|
Just curious ...
I thought it was really cool when I heard that Monte Cook would be acting as a consultant on the Pathfinder RPG. My favorite game company, Paizo was working with one of my favorite (non Paizo) game designers ... it was like getting peanut butter in your chocolate - a perfect pairing!
Since the initial announcement though, I have not really heard much about this. I'm LOVING the PFRPG and can't wait for the final book to come out (I'll be buying 2 copies - one for me and one for my 14 year old son) however ... I can't help but be curious about how much Monte actually contributed. Was he as involved as it was initially assumed? Were there any specific rules or sections he had a hand in?
I'm just really curious!
Thanks!!!
|
This could be wrong, its mostly from memory thats a month or two old... those who went to paizocon have more up to date information.
I know that Jason said in various interviews (atomic array I think being one of them) that Monte was one of the people that he went to when he was figuring out what exactly needed to be fixed. Some things (such as grappling) Jason called Monte to ask why they originally decided to do things the way they did, and if they had considered X and if so, what made them toss it.
I was also impressed that they consulted so many of the best designers, like Monte, before deciding on a final rule set. That and listening to the players in beta of course.
I hope the final product is as good as the beta. I hope wizards don't have to go back to firing crossbows and slings when out of spells!
|
|
I was also impressed that they consulted so many of the best designers, like Monte, before deciding on a final rule set. That and listening to the players in beta of course.
I hope the final product is as good as the beta. I hope wizards don't have to go back to firing crossbows and slings when out of spells!
If all else fails, you can just use the beta rules... lol
I hope wizards don't have to go back to firing crossbows and slings when out of spells!
Given how the class previews have gone I share your concern. The cleric has been the least well received of the classes so far. The change back to closer to the 3.5 domains makes me concerned for the specialist bonuses going back to what we had in 3.5. I can see it becoming an extra specialist spell per leve plus the 1st level power and the 20th level capstone.
Doug
|
|
I hope wizards don't have to go back to firing crossbows and slings when out of spells!
Given how the class previews have gone I share your concern. The cleric has been the least well received of the classes so far. The change back to closer to the 3.5 domains makes me concerned for the specialist bonuses going back to what we had in 3.5. I can see it becoming an extra specialist spell per leve plus the 1st level power and the 20th level capstone.
Doug
The cleric was less well received then the bard? I thought the bard was the least well received.
The cleric was less well received then the bard? I thought the bard was the least well received.I hope wizards don't have to go back to firing crossbows and slings when out of spells!
Given how the class previews have gone I share your concern. The cleric has been the least well received of the classes so far. The change back to closer to the 3.5 domains makes me concerned for the specialist bonuses going back to what we had in 3.5. I can see it becoming an extra specialist spell per leve plus the 1st level power and the 20th level capstone.
Doug
Just my impression reading both discussions. The main problem with the bard boiled down to the available of bardic performances. Both the cleric and bard previews leaves me concerned with how much the wizard is being changed from beta. I agree with most posters that the universalist school was too much but I loved the evocation school. It has made me want to play a evoker for the first time since 2e.
Doug
|
|
If we could perhaps get back on topic ... :)
I would still be very interested to hear Jason, Erik, James et al discuss how Monte was involved with the rules, if there was anything he had a particularly large hand in etc.
It just kind of seems like, after the initial announcement of his involvement, we heard very little of him / from him regarding the PFRPG.
Thanks!
Excellent question, Marc. I'd love to know more about what Cook's consulting role was like. It'd be neat to hear in an interview from both Jason and Monte--Jason on what it was like consulting with Monte, Monte on watching PfRPG develop. Seems like we know people who do that sort of thing well...
where are these class previews?! i hope the cleric doesn't go back to the way it was!
In the Paizo blog, just scroll down from the current (monk) and you'll find them:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog
There is a link at the top of the page btw...
Monte had a very back-seat roll in this. As others have noted, he was a rules consultant. He wasn't making final decisions, he was giving the designers input and feedback. Kind of like you or I, actually.
He's probably isn't allowed to talk about it right now, but once the PRPG is out, I too would enjoy reading about how the game developed from his perspective. =)
I haven't been watching previews (I don't like previews, oddly), but I'm kind of sad to hear that things are moving more towards 3.5. Still, that makes sense. Shoot for the moon in the beta, then see how much you have to tone things down for the final version.
