Noteleks wrote: Go to facebook.com and sign up for a account. Simple as that. After you get your account set up then type in the search box Paizo and that should bring up their page on facebook. Already have an account... Already "like" "Pathfinder RPG by Paizo" and a member of "Pathfinder RPG" group. That's got it covered then, I guess... Just doesn't seem to be any activity at those locations. I expected some anticipatory chatter or content...
I can deal with not making the top 32. But it's not knowing if the judges thought my item was "not quite good enough" or "wow, that sucked!". And here's the dilemma: The "Please give me feedback thread" will be available and I could ask... But if I didn't make it, I'm not sure I want to know that I was never in the running at all. I prefer the fantasy of being a worthy competitor. :-) At least they promise to "clean up" the feedback if you ask for it. :-)
Krome wrote:
I am prepared to manifest a personality and vast greatness once I make the top 32. :-) (In the meantime, I'm just trying for mildly amusing and friendly.)
Andrew Christian wrote:
You are in Rules combat with THE Sean K Reynolds... If his Rules-Fu DOESN'T exceed yours then you have ascended into divine status.
Neil Spicer wrote:
The buttons are labelled "Cake" and "Death" aren't they?
Curaigh wrote:
So the correct translation is "Champion"?
Rusty Ironpants wrote:
Duude, That's what time travel and divination items are FOR. Scry on people to steal their work and/or retroactively beat them to it. :-) (We are supposed to build a working prototype of our item before submitting it, right?)
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Well, that certainly explains American Idol auditions.
Nick Bolhuis wrote: ..., I'm not even sure there will be a twist for round 2,... Sure there will. All submitted archetypes may not contain any of the words found in your wondrous item entry, including "a", "an", and "the". The word "fungible" being an exception. It will be required that you work "fungible" into your archetype someplace even if your wondrous item already used this word.
Demonskunk wrote: Maybe it's just me but I think calling them wondrous items is a little confusing :x As long as you remember to use the correct term in your formal writing you are free to think of and use any term you like for your own use. Have you considered "Magic Thingamajigs"? Or "Mystic Stuff"?
Kenneth.T.Cole wrote:
I think if you are the only one who submits such an item (or even a single item with the words "Greater" or "Lesser" in the title or text) that you've just blown your anonymity and will get rejected for violating a primary contest rule. Unfortunately, you asked a highly specific question. So it would be trivial to match it to an item submitted that matches it. Good luck.
RonarsCorruption wrote: Asides from pathfinder being awesome in general, I want to say that Paizo gains extra points in my books for putting all the important content for free online. It just shows how awesome you all are. It is more than enough to make me want to buy the books... in fact, multiple copies of the books so that I don't have to share the copy I use with the players.
Noteleks wrote: So how many others have started and how is it going so far? I haven't written a word yet, but I've been DREAMING about it... I hate it when I DREAM about a problem. Especially if I don't make the top 32 and it's all wasted mental incubation. When I am stuck dreaming about a problem like this, every night of sleep is like a tortured romp through the looking glass into a world where paragraph justification, word count, and style are all living enemies that must be slain... and they are all bigger and tougher than I am. Oh... and the world has been painted by Pablo Picasso. Grrr. And I know there is no antidote for it until I see the final round 2 submission guidelines, even if I already know I'm out. Hopefully Christmas will overwhelm me. Or large quatities of spiked egg-nog. Whatever.
Cartigan wrote: Didn't see one. Perhaps they should make it such that it is impossible to submit if over word count. It's an intelligence test. They actually are testing to see if people can follow directions. (And it's really not hard to do.) If they "mommy-proof" it, then they DON'T find out if you can follow directions. It may be a bit mercenary of me, but I like it that some of my competitors have been given an effective means of disqualifying themselves. I'm selfish that way.
