Search Posts
I have harassed them about this on their live update for the Kickstarter, thank you for the response. I hope they reach out soon!
So the kickstarter for Reaper's 5th bones set just wrapped up. I will admit that the thing that I was most disappointed about was that there was not any Pathfinder miniatures released in this line, in the new (and frankly quite awesome) Bones black material. Is there a plan for collaboration for new miniatures with Reaper, or is it just the paint line from here on out? (The paint line is freaking amazing by the way, for anyone who wants to paint any Pathfinder miniatures, the colors in that line are just gorgeous...and no, I don't work for Reaper.) This isn't an attack or criticism - I loved the line and heavily backed the kickstarter regardless of the lack of Paizo minis, just curiosity if there is anything in the works for more Pathfinder stuff in the new material...because quite honestly I prefer Reaper's work to Wizkids (not that they are bad either, just preference).
To make this a little worse, I suppose...I realized I could preorder the books on Amazon for 30% off, and not pay for shipping. For the difference in cost, I can now just buy the PDF copies on release. I'd rather have just given the money to you directly.
So, I thought, with 2E in the pipeline, I'd start off with just purchasing the first few books through the subscription to get the PDF bundle. I like having hard copies at the table, but for GM prep, there's nothing quite as nice as having all the PDFs (or even multiple copies of the same one) open at once. So, I went to the subscription, selected the book I wanted in the cart, and clicked 'proceed to checkout'. This takes me to a page, 1 of 4, that has reset my book choice. Annoying, but...okay. I select the book again. Click update quantities to make sure it saved, and then proceed to page 2. On page 2 I'm presented with shipping options. One for the rulebook, and one for the subscription setting. I'd like to change that from the standard, and do so. Cool, that part is done. I'd also like to change the option for this book that is going to ship. This kicks me back to page 1, and has changed my selection. I reselect my option on page one, click update quantities, and proceed back to page 2. I select my shipping option. I am redirected back to page 1, again with my choice removed. I play with this some more, and get redirected all the way back to the cart. To be clear - I'll figure this out, and get it resolved on my own. I'm not expecting anything out of this rant, except I hope that someone takes a serious look at the shopping cart and checkout systems. They're pretty bad, objectively speaking.
We know we'll get gunslingers eventually - so adding that first level spell 'Glock' would be handy. They'd also love the 'Magic Bang' spell I'm sure...or you could maybe combine that with the 'Fairy Lust' power...you know, whichever. We do need more fluff spells though, so having a 'Magic Band' spell that could play for parties at the 'Insect Dorm' would be handy. But really - Dinosaur Fort - totally needs to be added.
It would also be nice for all the college bugs out there to have an 'Insect Dorm' available in the game...I mean, party bugs gotta get down somewhere.
I really think the game would be improved with a power like 'Fairy Lust'.
Nintendo or Intellivision :pNintendo or Intellivision? In my days we played pong on the atari and liked it! Now get off my lawn! ;) Psh. You get off my lawn :D. My pong game was an orange console that clipped to the rabbit ears on the TV. It played pong, and that was it. But to the point - I really don't think that the giant numbers are going to do the game any favors. The 'difficulty' aside - the current state of the rules you're just going to have people sitting at the table with calculators to speed up the math, and I've been working hard to keep electronic devices (other than a single laptop for running music and important references) off the table. Numbers being high across the board slows things down. Not everyone can add 6d6+5 in their head quickly, let alone 1d20+23. One of the beautiful things in AD&D were the percentage rolls, something largely removed from all of the D20 systems. Somehow it is too complicated. I've never been sure how. Modifiers were in percentages, and you had an increasing or decreasing chance depending on your level of proficiency and any modifiers. Just like the system now - except you did some quick calculations BEFORE THE ROLL...once the dice were on the table - that was it. Everyone knew if you made it or failed, and could celebrate or panic together (barring hidden rolls, then it was all about the GMs poker face).