I'm sure it will be a great game, but if they're taking back the more radical (and interesting) changes, I do hope that the Beta remains a free download here.
I haven't been watching previews (I don't like previews, oddly), but I'm kind of sad to hear that things are moving more towards 3.5. Still, that makes sense. Shoot for the moon in the beta, then see how much you have to tone things down for the final version.I'm sure it will be a great game, but if they're taking back the more radical (and interesting) changes, I do hope that the Beta remains a free download here.
I think it was said that they will stop offering the Beta once the final game becomes available. But it's quite possible that the existing downloads will continue to be available (so if you already have the book in the downloads, you'll be fine)
The previews show that so far, a lot of the better changes have stayed.
where are these class previews?!
i hope the cleric doesn't go back to the way it was!
Paizo blog will take you to them. But no the cleric is weaker then he was, his spells have been nerfed, as has all casters ability to cast defensively. His channel energy was nerfed, and it appears domains will be coming back.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I hope wizards don't have to go back to firing crossbows and slings when out of spells!
Hello, Jason. I apologize to everyone if I'm taking this thread off on a tangent, but this is an excellent opportunity to raise an issue that's been bothering me ever since people began assuming that a wizard's magical repertoire shouldn't ever be exhausted..
The way I understand a 1st-Level wizard leads me to picture a medieval teenager (or, as Ezren illustrates, someone who got a late start...) who has passed his or her apprenticeship and is now ready to start casting spells in combat situations. (Likewise, I picture the 1st-Level fighter as being fresh out of basic militia training, leaving parents and turnip-growing siblings behind as he or she answers the call to adventure.)
The way Vancian magic works, the fledgeling wizard can prepare (or, as earlier editions would have it, memorize) a few spells a day. Once those are exhausted, the wizard needs to fall back on rudimentary arms training, and his or her native intellect.
I don't see why firing a crossbow for 1d6 damage at range is such a humiliating option. (In particular, I don't see how an unquenchable stream of minor magic is obviously a better game mechanic.)
So I'm asking y'all to give me your perspective.
|
|
I don't see why firing a crossbow for 1d6 damage at range is such a humiliating option.
Because Gandalf never used a crossbow. Also because you are probably significantly less likely to hit with it than you average 1st level fighter/ranger/rogue/bard.
(In particular, I don't see how an unquenchable stream of minor magic is obviously a better game mechanic.)
Because it is awesome. And that's why we play fantasy RPGs.
In all seriousness, damage potential and hit percentages being equal, I would much rather have my mages shooting bolts of magical energy than firing a crossbow. It's a flavor thing for me.
isnt an "unquenchable stream of minor magic" alot like at-will powers? im not saying, just saying.
hang with friends, drink beer, role dice.
I don't see why firing a crossbow for 1d6 damage at range is such a humiliating option.Because Gandalf never used a crossbow. Also because you are probably significantly less likely to hit with it than you average 1st level fighter/ranger/rogue/bard.
(In particular, I don't see how an unquenchable stream of minor magic is obviously a better game mechanic.)
Because it is awesome. And that's why we play fantasy RPGs.
In all seriousness, damage potential and hit percentages being equal, I would much rather have my mages shooting bolts of magical energy than firing a crossbow. It's a flavor thing for me.
I always got the impression that Gandalf was pretty conservative with his magey goodness. And instead of a crossbow he used to beat the crap out of people with his staff. Admittedly then you wouldn't have the problem of -8 to all your attacks (when is anyone not in melee with cover?).
|
I don't see why firing a crossbow for 1d6 damage at range is such a humiliating option.Because Gandalf never used a crossbow. Also because you are probably significantly less likely to hit with it than you average 1st level fighter/ranger/rogue/bard.
Yeah and he never drew a sword to fight with or used his staff as a weapon either, oh wait, nevermind. (damn ninja'd while typing, that's what I get for verbious responses)
and if you want to cast spells all day, just start off higher level. I think one of the biggest failings of D&D is the fact that more and more you are being treated as a hero right off the bat, first level is considered less and less fledgling. I like starting off weak and running out of powers and developing into someone who can cast all day. You apparantly don't, but thats just different prefrences.
