Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide Preview #3


Product Discussion

201 to 250 of 368 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
nathan blackmer wrote:
Personally I really, really hope the alternate alignment paladin's are in the book.
They are not. James stated a while back they were cut. Your paladins are LG and your anti-paladins are CE and that is all ya get. Which is fine as we already have a holy warrior for every Alignment and faith. It's called a cleric :)

No it's not. A paladin is more warrior than a cleric


Urban Ranger/Assassin seems to be an interesting combination. It's easy to picture an assassin killed his target without being noticed and vanished into the crowd quietly.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Zen Archer/Drunken Rager.

And now, I shall stand on one feet, feel the wind in my hair, achieve full wholeness and tranquility with the Universe and let my arrow straight and ... hic! ... WHEREZ ME GODDAMN BOTTLE ! AAARGH !


Ellington wrote:

I also just realized that a party consisting of

a ranger
a barbarian
a thief
a magician
a cavalier
and an acrobat

is now possible.

And don't forget a pet Unicorn !!!

Scarab Sages

The Wraith wrote:
Ellington wrote:

I also just realized that a party consisting of

a ranger
a barbarian
a thief
a magician
a cavalier
and an acrobat

is now possible.

And don't forget a pet Unicorn !!!

With the Young simple template, of course....

Dark Archive

[Crossposting from the locked thread]

I'm truly impressed at this preview! There are *more* alternative builds than I even dreamed of... and they don't just replace a single class feature like those substitution levels in 3E did -- you get a host of alternative abilities! :)

I'm a bit worried that 'Arcane Duelist' (Bard) or 'Swashbuckler' (Rogue) might step on Duelist's toes... and 'Breaker' and 'Drunken Brute' (Barbarian) sound like bad jokes -- don't 99% of barbarians usually break stuff while drunk? ;) And what's the difference between 'Savage Warrior' and 'Savage Barbarian'?

On the other hand, there are a lot of cool builds there; for example Shamans, Shadow bloodline, Beast Master, Shining Knight, Polearm Master (although I'm not sure if this is the proper mechanical way to go with different combat styles) and Skirmisher. Nice!

Dark Archive

Gorbacz wrote:

Zen Archer/Drunken Rager.

And now, I shall stand on one feet, feel the wind in my hair, achieve full wholeness and tranquility with the Universe and let my arrow straight and ... hic! ... WHEREZ ME GODDAMN BOTTLE ! AAARGH !

Since these class "variants" seem to be highly specialized, I think the reasonable thing to do is to limit every PC to just one (so that multiclassed characters have to take "regular" class abilities in other classes). BTW, I can see other combinations (beside your example) that would just not work together.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there Everybody,

Just a quick note on the reroll mechanic. It does require your GM to be a little more open with his or her rolls. If this is truly a problem, it should be pretty easy to ask your GM to let you know when the bad guys have rolled a 15+ (or so) in combat or you can always be proactive about it and ask for the roll on particularly critical moments.

Honestly, I see this being used on the player's side of the screen far more often.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Thanks for the note Jason. It's an inelegant solution, but it could work. I know the possibilities for using it on yourself or your own friends is a good option, but can you see how the DM might benefit more, in that he always sees PCs rolls, and can have NPC clerics with this take advantage on any roll, on either side of the screen.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

Axiomites, on the other hand.

It's funny, all the nerdy math pick up lines work with them:

"I wish I was your derivative so I could lie tangent to your curves."

"How can I know so many hundreds of digits of pi and not the 7 digits of your phone number?"

"I need a little help with my Calculus, can you integrate my natural log?"

And so on.

This also explains why there is no axiomite bloodline!

Because mathochists like to keep things theoretical. They don't want to get physical, because they're not physicists.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Detective/Investigator

- Hey, are you a detective or an investigator tonight ?
- Depends, what kind of monsters are we up against ?
- Well it looks like it's some Cthulhu Mythooo*SPLOORTCH*
- Guess I'm an Investigator then ...

(with a deep bow to authors of Call of Cthulhu RPG)


Berhagen wrote:
I hope that they replace class features like bravery, armor training, weapon training etc with more interesting features. (I don’t dislike them, but they are somewhat bland).

That's the whole point with the fighter. The fighter is vanilla. Not very exciting, but still quite good, and goes with everything. And you can also add your own ideas to make it memorable.