well I don’t think anyone’s arguIng spells shouldn’t be reduced somewhat, but the OP did a thorough job showing the level of nerfing felt extreme, and affected multiple aspects of most spells. I think some of us were hoping for a scalpel rather than an ax. Or, boost martials to cure any sense of imbalance rather than so much nerfing to magicWhen I've playtested casters I didn't feel bad or mediocre. And the people I've seen who have made those complaints have framed them as not being as overpowered as they were. To borrow a phrase "a loss of privilege is not discrimination". Casters were too good. Lowering their power level is not inherently over-nerfing them. I think almost all of us would agree - bringing others up to the power level of the magic users is acceptable. Bringing the magic down to the power level of a martial character is an odd decision. It is magic. It is implied 3.5 that Elminster has visited Earth. Does that mean we have to have an interplanetary teleport spell in the playtest? No. It doesn't. But having the system in the playtest feel like the arcane casting classes no longer have a remote chance in fulfilling the same stories as their predecessors on the same world is a little odd. Compare the Runelords to current casters(I've been reading about them lately), and tell me that something isn't wrong. Does the fix require that magic be more powerful than everything else? No, it really doesn't. It does, however, require a fix to not render previous narratives obsolete. Personally, this was my biggest issue with the MMO spellcasters in the edition that caused Pathfinder to exist. The stories about the people in the places that had already been told could no longer be told, without a hand-waving explanation that somewhere along the line magic was suddenly too weak for the exploits that the characters had done 10 years ago to happen again. This is the same situation, inexplicably, in a matter of a few years, suddenly the entire backbone has been ripped out of magic. It isn't about the 'damage per round' of the spells. It isn't about the distance that a teleport can take you, or how many rounds it takes to cast the spell. It's about the fact that at equal level, an arcane caster has nothing but weakness compared to everyone else. There is no 'shining area' for a sorcerer or wizard in this edition. The class may have been over powered previously, now they are almost useless by comparison to the other classes. Everyone else brings MORE to the table. Rogue, Bard, Ranger, Alchemist - all will do comparable damage to an arcane caster, even not built optimally and have more skills to use to help the party. Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin - will outshine the arcane casters in damage even if played with mild skill, given magic weapons at low and mid tiers, to say nothing of high tier. Particularly given the rate of failure of spell casting. Druid, Cleric - bring more versatile options to the table than the sorcerer or wizard while doing as much casting as the people who supposedly do nothing but studiously attempt to harness their inner power or struggle to learn other things because they're so focused on their spellbooks.
However, the main issue with Wizards remains because it is that which all arcane spellcasters share: nerfed spells, nerfed spell slots, nerfed spell DCs. Most certainly. 'Fireball' isn't really something you'll find in ancient literature.
Well, part of the problem here is that Merlin falls well short in terms of the spells he casts of what a high-level PF caster manages (Polymorph Other, Flesh to Stone, some illusions that aren't higher than 3rd level, and possibly Teleport are the top end of his repertoire except for one particular feat). If he's a model for the caster, he's either a mid-level one or the nerf to magic is quite extreme. And if the top end martials are supposed to be equal to Merlin, and the top end casters exceed his power by as much as they currently do, then you've not really solved anything.D&D/PF by now has its own pantheon of high-level casters who got actual literature written about them, like Elminster and Raistlin Majere. Looking for inspiration in sources which did not even have the concept of many of the spells D&D/Pathfinder uses really does not make all that much sense. You can look to older books for definitions of magic being awesome though. Merlin could predict the future, which is no small feat...but the really interesting things in Arthurian legend are the items. Someone had to craft them. It's really difficult to imagine that excalibur or the scabbard that contained it were created in a world where 3rd level spells are the cap. I tend to think of Merlin and Morganna being powerful enough to keep each other in check - similar to dragons with bordering territories. Magic should be narrative. If it isn't, it isn't magical.
Just to throw this out there, as someone who has both played in and GM'd several 'high level' 'mythic' and 'epic' level campaigns going back as long as there were rules for them, I've never been so underwhelmed looking at a spell list as I am when I look at magic in PF2E. I tend to think of magic in terms of the narrative power that it has - for better or worse. Can it tell the story of a magic user? Could the current magic system produce the casters that are in ANY of the iconic books that started many of us down the path to playing casters? I'm not overly familiar with the lore in Pathfinder, but Elminster and Raistlin would never have survived this casting system long enough to become legends. Gromph would have been destroyed by his fellow dark elves long before Liriel would have been born. Wrong system, I know...but...tell me I'm wrong.
Considering that I knocked out half a group with 4 goblins, and TPK'd with a couple quasits in the first playtest section (apparently I'm a mean GM that actually uses monster abilities like polymorph and knockdown.) I'd say that this being a 'friendly' 'helicopter GM' game is a little absurd. There are a lot of issues with the state of the game, being nice to the players is not one of them. I had to abandon my playtest because I couldn't motivate the players to want to continue to roll characters that I was going to murder with trash mobs.
