PHBII for 3.5 and this means Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle? Mythic rules and other books make me feel this way.
I have never really understood this thought process for gamers. You (ie. gamers) keep telling them that you want certain things (because they were in older versions of the games) and they make them, and then you say they are at the "end of their cycle". Paizo needs to stay in business by doing things people want to pay for. People seem to want to have $40 books each year, so Paizo keeps making them. People want multi book adventures, so Paizo does adventure paths. Gamers ask for it and Paizo does it. Isn't that a GOOD thing? Companies responding to their customers desires? Personally I don't think Paizo need more $40 hardcover books, but the other fans are proving me wrong since they keep making more products. I will never understand why gamers assume that companies are at the "end of a cycle" because they are giving you what you want and ask for?
Better still there are several 3PP who make products based off of the rules and ideas created by Pathfinder and Paizo. Do you think they are at the "end of their cycle" of products? I can tell you that we at LPJ Design are NOT and we have more products and product lines for Pathfinder for years to come. Don't sell the creative people at Paizo and 3PP short. We get paid to be creative and innovative, and I think we are doing a pretty good job at it.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Amen, Louis. How is more cool gaming product a bad thing?
Also, unlike the latter days of 3.5 we generally see Paizo supporting new products that they put out. On top of that, you've got terrific product coming from any number of 3PPs that expand Paizo's products directly and indirectly, adding variation and replay value to what you already have and adding all kinds of opportunities to go beyond the published product in directions and campaigns entirely your own!
|
|
I have never really understood this thought process for gamers. You (ie. gamers) keep telling them that you want certain things (because they were in older versions of the games) and they make them, and then you say they are at the "end of their cycle". Paizo needs to stay in business by doing things people want to pay for. People seem to want to have $40 books each year, so Paizo keeps making them. People want multi book adventures, so Paizo does adventure paths. Gamers ask for it and Paizo does it.
We also have asked for more module adventures and we're getting.....less of them. Ones that are longer in length and now releasing every other month. Not exactly what I wanted.
|
We also have asked for more module adventures and we're getting.....less of them. Ones that are longer in length and now releasing every other month. Not exactly what I wanted.
I have never really understood this thought process for gamers. You (ie. gamers) keep telling them that you want certain things (because they were in older versions of the games) and they make them, and then you say they are at the "end of their cycle". Paizo needs to stay in business by doing things people want to pay for. People seem to want to have $40 books each year, so Paizo keeps making them. People want multi book adventures, so Paizo does adventure paths. Gamers ask for it and Paizo does it.
Sometimes the customers don't actually know what's best for the product line. Sometimes the developers can see failings where the customers don't.
In the case of modules: From what I understood the module line was constantly behind schedule. In addition I have seen complaints on the forums that the recent modules felt more generic. The idea for the module line now is to cut the line down in quantity of product while attempting to increase the quality of the products, by making it so module writers can focus greater attention to a single project at a time rather then having to be midway through writing on one project before being given a second. OR something like that (I don't know the specifics as I don't work at Paizo).
As to this:
Anybody feel like this is PHBII for 3.5 and this means Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle? Mythic rules and other books make me feel this way.
I don't think Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle yet. We haven't even gotten to Psychic magic yet! I (very much a personal opinion) WANT a book on Deific Adventures! Numeria and all its Sci-Fi glory still needs to be explored! These guys are very creative, they'll figure out plenty of ways to continue allowing us to explore Golarion and they'll find things make hardcovers of. I wouldn't worry about it at all.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my view this book demonstrates to me that Paizo is willing to tackle subjects beyond raw combat and exploration in the hardcover line. And I heartily approve of this direction and would very much like to see further rules books that explore the non-combat side of the game further!
Anybody feel like this is PHBII for 3.5 and this means Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle? Mythic rules and other books make me feel this way.I have never really understood this thought process for gamers. You (ie. gamers) keep telling them that you want certain things (because they were in older versions of the games) and they make them, and then you say they are at the "end of their cycle". Paizo needs to stay in business by doing things people want to pay for. People seem to want to have $40 books each year, so Paizo keeps making them. People want multi book adventures, so Paizo does adventure paths. Gamers ask for it and Paizo does it. Isn't that a GOOD thing? Companies responding to their customers desires? Personally I don't think Paizo need more $40 hardcover books, but the other fans are proving me wrong since they keep making more products. I will never understand why gamers assume that companies are at the "end of a cycle" because they are giving you what you want and ask for?