MerrikCale wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
nathan blackmer wrote:
Personally I really, really hope the alternate alignment paladin's are in the book.
They are not. James stated a while back they were cut. Your paladins are LG and your anti-paladins are CE and that is all ya get. Which is fine as we already have a holy warrior for every Alignment and faith. It's called a cleric :)
No it's not. A paladin is more warrior than a cleric

And a fighter is more warrior than a paladin.


mdt wrote:
Illithar wrote:
It looks like you can use more than one archetype at a time. As long as they don't replace or alter the same abilities you could have as many as you want. That's unexpected and pretty cool.
As a GM, I would probably allow 'substituting substitutions' on a case by case basis. For example, BlahKit 1 replaces Rogue Sneak Attack with a Skirmish like ability, and replaces the rogue tricks with enhanced movement. BlahKit 2 replaces Sneak Attack with the ability to cast limited spells. I'd allow BlahKit 1 to be applied, and then BlahKit 2 applied to replace the Skirmish with casting limited spells. That would get you a sneaky, stealthy, high skill rogue with rapid movement and some spell ability (kind of a hyperactive beguiler). ;)

+1 - it's a finite state machine all over again!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
vagrant-poet wrote:

So;

Barbarian: Breaker, Brutal Pugilist, Drunken Brute, Elemental Kin, Hurler, Invulnerable Rager, Mounted Fury, Savage Barbarian, Suoerrtitious, Totem Warrior
AND New Rage powers

I think you meant to say SUPERSTITIOUS, not SUOERRTITIOUS which, insofar as I can tell, is not a real word.

I like that the APG looks like it will have PLENTY of options, but I don't like that Paizo is essentially doing the exact same thing that WotC was doing with its alternate class features.

As excited as my players will be to see this, I just know they will ask the obvious question: Why did we switch over from v3.5 again? We already had all this stuff!

I too am upset to see that the new APG classes will be a little bit weaker than core classes, if only because they will have less options.


Asgetrion wrote:


Since these class "variants" seem to be highly specialized, I think the reasonable thing to do is to limit every PC to just one (so that multiclassed characters have to take "regular" class abilities in other classes).

I disagree disrespectfully (of course. How could I have respect for a devil worshipper?)

The classes already have different levels of specialisation, and yet you can multiclass more or less freely. Paladins are quite a specific build, as are monks and bards - and yet you could be a Paladin/Monk/Bard.

What's bad about an archer who moonlights as a detective?


KaeYoss wrote:
Berhagen wrote:
I hope that they replace class features like bravery, armor training, weapon training etc with more interesting features. (I don’t dislike them, but they are somewhat bland).

That's the whole point with the fighter. The fighter is vanilla. Not very exciting, but still quite good, and goes with everything. And you can also add your own ideas to make it memorable.

It would be fitting for the Advanced Player's Guide to introduce some spicier options for the fighter, however.


Ravingdork wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:

So;

Barbarian: Breaker, Brutal Pugilist, Drunken Brute, Elemental Kin, Hurler, Invulnerable Rager, Mounted Fury, Savage Barbarian, Suoerrtitious, Totem Warrior
AND New Rage powers
I think you meant to say SUPERSTITIOUS, not SUOERRTITIOUS which, insofar as I can tell, is not a real word.

Get a decent dictionary, then.

souerrtitious: covertly having a low opinion of something. Portmanteau of sourpuss ans surreptitious.


Totem warrior sounds so Monte cookish


KaeYoss wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:

So;

Barbarian: Breaker, Brutal Pugilist, Drunken Brute, Elemental Kin, Hurler, Invulnerable Rager, Mounted Fury, Savage Barbarian, Suoerrtitious, Totem Warrior
AND New Rage powers
I think you meant to say SUPERSTITIOUS, not SUOERRTITIOUS which, insofar as I can tell, is not a real word.

Get a decent dictionary, then.

souerrtitious: covertly having a low opinion of something. Portmanteau of sourpuss ans surreptitious.

Your free-wheeling use of words makes me frumious.

And "SUOERRTITIOUS" is still not a word. Your attempt to belittle him for not having a "decent" dictionary is hypocritically contemptuous given you obviously stole the non-word from some other forum - a Google search turned up exactly one instance of the word being used previously on the internet. That being the place you stole it from.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:

Get a decent dictionary, then.

souerrtitious: covertly having a low opinion of something. Portmanteau of sourpuss ans surreptitious.

DICTIONARY.COM knows all! And it says that, that word does not exist!

:P

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Ellington wrote:

I also just realized that a party consisting of

a ranger
a barbarian
a thief
a magician
a cavalier
and an acrobat

is now possible.