I'm honestly shocked to find such a lively discussion still ongoing here. The core concept of the new edition is solid. Ancestry and Class feats are a great idea in theory. Making class and ancestry feats that will not be either niche choices or obvious choices will be a design challenge that I'm not sure ANY designer is up for over the course of many books. Things that give your character a bonus only in a certain situation are only interesting in a narrative standpoint if the situation comes up enough for it to be a defining aspect of a character. Certain options will inevitably be the 'core' options for each race and class, and players will be expected to have those options in order to be 'good' in organized play. It really feels like a lot of the redesign of the game comes specifically with society play in mind. For those of us that play with the same people we've played with for years, society play is less of a concern. So when core concepts of the game are changed to 'protect' a particular function of a class role, it really challenges our ability to play the game the way we want. Particularly when the protection extends only to certain things. Clerics are so much better at healing than everyone else, it's less of a protection and more of a system requirement to have a cleric in the group. If any other caster attempts to play the healer, they will use all of their casting resources for healing. Thievery checks are gated by proficiency levels, so someone MUST have it as a signature skill in the group, or you will not be able to unlock doors at high levels. All the other classes, despite the 'protections' are optional, but there is certainly not a way for the low-level characters to be kept alive in the action economy with just a bard or druid attempting to heal them. One of the concepts I was most excited about when it was first mentioned in the previews was the division of the spells. Arcane, Occult, Primal, and Divine. Then, we got the implementation, and everyone was stuck on one list...except oddly the clerics, who could cross over depending on their choice of religion. So...the class that has the most spells per day is the one that gets to cross the bridge and have arcane and divine spells. I'm no longer excited about this, instead I'm concerned that because of the high level power of arcane casters in previous editions, that they have been subject to restrictions by omission in order to keep people from complaining about them again. At my table, we EXPECT the wizard to be amazing at high level. They bend reality if they can survive long enough to do so. As it is though, I'll have trouble getting anyone to willingly play the wizard, since the casting options for the other classes are more compelling. A high level druid is just as capable of wiping a city off the map as a wizard. From a design balance standpoint, that is good...but what is it that a wizard has that makes it a unique class? Just what spell they use to do the same thing that everyone else can do? Ouch. Step down from your throne oh mighty wizard king, for none fear you. Currently they have NO unique 10th level spells, unlike EVERY OTHER LIST. Again, I'll be monitoring the forums, and the changes for the new edition. We haven't given up hope. We WANT the new edition to be worth moving to. The playtest, however, is too restrictive for our limited time at the table. We're too old and grumpy to test mechanics we aren't enjoying.
Except that signature skills limit what skill feats you can take now, which wasn't previously a concern. I get why some people dislike them, but I think keeping some form of "class skill" around is a good thing, to indicate the usual roles for a class member. There just need to be a reasonable, not overly-restrictive way to get extra signature skills (like we used to get class skills with Traits), and perhaps a flexible signature skill for each class. That's the big point right there. Signature skills are a gate. Proficiency levels are a gate. With no way to do that besides multi-classing (which you don't REALLY do currently) it's not role protection so much as role confinement. There is only one kind of cleric that can craft legendary level items. Hope no one wanted to cast fireball AND craft high level divine items, cause that's a no no.
Oh. See, I don't play for a couple years, and a sneaky variation shows up I haven't tried yet. Though, I will admit, the recharge stuff on there is a bit much usually, if it follows what was in 3.5
'Role protection' is actually another point that we really didn't enjoy. Slowly as editions have marched on the RPG has gone the way of balance in all the classes. Some people may disagree - but to some of us old timers - each class is intended to have a different function than the others. It is becoming harder and harder to see the differences between the classes when you strip away the descriptors and get down to the math. This is good, if your goal is to create a balanced computer game. This is awful if you are trying to get a group at the table to resemble a group of heroes in a story. I want the fighter to have a different role than the cleric and the wizard. I want the damage to be different...I want the weaknesses to be different. I do not want to change the descriptive words on the abilities I use and suddenly be a fighter when I am playing a bard. The old systems did tend to favor the caster classes at higher level. There was a solution in 3.5 that was a lot of fun to play with - 'The Book of Nine Swords'. If you just HAD to have melee characters that could keep up with the damage on a sneak attack or fireball, you could pick that book up and run with it. I've been meaning to do a conversion on it to balance it out to PF1, suppose I'll get started on that for my next campaign.