Lachlan Rocksoul wrote: Same here. Good or bad I can take it. I'm a big boy. But, if my item is rejected I would like to know the reasons behind it. This is my first time ever doing anything like this. I hate to be all "me too"... It is interesting and instructive to see what wins. But the only feedback about what looses that we get is Sean's "autoreject" tips. And when we can clearly see that sometimes those don't trigger a reject after all, it gets murky. I keep reading that this competition is really a competitive audition for a writing job. But in general, people who actually write for a living get both positive and negative feedback from their editors as part of the development process. Of all the posts I've read here, the ones I think I found most instructive have been the "Home Item" thread where some of the internal analysis and discussions were revealed. With all of that said, I'm just hoping to get ENOUGH feedback so that I can avoid whatever my mistakes were this time for the next time I do this. So it's really helpful to know what the judges thought the mistakes were. Truly, I would have avoided them THIS time if they were apparent to me.
Clark Peterson wrote:
AAAAAAAAAGHHH!!! MY ITEM SUCKS! ... There... Tension breaker. Had to be done. (I *am* deeply concerned my item is "boring". Each time I go back to review previous year's entries I keep thinking, I should have done some of *this*.) Perhaps I should have just posted my interpretation of the "Cheese Grater of Peace"... An Item so cheesy your opponents won't fight you out of fear of future association.
Vic Wertz wrote: For the best high-level view right now, I'd suggest the Inner Sea Primer. Oooh Nifty. EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thank you.
Azmahel wrote:
Thanks for the links. I see that the Pathfinder Campaign Setting is out of print. I don't like to buy PDFs... but Paizo is an exception since they have (so far) done a good job of supporting the PDFs they sell. I just prefer "dead tree" most of the time. Normally I am shy about spending money of any kind. But I've recently decided to make the effort to get into fantasy publishing and I see Paizo as the best place to be. So it will be an investment with a lot of value to me. And if this year doesn't work out, there's always "Superstar 2012" to prepare for. :-)
Being serenely and smugly certain that my submitted item is perfect in every detail, and that my Archetype idea will also advance on pure awesomeness... At some point I'm going to need more information on "Golarion" and the setting specific details and flavor in order to make the cut. And should I make the final round and be one of the folks that wins paid commissions, I will certainly need to be able to write within the flavor and style of the setting. Which is a problem for me since I have used my own homebrew setting exclusively for more than 20 years now. I don't ever purchase and rarely read more than a skim of "setting" stuff, and even that much is normally in response to something my players want to bring into the game. So what's the best way to immerse myself in the setting that we need to be writing this stuff for? I would like to capture "flavor" and a general sense of how things work, rather than being innured in the low level details. Every setting has a "feel". I have a sense that Golarian is grittier than some, indulges a very small amount of steam-punky-ness, mixed with signicant trace amounts of Cthulhu-esque mayhem and a lot of King of Thieves Machiavelli. But that is a REALLY poorly focused 100,000 foot, and possibly way wrong overview. I'm trying to get down to the treetop level overview and reach a competency sufficient to be "literate" in the setting. So, what are the recommended reading sources? Thanks in advance.
Morgen wrote:
I like the final rules. They are significantly more backwards compatible than some of the beta rules, and vastly more so than alpha. I am one of the people who doesn't like 4e for it's *failure* of reverse compatiblility. And I am also one of those people who thinks that power inflation is a thing to be guarded against carefully. In this, I think Pathfinder slipped down the slope a bit. But not so much that I feel that I can't use legacy materials from 3.0 and 3.5 with my Pathfinder game with reasonable balance. I think Pathfinder Rocks! Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
I thought it would be instructive to contrast the features of 4e, Pathfinder (Alpha 1.x), and the 3.5 SRD. It's the sort of silly thing we do here at work when trying to select an external vendor for a project. (Managers like "decision/action" matrixes. It lets them feel like they understand something.) The entries in the table are mine... but I thought it might make a useful talking point for a discussion of *why* to choose one version over another... and provide some useful contrast for the development team for Pathfinder. Feature | 4e | Alpha | 3.5
Skill system | Hate it | Hate it | needs minor work
Expanded Compatibility | Poor | Ok | reference level
Core Completeness | Poor | Good | Good
As my answers would indicate, there is no chance I'll be switching to 4e... But the switch to Pathfinder for me is also not obvious. I really don't like giving up skill points/ranks. And with that comes concerns for me about compatibility with older 3.5 rules. (I build a lot of characters that *don't* max out skills...) I have mild concerns that there is "power creep" across the board in Pathfinder. Not to the levels of 4e, but nonetheless, it's another area where Pathfinder isn't really on the compatibility page with 3.5. It would be really interesting to see what categories other people would choose to rate/differentiate these systems and what they like/dislike about these things.