From playtesting I'm not even sure how much I want unlimited cantrips. I'm getting pretty tired of the mage constantly running detect magic 24/7 when not in combat, or the cleric purifying food and drink at the start of every meal and snack, so much for injested poisons.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I don't see why firing a crossbow for 1d6 damage at range is such a humiliating option.
Because Gandalf never used a crossbow. Also because you are probably significantly less likely to hit with it than you average 1st level fighter/ranger/rogue/bard.
In all seriousness, damage potential and hit percentages being equal, I would much rather have my mages shooting bolts of magical energy than firing a crossbow. It's a flavor thing for me.
Thank you, Undead Dan. That helps.
Well, but Gandalf is a poor example for 1st-Level wizards. (Pithy remark about Balrogs removed before posting.)
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but a novice wizard (BAB 0) ought to be 5% behind a beginning fighter or ranger (BAB +1) when it comes to shooting things with a crossbow. And on par with a rogue or bard.
I don't mind mid-level wizards shooting magic indefinitely, which is why I liked the Reserve Feats from Complete Mage. But I guess I don't understand how a novice mage, who finally figured out how to cast Sleep last week, should have access to all that. It makes magic much more accessible and common-place.
(I suppose my knee-jerk response would be, "Then buy a wand of magic missiles.")
Again, Undead Dan, thanks for taking the time to explain your perspective. It's certainly not your fault that I'm having trouble seeing that kind of setting make sense.
I don't see why firing a crossbow for 1d6 damage at range is such a humiliating option. (In particular, I don't see how an unquenchable stream of minor magic is obviously a better game mechanic.)
I wouldn't say "humiliating". I'm just not crazy about having some equipment or tactic that is only used by level 1 or 2 PCs and then becomes mostly obsolete (e.g. crossbow-using mages, rogues without Weapon Finesse, fighters wearing scale mail, etc.). Some people like that sudden jump in power from zero to hero, of course.
"A single dedicated mind can bring about untold distruction... that or goblins, goblins work too." Flavour text from my most loved card in regards to flavour text from magic the gathering.
There was alot more but it got deleted because it became confusing.
Well they did it for flavour and I love them for it.
And two this is there trade.
It's no different from swing a sword to them.
Plasters plaster walls, brick layers lay bricks, mages use magic.
I can't really think of any real life example to show as I don't know any real world professions that allow you to shoot icy from your fingers.
But watch a mechanic change a tire or lecky work with cord.
There seemless.
One would hope after your years of mastering your trade you can at least do the basics on command.
|
|
Monte had a very back-seat roll in this. As others have noted, he was a rules consultant. He wasn't making final decisions, he was giving the designers input and feedback. Kind of like you or I, actually.
He's probably isn't allowed to talk about it right now, but once the PRPG is out, I too would enjoy reading about how the game developed from his perspective. =)
I haven't been watching previews (I don't like previews, oddly), but I'm kind of sad to hear that things are moving more towards 3.5. Still, that makes sense. Shoot for the moon in the beta, then see how much you have to tone things down for the final version.
I'm sure it will be a great game, but if they're taking back the more radical (and interesting) changes, I do hope that the Beta remains a free download here.
That would make a GREAT interview for an issue of Kobold Quarterly!!!
Maybe I'll fire the idea off to Wolfgang!
I don't see why firing a crossbow for 1d6 damage at range is such a humiliating option. (In particular, I don't see how an unquenchable stream of minor magic is obviously a better game mechanic.)
Like Dan said, mostly it's a flavor thing. Also I'd assume that although damage is low for at-will spells, they'd land more often compared to physical combat.
Perhaps at-will spells should be reserved for levels 6+. It's really also a flavor issue. I've had no problems with my level 1 Wizards and Sorcs having at-will spells. At some point however, it would be nice as a high level spellcaster to do something somewhat useful (other than throw rocks), even when out of spells, even if it's only 1D8 damage.
There is no right or wrong answer for this, it's user preference. My preference is to have at-will offensive spells for my Wizards and Sorcs, at levels 6+ at the very latest.
Sorry for thread jacking.
Since I have played since 1e, mages using a crossbow do not bother me. A couple of my players have complained...about the slow rate of fire.