Better still there are several 3PP who make products based off of the rules and ideas created by Pathfinder and Paizo. Do you think they are at the "end of their cycle" of products? I can tell you that we at LPJ Design are NOT and we have more products and product lines for Pathfinder for years to come. Don't sell the creative people at Paizo and 3PP short. We get paid to be creative and innovative, and I think we are doing a pretty good job at it.
And I am not asking for Pathfinder 2.0. But desingers can have other ideas than what I want.
All I am saying it that there are similarities to the end days of 3.5 and even 4e with some of the products coming out. Like the Dungeoneer handbook.
Anyway, this seems to be a touchy subject...
Anybody feel like this is PHBII for 3.5 and this means Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle? Mythic rules and other books make me feel this way.
Ultimate Campaign isn't really like PHB2... Isn't the closest thing to PHB2 the Advanced Player's Guide? That was produced three years ago, and Pathfinder definitely wasn't at the end of its cycle then.
Going off Elves of Golarion (Birth on page 9), Golarion-based elves spend a century or so being raised. This would point toward the extreme length that such an insular natured community, that already suffers from few births, would view as childhood. At least that is what I take away from the whole situation.
We also have asked for more module adventures and we're getting.....less of them. Ones that are longer in length and now releasing every other month. Not exactly what I wanted.
If you count PFS, you get two PFS adventures a month, one AP adventure and a generic adventure Pathfinder every other month. Add-on 3PP adventures on top of all these you most likely have an adventure every week for Pathfinder. That is not a bad deal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody feel like this is PHBII for 3.5 and this means Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle? Mythic rules and other books make me feel this way.I don't think Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle yet. We haven't even gotten to Psychic magic yet! I (very much a personal opinion) WANT a book on Deific Adventures! Numeria and all its Sci-Fi glory still needs to be explored! These guys are very creative, they'll figure out plenty of ways to continue allowing us to explore Golarion and they'll find things...
Sweet Jesus! The game isn't even 4 years old yet! We're nowhere near the end of Pathfinder's "useful run".
I'm also sick of the WotC-style edition treadmill. When PF2 does eventually come around, if it's a rewrite rather than a tweak, I'm out.
There was a blog post about this. You cannot retrain a feat in a feat tree without losing access to all the later feats in that tree. So yes, in your example, retraining Mobility would lose you access to Spring-attack until such time as you relearned Mobility which would then grant you access to Spring-attack again.
Which blog post are you referring to? The only relevant one I saw here was from May 9th, and it was rather short on such details.
Also -- can you retrain with level advancement, or is it strictly a downtime activity?
There was a blog post about this. You cannot retrain a feat in a feat tree without losing access to all the later feats in that tree. So yes, in your example, retraining Mobility would lose you access to Spring-attack until such time as you relearned Mobility which would then grant you access to Spring-attack again.Which blog post are you referring to? The only relevant one I saw here was from May 9th, and it was rather short on such details.
Also -- can you retrain with level advancement, or is it strictly a downtime activity?
Strictly downtime. And its really hard to do. You need to find a trainter that has whatever you want to retrain to. So if you want to retrain Mobility into Power Attack, you need to find an NPC (or PC, as the case might be) who knows how to use Power Attack.
Between that, the sheer number of days it takes to retrain, and the gp cost for doing so, the GM has absolute control of how often a player retrains. Its not a World of Warcraft Dual Spec option, that's for sure!
So anybody want to let us in on some of the new traits?
And some of the drawbacks?
|
Some drawbacks :
- Avarice : if you do not get a bigger part of the gold, you will not take the aid another action for a week :-))
- Paranoid : if someone wants to aid you, the DC is 15 rather than 10
I feel that all the drawbacks are nice, interesting to take for characterization and VERY flavorful.
The new traits are not identified per se as far as I could see. Thus identifying the new traits requires an encyclopedic knowledge of previously existing traits.
I found a Kin-guardian combat trait which might be a real new trait. It allows you to give an additional +2 when using aid another to increase the AC of a family member.
There are also several "Black powder" traits that did not ring any bells.
Finally, many traits from supplements (such as Dwarves of Golarion) made their way in UC, which BTW provides description for all traits in it and in the APG.
What is interesting is that many, maybe all, of the traits appear in the background generator, so a GM could use this as a way to limit PCs to take traits that make sense for their background, by looking what kind of circumstances in the generator open access to the traits.
We also have asked for more module adventures and we're getting.....less of them. Ones that are longer in length and now releasing every other month. Not exactly what I wanted.