You, sir, win the internet for today. :)


Ravingdork wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

Get a decent dictionary, then.

souerrtitious: covertly having a low opinion of something. Portmanteau of sourpuss ans surreptitious.

DICTIONARY.COM knows all! And it says that, that word does not exist!

:P

Bah. Dictionary.com doesn't even know that "ax" means "to interrogate or request."

Liberty's Edge

Zark wrote:

I know this is probably just me, but I'm actually a bit disappointed with the previews so far. They haven't really revealed anything meaty. Not much as the Core rulebook previews did anyway. Perhaps Jason just spoiled us back then.

As for the new bard I'm not sure if I like it or not.
Big surprise for those of you who know my stand on the bard ;-)

I have no problem at all with these previews - they are only supposed to be teasers after all. The book comes out in a few short weeks, we'll see everything then.

Personaly, I think this book is going to be great!


Marc Radle wrote:
Zark wrote:

I know this is probably just me, but I'm actually a bit disappointed with the previews so far. They haven't really revealed anything meaty. Not much as the Core rulebook previews did anyway. Perhaps Jason just spoiled us back then.

As for the new bard I'm not sure if I like it or not.
Big surprise for those of you who know my stand on the bard ;-)

I have no problem at all with these previews - they are only supposed to be teasers after all. The book comes out in a few short weeks, we'll see everything then.

Personaly, I think this book is going to be great!

These previews make me wanna break into the Paizo offices and get my copy now

I think that means it's good


R_Chance wrote:
Zurai wrote:

I'm a bit disappointed that the APG classes aren't represented in the archetypes.

EDIT: To be clear, it's a mild disappointment. I would have liked to see archetypes for them, but I still really like most of the classes (I could take or leave the alchemist) and intend to buy the book. Just an "I wish" instead of a "OMG how could you".

This preview is just for the 11 classes from the Core book. That doesn't mean there isn't similar materiel for the new base classes in the APG. If there's not, it probably has to do with their being more focused, but you never know (at least until it comes out).

I would love to see some alternate archetypes for the new 6 classes, too.

For example, Eidolon Master would be a GREAT idea for me :D (no SLAs but choose a SECOND Eidolon and freely choose which one you could summon).

Of course, if the 6 classes are fixed, I would still live on - but how would I like to see some 'twists' even on them...

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

MerrikCale wrote:

These previews make me wanna break into the Paizo offices and get my copy now

I think that means it's good

Or you just want to give the Burglar archetype a try. Which probably means the same thing.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Desert Druid/Aquatic Bloodline Sorcerer:

He's the Beach Boy, that's it.


I wish the image linked was bigger, I don't see how anyone is reading it.

Liberty's Edge

The Wraith wrote:
I would love to see some alternate archetypes for the new 6 classes, too.

+1


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Wraith wrote:
For example, Eidolon Master would be a GREAT idea for me :D (no SLAs but choose a SECOND Eidolon and freely choose which one you could summon).

I would love that varient on the Summoner. Having a second Eidolon would be so much more interesting than having Summon Monster as a backup when the first one goes down. He could also have a Huge Eidolon for major outdoor battles and a Medium one for tighter spaces.

The only potentially unbalancing problem that I can think of is that with that is with two Eidolons, the summoner could theoretically cover almost every skill unless the 2nd Eidolon as a little behind the first in hit dice. Though, I don't know how effective the skills from summoned monsters generally are, so maybe it wouldn't really make too much of a difference.

Liberty's Edge

Carpy DM wrote:


Bah. Dictionary.com doesn't even know that "ax" means "to interrogate or request."

Thank you, this made my day.


KaeYoss wrote:
CunningMongoose wrote:
Wow. D&D done right - I must be dreaming.
You must be in a coma. Paizo has been doing things right for quite a while now.

Oh, indeed the core game is very good and done as right as it could be done, but I was waiting to see if the splat books would get the game on a slippery slope, as is too often the case. This book was the test for me.

And I must say I'm really happy about the way they handle introducing new options. That is the part that, in the past, was not done right (in my humble opinion).


Cartigan wrote:
I wish the image linked was bigger, I don't see how anyone is reading it.

Click on the pick then shift and +. Ya hit that enough and its readable.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
I wish the image linked was bigger, I don't see how anyone is reading it.
Click on the pick then shift and +. Ya hit that enough and its readable.

No, it's not readable. The image is not a vector graphic and is just large and hard to read instead of small and hard to read.