Elven mages have the bow to fall back on, allowing them to move and make an attack every round. With a crossbow, a low level mage must stand still in order to fire every round, and thus risk being closed on. If the use the move-reload-fire method, they will typically get one shot every other round at best. At worst, they get chased around the room by a mob of critters while trying to line up a shot and feel they are not contributing (except in a humorous way).
Paizo blog will take you to them. But no the cleric is weaker then he was
What do you mean?
Compared to Beta? Not noticeably. Channel is split so you cannot attack undead and heal people at the same time (which I'll houserule because positive energy being positive energy makes too much sense).
Compared to 3e? Oh yes, and thank the gods for that. But it's only their melee prowess that took a dive. They have become better healers, and with channel being useful all the time now, they will be able to use more of their spells for things other than their "convert stuff to healing magic" abilities.
his spells have been nerfed
Which is what makes the cleric weaker. It's a good thing, though.
And what I've learned is this: Though you cannot quite reach the heights of power you used to in 3e, it's not that bad. And since you can now benefit from strength enhancing stuff like bull's strength or belts of strength, you can gear up in one or two rounds, with one or two spells, and be ready to go.
I recently played a cleric till level 15 or so. He had a mithral full plate of speed, which was where he got haste from. He also had the time domain, which grants you 1 round of haste per level per day. That meant 20+ rounds of haste for him.
He also got a belt of strength.
Usually, I'd go with divine favour and haste rounds or straight divine power (and often haste rounds, because I had rounds to spare and the extra +1 was useful), and break out the righteous might if it was becoming really fun.
So instead of using up 3 spells for divine favour, divine power and rightous might, it was one or two spells now, and I was good to go.
as has all casters ability to cast defensively.
It's not that bad. It just introduces a failure chance, something that disappeared very soon. It also makes combat casting finally useful again.
it appears domains will be coming back.
They never went away. They were just changed in beta. They were changed again in final. Now they're the old domain spell list ("pick one out of two") with the cool new abilities from beta.
Preview domains looked really good.
Because Gandalf never used a crossbow.
He never used post-cantrip magic, either.
Just watch the movie again. Gandalf was something like wizard 1/ranger 1000. He just didn't go with archery, because he wanted two-weapon fighting sword-and-staff madness.
He never used post-cantrip magic, either.
Because Gandalf never used a crossbow.
He used a blast of flame (or something) in "The Hobbit", IIRC.
As the old Dragon article said: "Gandalf is a 5th level magic-user"
Because Gandalf never used a crossbow.He never used post-cantrip magic, either.
Just watch the movie again. Gandalf was something like wizard 1/ranger 1000. He just didn't go with archery, because he wanted two-weapon fighting sword-and-staff madness.
Except Break Enchantment and either Shatter or Stone Shape.
But yeah he must have had some fighter or ranger levels in there somewhere.
|
|
Ahh.. but Gandalf isn't really a wizard, he is a spirit of light and goodness, similar to an angel essentially. He was a spirit servitor of the gods, same as the Balrog, the thing in the lake outside of the door to Moria, and the big spider-thingie (can't remember her name right now). That is one of my main gripws about the movies, they leave out so much of the background fluff that Tolkein had going for his creation. A full history, mythology and more.
|
|
Paizo blog will take you to them. But no the cleric is weaker then he wasWhat do you mean?
Compared to Beta? Not noticeably.
people...
don't get me started... I almost canceled my Pathfinder RPG Pre-order after reading the cleric... the bard was exactly what one of my friends decreed: "I won't buy a game that forces me to play Elan" (Reference to OOTS)... so please lets not begin :P not when the PDF is in 10 dlls and my economy is not the best...back on TOPIC
how much did Monte was involved in Pathfinder RPG
|
|
He never used post-cantrip magic, either.
Because Gandalf never used a crossbow.He used a blast of flame (or something) in "The Hobbit", IIRC.
As the old Dragon article said: "Gandalf is a 5th level magic-user"
just because you don't see Gandalf doing magic doesn't mean he is a low level wizard
he is basically a half celestial who can change the world with his will... but for setting rules his magic is subtle... its like a Mage from Mage: Tha Awakening... he doesn't need okus pokus, or movements or spell components.. he is beyond that...