Let me start off by saying that my group and I had not played a game in about 3 years until shortly before the Pathfinder 2 announcement. We were excited to be able to participate in an edition transition from the company that rescued us from the nightmare that we found in 4th ed. I followed all of the previews for the Playtest, and shared them with my group as we took up a 'world-changing' campaign in our home brew setting, as is our tradition leading up to an edition change. We were so excited to run the playtest that we actually put a pause on our ongoing campaign to run through the system, despite being worried about some of the mechanical changes that we weren't quite sure what to make of. When we started the playtest, we were a little underwhelmed by how the system played. It felt very scripted, as though the encounters were coming straight out of a video game. We got through the first chapter, but we could not motivate ourselves to continue with the next portion of the test. We will continue to monitor the changes and updates, and perhaps will give the final product a go, but for now, we're going back to our current campaign. I'd like to leave some feedback before I mostly go into observation mode on the forums, I'll start with some things we liked, then get into the stuff that made us run away. 1. Character creation. Creating the characters without rolling the dice was an interesting option, and a written in mechanic to avoid the issue with tanked stats on a point buy was wonderful. 2. Conceptually, not having one 'initiative' stat was refreshing. Unfortunately the exploration to combat transitions tarnished this somewhat. 3. Not rolling hit points was nice (for most of us, one player actually liked the random concept of HP). 4. Spell progression changes, as well as the metamagic changes. The concept of casting a spell at a higher level, and having scaling cantrips is a favorite. This will likely move into our house rules for future 1st ed games. Even with the reduced number of spells per day, the casters felt as though they would be able to be useful in the 'minor' combat situations. Now to transition to the less pleasant feedback. --- Class feats were advertised as a way to create customized characters to play any character we wanted. Instead we have limitations on which class abilities we have access to, and those limitations come with situational benefits that are often underwhelming. Other options are nearly required for good party play. --- Class locked character concepts. Want to get the benefits for dual wielding? Better pick the correct class. We were really hoping for feat options that were more akin to the 'mythic adventures' options. A general pool, some 'role-specific' pools. Options, rather than restrictions. --- Action economy and critical hits. The action economy seems to work well to remove some restrictions on movement and attacking. It also, in it's current form, allows for potentially super-lethal combat. I've never knocked out half a group of players with 4 goblins before. This one was key to our lack of enjoyment. Monsters with low hit points and high damage are not interesting in a narrative. Combat is short and deadly, even in some situations where it should not be at low level. The slime in the first area nearly knocked a character out. --- The change from 'Race' to 'Ancestry' again advertised a way to make your dwarf unique and interesting. Instead we have situational options that lack any new flavor and options that were previously granted to any member of a race gated behind racial feats. --- There are multiple threads already on the 'exploration' mode, so I'm going to keep this short - the transitional rules from combat to encounter mode being so strictly defined make for a far more 'game like' experience, rather than a seamless narrative. --- Signature skills - from a narrative standpoint this is telling people what they can and cannot let their character concept be. This is also saying that a good general is not also likely to be a skilled negotiator. All kingdoms must send bards or rogues to negotiate for them at high level. That trusted knight can just sit and listen. --- Resonance. Conceptually, the idea of removing the need to fill each slot with the best magic item is one we actually really liked. The concept, however, was used as a tool to seemingly 'fix' something that is only broken if a GM allows it to be. I would instead do something along these lines. Equally less popular with the spam crowd, but more engaging in a narrative game. -Tie potions to constitution modifier. Current 'overspend' rules can still apply. You're drinking magic.
I disagree; in that while of some use in itself; one could simply play PF1 with the unchained action economy rules to get largely the same benefits. I'm right there with you. I can't say I'm a fan of the action economy as it is. Most of the other options besides attacking feel like they are there to give you a reason not to have the monsters massacre the PCs. Since the monsters all have better attack modifiers than the PCs, they also seem to get a better advantage on the action economy than the PCs. Casters in particular feel like they've lost out on this. 'Look, you can cast a spell and move'. Yep. Could do that before. Exactly as I'm doing it in 2e. But hey, the fighter just got a double move and an attack....then attacked again. That's cool. I'm just going to stand here though, cause moving my feet and my fingers at the same time isn't possible.