Its a bit rough yes but it is readable. Then again some folks may have really, really good monitors as well. Mines dark and 10 years old lol

Shadow Lodge

Cartigan wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
I wish the image linked was bigger, I don't see how anyone is reading it.
Click on the pick then shift and +. Ya hit that enough and its readable.
No, it's not readable.

Since many people are in fact reading it clearly this is false.


0gre wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
I wish the image linked was bigger, I don't see how anyone is reading it.
Click on the pick then shift and +. Ya hit that enough and its readable.
No, it's not readable.
Since many people are in fact reading it clearly this is false.

"Reading it" and "reading it clearly" are not the same thing.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:


Its a bit rough yes but it is readable. Then again some folks may have really, really good monitors as well. Mines dark and 10 years old lol

Which means you should be able to read it.

500x649 images of book pages (there are two, making it 1000) do not translate well to large, widescreen monitors.


Dude, I am legally blind on a 10 year old monitor{ok more like 12} and I can blow it up and read it. It's rough but readable.


Cartigan wrote:
0gre wrote:


Since many people are in fact reading it clearly this is false.

"Reading it" and "reading it clearly" are not the same thing.

I think 0gre was saying "Since many people are in fact reading it, clearly this is false." not that people are reading it clearly.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Dude, I am legally blind on a 10 year old monitor{ok more like 12} and I can blow it up and read it. It's rough but readable.

And 10 year old computer monitors are significantly smaller.

Shadow Lodge

Tangible Delusions wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
0gre wrote:


Since many people are in fact reading it clearly this is false.

"Reading it" and "reading it clearly" are not the same thing.

I think 0gre was saying "Since many people are in fact reading it, clearly this is false." not that people are reading it clearly.

Indeed, I wasn't expressing myself clearly.


Cartigan wrote:
And 10 year old computer monitors are significantly smaller.

What do you mean? You really have lost me man as I do not know why smaller is better. Mines a 19 inch screen you talking about resolution?

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
And 10 year old computer monitors are significantly smaller.
What do you mean? You really have lost me man as I do not know why smaller is better. Mines a 19 inch screen you talking about resolution?

He means you are used to reading crappy blurry text so your opinion doesn't count.


0gre wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
And 10 year old computer monitors are significantly smaller.
What do you mean? You really have lost me man as I do not know why smaller is better. Mines a 19 inch screen you talking about resolution?
He means you are used to reading crappy blurry text so your opinion doesn't count.

I mean exactly what I am saying - it is easier to read smaller items on smaller resolution monitors.

Your opinion doesn't count because you are being a jerkass.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
What do you mean? You really have lost me man as I do not know why smaller is better. Mines a 19 inch screen you talking about resolution?

Yes, smaller is better. I have a 2 inch monitor and it's perfectly clear - I don't even have to click on the image to see the details it is so clear.


Cartigan wrote:
0gre wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
And 10 year old computer monitors are significantly smaller.
What do you mean? You really have lost me man as I do not know why smaller is better. Mines a 19 inch screen you talking about resolution?
He means you are used to reading crappy blurry text so your opinion doesn't count.

I mean exactly what I am saying - it is easier to read smaller items on smaller resolution monitors.

Your opinion doesn't count because you are being a jerkass.

Actually I was not being a jerk, but thank you for the glowing example of how to be one.

Shadow Lodge

Cartigan wrote:
0gre wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
And 10 year old computer monitors are significantly smaller.
What do you mean? You really have lost me man as I do not know why smaller is better. Mines a 19 inch screen you talking about resolution?
He means you are used to reading crappy blurry text so your opinion doesn't count.

I mean exactly what I am saying - it is easier to read smaller items on smaller resolution monitors.

Your opinion doesn't count because you are being a jerkass.

So what you mean is the unreadable text that everyone else is reading is more readable on a smaller screen? Maybe I'm being a jerkass but at least I'm making sense.


Eric Tillemans wrote:


Yes, smaller is better. I have a 2 inch monitor and it's perfectly clear - I don't even have to click on the image to see the details it is so clear.

Humm my monitor is not small,Old yes but not sure when a 19 inch monitor became labeled as small and I don't wanna even think about trying to read a screen that small..ugh


0gre wrote:


So what you mean is the unreadable text that everyone else is reading is more readable on a smaller screen? Maybe I'm being a jerkass but at least I'm making sense.

No, you aren't.

The text is partially readable, not fully readable because it is too small relative to what is being displayed.

201 to 250 of 368 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide Preview #3 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.