Gandalf wills it, and it happens... but he has the discipline to decide... where he will breaking the tapestry and when its cool to use some minor magics to magic a few pathetic hobbits happy
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but a novice wizard (BAB 0) ought to be 5% behind a beginning fighter or ranger (BAB +1) when it comes to shooting things with a crossbow. And on par with a rogue or bard.
This.
Wizards aren't weak at 1st level- EVERYONE is weak at 1st level. Yes, the wizard spends a lot of his time making melee attacks, but at this point in the game the fighter's melee attacks aren't that much better than his are, so it's all good. Most damage-dealing spells at this level are useless because they deal less damage than physical weapons, but spells like sleep, daze and color spray are extremely powerful because their HD caps are so far away. It all evens out in my experience.To join the off-topic on the off-topic, adding all that history into the Lord of the Rings movies (when the books themselves rarely even hint at it) would have been a mistake.
If they release a Silmarillion movie I'll be the first one in line, but Lord of the Rings is a story that stands on its own, and doesn't NEED to reference the grander narratives of Tolkien's world.
(And while I'm at it, Gandalf used his spells to good effect against some creatures who clearly had double-digit CRs. His magic is powerful, it's just not the sort that lets him greatly alter the world around him. Unlike, say, Melian's.)
Ahh.. but Gandalf isn't really a wizard, he is a spirit of light and goodness, similar to an angel essentially. He was a spirit servitor of the gods, same as the Balrog, the thing in the lake outside of the door to Moria, and the big spider-thingie (can't remember her name right now). That is one of my main gripws about the movies, they leave out so much of the background fluff that Tolkein had going for his creation. A full history, mythology and more.
Right. Gandalf was a maiar of fire IIRC (as was the Balrog before his fall). Not a wizard; an angelic being with his powers nerfed by being in human guise. His magic is subtler than D&D magic, more strategic than tactical. Sauron for that matter was also a Maia. Angels and fallen angels. That's LotR. I don't believe the origin of Shelob (the spider) or the Watcher in the Water (at Moria gate) was revealed, but I might be wrong. There has been an awful lot of background material on Tolkein's Middle Earth published in the last decade or so that I haven't read...
Ahh.. but Gandalf isn't really a wizard, he is a spirit of light and goodness, similar to an angel essentially. He was a spirit servitor of the gods, same as the Balrog, the thing in the lake outside of the door to Moria, and the big spider-thingie (can't remember her name right now). That is one of my main gripws about the movies, they leave out so much of the background fluff that Tolkein had going for his creation. A full history, mythology and more.Right. Gandalf was a maiar of fire IIRC (as was the Balrog before his fall). Not a wizard; an angelic being with his powers nerfed by being in human guise. His magic is subtler than D&D magic, more strategic than tactical. Sauron for that matter was also a Maia. Angels and fallen angels. That's LotR. I don't believe the origin of Shelob (the spider) or the Watcher in the Water (at Moria gate) was revealed, but I might be wrong. There has been an awful lot of background material on Tolkein's Middle Earth published in the last decade or so that I haven't read...
Sauron was maiar also.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but a novice wizard (BAB 0) ought to be 5% behind a beginning fighter or ranger (BAB +1) when it comes to shooting things with a crossbow. And on par with a rogue or bard.Wizards aren't weak at 1st level- EVERYONE is weak at 1st level.
Nice point. Fighters have more hp and armor but they spend a lot of time in the way of all those stray points and edges. One good blow can kill a 1st level fighter, 2 have a good chance at it and by 3 it's pretty much a done deal. With wizards only averaging 2 points below fighters the difference in vulnerability isn't all that much given the magic the wizard (or sorceror) has. Once the fighter gets banged up (assuming he lives through it and there isn't a cleric handy) what does he do? About what the magic user who is out of spells does. Hide. Use missile weapons. Pray he makes it out without getting hit again. Nice reminder Hydro.
I always got the impression that the "wizards" were just among the weaker Maiar. Is there a reason we think that they were more powerful once but got nerfed when they crossed the sea?
There are other examples of Maiar who visit middle earth and retain considerable power (Such as Aragorn's distant ancestor Melian, or Osse` (I had to look that up), the tempermental "demigod" of seastorms).