I have never really understood this thought process for gamers. You (ie. gamers) keep telling them that you want certain things (because they were in older versions of the games) and they make them, and then you say they are at the "end of their cycle". Paizo needs to stay in business by doing things people want to pay for. People seem to want to have $40 books each year, so Paizo keeps making them. People want multi book adventures, so Paizo does adventure paths. Gamers ask for it and Paizo does it.
I'm with you, but collectively we weren't buying them (I suspect). Or at least not buying them as much as we were buying the other stuff, which is the same thing as us saying we don't want them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes the customers don't actually know what's best for the product line. Sometimes the developers can see failings where the customers don't.
In the case of modules: From what I understood the module line was constantly behind schedule. In addition I have seen complaints on the forums that the recent modules felt more generic. The idea for the module line now is to cut the line down in quantity of product while attempting to increase the quality of the products, by making it so module writers can focus greater attention to a single project at a time rather then having to be midway through writing on one project before being given a second. OR something like that (I don't know the specifics as I don't work at Paizo).
Irrelevant to the argument, whether the customer knows whats best for the product line. That wasn't the other gentleman's argument- it was what the customer WANTED. And in this case wanting more modules was what was wanted.....just like gamers wanting AP's and they got it and so on.
Instead we got something not really wanted- longer modules that are less likely to be dropped into a game, and released on a longer schedule that's not helpful. Generic is what some folks wanted- which was why Dungeon magazine was very popular(ell besides 3-5 adventures at a great price).
|
|
I'm with you, but collectively we weren't buying them (I suspect). Or at least not buying them as much as we were buying the other stuff, which is the same thing as us saying we don't want them.
On the flips side, one could argue that they had no rhyme or reason to modules release, and weren't consistent with the releases of modules. Imagine if the AP's were, instead of timely releasing them each month in a consitant pattern, AP's were released willy nilly as modules were. Would AP's be as popular selling as they are now then?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of Pathfinder adventures that look really great and that I would like to run. But for every single one, I have to switch out all the locations and organizations with something else from the world I am playing in.
It's not a huge amount of work, but more generic and self-contained adventures would make adapting them a bit easier.
On the flips side, one could argue that they had no rhyme or reason to modules release, and weren't consistent with the releases of modules. Imagine if the AP's were, instead of timely releasing them each month in a consitant pattern, AP's were released willy nilly as modules were. Would AP's be as popular selling as they are now then?
I'm with you, but collectively we weren't buying them (I suspect). Or at least not buying them as much as we were buying the other stuff, which is the same thing as us saying we don't want them.
Well there's no doubt lots of interconnectedness and something of a feedback loop (theyre more popular, so get more attention, so are more reliable, so are more popular...) but leaving that aside, it seems to me that APs are much more popular than the standalone modules.
Because they have much better and intrriguing plots, I would say. There is only so much you can do on 30 pages, and you have to cover the introduction and defeat of the antagonists in the same limited space as everything that happens inbetween.
If you read the first adventure of an adventure path, there seems to be a lot more substance to it because that one only lays the groundwork for the actual story that is about to get going.
Though I have to say, my main problem with the APs is that they are too long and cover a much to great level range. If I want to run a game that reaches only over 10 levels and has the characters also appear in other adventures as well, I have to replace every single stat block in the later issues.
Personally, I think Paizo might want to give it a try and make a couple of 3 issue Adventure Paths going from 1st to 8th level. Those might be more reasonable for people who tend to play less frequently and with irregular groups. A 6 issue AP might be too big to fully commit to for some people.
I think I start a new thread about this.
Anybody feel like this is PHBII for 3.5 and this means Pathfinder is at the end of its cycle? Mythic rules and other books make me feel this way.
No.
Also, my memory of the PHB II was that it was an excellent book and it came out around the same time a lot of other 3.5 books I really liked came out (and I did NOT collect many 3.x splats)--for me personally, that was in fact the peak of the 3.x supplement cycle. So if there is some kind of comparison here, hopefully that means Mythic Adventures and the Bestiary IV and whatever else they have planned should also be some of what the best Paizo has to offer.
I think they finally got all that crunch nonsense out of the way and now have the freedom to deliver actual creative content. Stuff for our imagination instead for dice throwing.
|
|
I think they finally got all that crunch nonsense out of the way and now have the freedom to deliver actual creative content. Stuff for our imagination instead for dice throwing.
Looking at Ultimate Campaign, I have the very strong feeling that they are able to deliver both, with is really no mean feat !!!