Keep 3.5 Skills with some tweaks ("Meepo them!") In addition to all the other good reasons, there's the crass one: Alpha's Skills are too much like 4e's and not particularly compatible with 3.5. (The people who say it works like 3.5 with all skills kept maxed out can't do math... Perhaps that's why they like Alpha/4e?) Since all the people who *like* 4e will mostly not play Pathfinder (once 4e is out and established) Pathfinder should make greater effort to please the people 4e is leaving behind. Gene P.
etrigan wrote:
No. You are not alone. It is so *blindingly* obvious to me, that I've been having trouble understanding the folks who kept saying "it's just like 3.5 with maxed skills". It's not. A fighter with no skill bonuses or penalties will never have more than two maxed out skills *AND* *NO* *OTHER* *SKILLS* *WHATSOEVER* in 3.5. In Pathfinder, that same fighter picks up fully maxed out class skills at every level where it's appropriate... AS WELL AS KEEPING THE OTHER SKILLS HE ALREADY HAD fully maxed to the new level cap. It is geometric power expansion curve... and if a class had enough levels to progress through, it would eventually aquire perfect competency in every skill in the system. Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
elnopintan wrote: The great problem I see to the 3.5 skill system is that it punish to the player that decide to get new skills after level 1. You can only maximize the skills that you select at first level. Some of us think that's a feature, not a bug. I think it's appropriate that if you don't start studying a skill until later in life, you aren't as good at it as someone who has worked it diligently their whole career. I just have a real issue with high level characters *suddenly* becoming one of the world's premier experts in something that they only trained in for the first time last week during their most recent level-up. I also have an issue with the gaming style where only maxed skills are important and useful. In my game lots of skills "top out" their usefulness somewhere betweeen 5 and 10 ranks. At whatever level where further development of the skill is pointless, that's a good place to begin developing another skill. It leads to broad competencies in many skills, while preverving the "expert" level of some skills for the people who actually need to routinely hit DC 25 and 30 checks. Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The good news is that the extreme anti-skill people will mostly migrate to 4e once it hits the shelves. 4e is already what they are looking for. My concern is for how long it will take the Pathfinder development team to realize that they *need* to take the path that is not a radical departure from 3.x. SAGA skills is a radical departure. And if I've got to deal with it, I might as well buy 4e. If Pathfinder does not adhere to 3.5 more closely than Alpha 1 does, then I don't think it's really done a good job of distinguishing itself... and it will not manage to find it's own market. Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
Quote:
The game also simulates a fictionalized quasi-medival style of play in many other settings... Like: Middle Earth, Krynn, Greyhawk, Uurth... Uurth is my own homebrew setting. I've been at it for about 28 years now. I'm sure there are a lot of other GMs out there that are the same. My point is that your assertions about playstyle apply to some (perhaps even many) groups. But they are *NOT* universal. The on/off skill system of Pathfinder (and 4e) is a *very* bad fit for games where there really are lots of Expert classed merchants running around rubbing shoulders with PCs. It's a bad fit for simulating that the 5th level commoner blacksmith really is a better blacksmith (because of his intense focus on it) than the 15th level Fighter that took 2 ranks in it over his entire career (because he was otherwise focused on adventuring and warfare). These things are *important* to us storytellers. With 60 years of player driven history in my game, I am here to attest that it works really well for some of us. And it's why I won't be going to 4e... and why, if Pathfinder stays with Saga skills, I won't be going to Pathfinder either. Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