Shelob is referred to as "the last child of Ungolaint (had to look that up too) to trouble the unhappy world". Ungoliant was a Maia, and I always pictured her as kind of like Shelob but big enough to fight Godzilla.
Ungoliant was a major power in Tolkien's mythos. She destroyed the trees of light in the West, and would have killed Morgoth (Sauron's boss) if the balrog hadn't all flown out to help him. I'm not sure exactly what that makes Shelob, though.
Monte had a very back-seat roll in this. As others have noted, he was a rules consultant. He wasn't making final decisions, he was giving the designers input and feedback. Kind of like you or I, actually.
He's probably isn't allowed to talk about it right now, but once the PRPG is out, I too would enjoy reading about how the game developed from his perspective. =)
I haven't been watching previews (I don't like previews, oddly), but I'm kind of sad to hear that things are moving more towards 3.5. Still, that makes sense. Shoot for the moon in the beta, then see how much you have to tone things down for the final version.
I'm sure it will be a great game, but if they're taking back the more radical (and interesting) changes, I do hope that the Beta remains a free download here.
That would make a GREAT interview for an issue of Kobold Quarterly!!!
Maybe I'll fire the idea off to Wolfgang!
It'd be more fun in a podcast!
Ungoliant was a major power in Tolkien's mythos. She destroyed the trees of light in the West, and would have killed Morgoth (Sauron's boss) if the balrog hadn't all flown out to help him. I'm not sure exactly what that makes Shelob, though.
According to Wikipedia, she is a being that came from the outer void, taking spider form on middle earth.
I think Tolkien uses the universal fear of the dark and the unknown and lets it take spider form, a form loathed by many, to represent danger and menace here. That she is nearly able to defeat Melkor shows that the Valar are not omnipotent. (Is it just me, or is the threatening creature from an outer void a distant parallel to H.P.Lovecrafts ideas?)
Stefan
Tolkien's "gods" are akin to those of greek mythology. Very powerful, but no, never infallible in any way.
All the Maiar were given the choice of either coming to earth (once it was made) or just hanging out with Tolkien's over-god and watching from a distance. Most of the ones that came down did so in the beginning, but a few trickled in later on. Tulkas was one of those. He watched Morgoth (then Melkor) fighting the rest of the gods for quite a while, before he decided to hop into the fray himself and tipped the scales against Melkor (Tulkas would make a great D&D diety; this laughing, barefisted terror of a god who isn't remotely interested in creating or governing, only kicking ass).
I read the out-of-the-void thing to mean that Ungoliant was another, but maybe I'm wrong and she's something else altogether.
Right. Gandalf was a maiar of fire IIRC
Can't be right. I don't see maiars in *my* monster manual!
;-P
I don't see maiars in *my* monster manual!"Maiar" is already plural, by the way.
;-)
I know. I was trying to be funny. Doesn't always work.
But that's not a balrog. It's a balor. Completely different thing.
Ahh.. but Gandalf isn't really a wizard, he is a spirit of light and goodness, similar to an angel essentially.
I stand corrected then. The article should have been entitled: "Tolkien's spirits of light and goodness (essentially angels) were 5th level magic-users".
;-)
But that's not a balrog. It's a balor. Completely different thing.
Yeah, right :)
lol'in.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I can't help but be curious about how much Monte actually contributed. Was he as involved as it was initially assumed? Were there any specific rules or sections he had a hand in?
I'm just really curious!
Just noticed that no one had chimed in on this with an official response, yet.
Monte was an invaluable correspondent to Jason throughout the design process. He made several early comments and design suggestions, and also served as a sounding board for Jason to explain what they were thinking during the original 3E design process. Jason often sent Monte some tweak or change for commentary, and Monte offered helpful consultation throughout the process.
I can't help but be curious about how much Monte actually contributed. Was he as involved as it was initially assumed? Were there any specific rules or sections he had a hand in?
I'm just really curious!
Just noticed that no one had chimed in on this with an official response, yet.
Monte was an invaluable correspondent to Jason throughout the design process. He made several early comments and design suggestions, and also served as a sounding board for Jason to explain what they were thinking during the original 3E design process. Jason often sent Monte some tweak or change for commentary, and Monte offered helpful consultation throughout the process.
Was he consulted on the wording of the Marvelous Pigments?