There is also the political reason for keeping skill points: 4e dropped them. And the people who like that, are more likely to go play 4e anyway. Seriously: This is a fork in the road. I do not oppose all change, but this one is one of the reasons I hate 4e... Good changes: Some skills really should combine: The various Perception skills have needed combining for years now. Athleticism is a good thing, I think... But nuking skill points has a more profound change in the character of the game. It is very Min/Maxed when not all of us like that. 4e is very min/maxed... Pathfinder will not succeed if it treads *too closely* to 4e. The 800 lb Gorilla that is Hasbro will crush Pathfinder unless Pathfinder is sufficiently different from 4e to crystallize a separate "brand loyalty". It will be a long time before Pathfinder is the default. Until then it should strive specifically to support the people 4e is ignoring. Saga-style skills is one of the major areas where 4e is annoying the installed base... Pathfinder might do well to cater to this lost market. Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
I found a different thread first, but this seems to be the active one, so I apologize for this (a substantial repost): For starters, consider skills not found in the core Pathfinder rulebook but that, due to expansions that eventually find their way into your game are now available choices. Consider Grom the 19th level Barbarian: In 3.5 Grom is no more capable at many skills than a commoner. This is actually reasonable. Skill points represent applied experience in things the character has actually done or expects to do. So in areas where the character has never dabbled, even a 19th level character should still be an utter noob. For instance: Seamanship. If in Grom's career he has been a landlubber, then Grom should have no more idea how to handle a ship (or even small boats bigger than a canoe) than any other 1st level commoner. Now, at the point where Grom is about to get his 20th level, he knows that he is hunting an aquatic dragon and sees a need for this skill... With Pathfinder he is already magically talented in Seamanship in untrained ways. And if he makes it into a trained skill, he immediately jumps to be one of the the worlds most competent mortal sailors. (He is, after all, 20th level now!) With 3.5, Grom is free to put some skill points into Seamanship... He'll reach, maybe, rank 5. This is a very quick jump in talent in a skill, but not ridiculous. I like that Pathfinder offers ways to add additional class skills over time. I think *that* is a good thing. I think the Saga skill ranks thing is a very poor fit for those of us with Simulationist tendencies and a realistic view of how PCs should go about learning to do things. Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
I hold a contrary viewpoint: I like skill points and *DON'T* like Saga skills. This is enough of an issue for me that I won't be using Pathfinder. Consider Grom the 19th level Barbarian: In 3.5 Grom is no more capable at many skills than a commoner. This is actually reasonable. Skill points represent applied experience in things the character has actually done or expects to do. So in areas where the character has never dabbled, even a 19th level character should still be an utter noob. For instance: Seamanship. If in Grom's career he has been a landlubber, then Grom should have no more idea how to handle a ship (or even small boats bigger than a canoe) than any other 1st level commoner. Now, at the point where Grom is about to get his 20th level, he knows that he is hunting an aquatic dragon and sees a need for this skill... With Pathfinder he is already magically talented in Seamanship in untrained ways. And if he makes it into a trained skill, he immediately jumps to the worlds most competent mortal sailor. (He is, after all, 20th level now!) With 3.5, Grom is free to put some skill points into Seamanship... He'll reach, maybe, rank 5. This is a very quick jump in talent in a skill, but not ridiculous. I like that Pathfinder offers ways to add additional class skills over time. I think *that* is a good thing. I think the Saga skill ranks thing is a very poor fit for those of us with Simulationist tendencies and a realistic view of how PCs should go about learning to do things. Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
Having re-read the racial writeups for half-elf and human again after reviewing this thread... Really, there is no viable reason to *ever* be human. One proficient skill does *not* balance all those half-elf abilities. In my opinion the half-elf needs to lose some of it's human adaptibility and the human needs something just a bit better to flesh out it's adaptibility... For instance: Perhaps the human treats *all* core classes as favored, not just one of choice. (This would tend to make humans into the multiclass masters, something this version otherwise seems to discourage.) Gene P.
|