I'm very much a fan of not having dedicated slots, or 'required' items. As stated above, I'd really like to see something more along the lines of a pool of 'investment' points tied to your level. No stats, no bonuses. 1 magic item per level, or better yet 1/2 level in magic items minimum 1. A 20th level fighter should be able to have trinkets and items that are worth something to be invested in. Rings, armor, a shield...even weapons. Investment in items needs to be an all in thing for permanent magical items, not a pick and choose mechanic. I even dig the old mechanic - as much as people hated it even in my own group - the concept that you couldn't just pick up the BBEG's gear and put it on. You needed to take it somewhere and spend time doing nothing but identifying those items before using them. Now, that may be extreme, but making items limited too. A magical item can only be invested in by one character per day. (The GCP playtest part with the dagger being passed back and forth nearly killed me from a narrative standpoint) Wands can be solved by limiting them to casting modifier of charges per day, and they must be invested into like any other item. To keep that clunky clw wand thing away, you simply restrict the user from being able to invest in a wand of the same spell more than once, or that you can only invest in a number of wands equal to your casting modifier per day. Potions can be solved by stating that you can only drink 1 potion per con modifier per day before having to make fortitude saving throws to avoid 'potion sickness'. You are consuming the magical forces and mystical ingredients in order to empower your body - drinking too many of these potions induces nausea and fatigue. Failing said flat check prevents eating or drinking ANYTHING until rested. Scrolls can function similarly to wands. Reading a magical scroll does not cost the user anything, as the scroll was invested with magical power during it's creation. The creator CAST the spell into the scroll. After casting their key modifier of scrolls in a day, each subsequent scroll cast is subject to a flat will save. You are gazing upon raw magical energy in the form of written words. Failure to to make said save induces fatigue, all spells cast the rest of the day would require an extra action, and no further scrolls can be used that day. Staves are basically invested the same as they are now, except there should not be an extra resonance cost to activate them. One staff that can be invested at a time, with a few wands. This greatly increases the spell flexibility of the caster considering their limited spell slots at this stage, but ties their casting to a limited resource that has to be managed. Honestly I thought the staves were just absolutely awesome until I realized you had to invest a point and then spend to cast the spells...do people actually use staves as a melee weapon on their wizard in active play enough to make that change necessary?
The trick magic item feat should mostly function just like it does in the written rules, only you can use it to invest in items that are not part of your class or spell list. You can only invest in one item at a time for each spell list that you do not normally have access to. This prevents your wizard from becoming the primary healer by investing in those pesky cure light wounds wands, but allows a wizard with cleric dedication to pick up those wands normally if she has the appropriate feats.
I'm not 100% sure on the math, but the thing that strikes me most odd is 'creature 1' for the quasits. This is a creature that can heal the average damage each round of most of the party members, on top of becoming invisible at will, to say nothing of the wolf form and knockdown.
What is the '1' being compared to?
It is interesting to see another group suffer a TPK in the first part of Doomsday Dawn. Honestly, looking at the stat blocks, if a GM rolls well, and the players do not, I fail to see how they players could possibly survive short of a GM fudging rolls.
1. How long did it take to play this part of Doomsday dawn? 1st attempt 4 players, couple hours in to the session we realized that they would need to rest several times over the course of the adventure to complete it. (Cleric, Barbarian, Wizard, Alchemist) Second attempt, with 5 players, after alerting the goblins, running back to rest, then coming back down into the dungeon we spent several more hours (keep in mind everyone is reading the rules together, and we have a couple younger teenagers in the group) TPK at the quasits.
2. how long did it take to prepare this part of the adventure? A couple hours reading and re-reading through things aside from the other reading to learn some of the rules. 3. How many sessions did it take for you to play through this part of the adventure? I'll let you know if anyone ever survives it. 4. How many Hero Points (in total) did you give out during this part of the adventure? Five. 5. How many times was a player reduced to 0 hit points during this part of the adventure? Aside from the TPK of 5 players, an additional 4 times. 6. How many player characters were killed during this part of the adventure? 5 so far...we'll see if I can convince anyone to continue the test so I can kill more.
Before continuing on, understand that I actually like some of the concepts of the playtest. I even like the action economy - but it needs some gates. Three attacks at level one is bad for both players and npcs alike. Two spells in one round seems cool, until you realize that one of those spells has a duration of 1 round, and the other one is really not a spell, but your default attack roll as a caster. Casters are raising their shield and attacking. They don't get to move too, like the fighter, but the actual fundamental concept is the same. Why do the classes need to feel the same? That is EXACTLY why I refused to touch 4e D&D, and how Paizo landed a community of people that wanted to play a game where there were options for heroes that weren't all the same. I understand this is a playtest, and I understand that the goal is to test some mechanics, however, the world feels like an old video game rather than a narrative story. The first chapter of the playtest basically assumes that all of the creatures in every room are deaf to the sounds of combat in the other, otherwise silent stone rooms that fill this 'adventure'. Your perception rolls now force you to search only in a cone - the fog of war has become the loading screen for the players and npcs alike. Ambush? What ambush? You can't do that, because you always have to roll initiative, because taking a hostile action allows the players or npcs to become aware of your presence. You don't actually have to succeed at your hostile action, just take it. The arrow flew down the hallway - too bad, they know you are there now, no checks needed. Rolling initiative is rolling initiative, even if you call it perception, but the way the system words the action for 'seek' you should totally have a penalty if you are rolling perception against creatures starting combat behind you, but what is the point of stealth, if it only helps the rogues? No one else acting first gets any benefit from being stealthed before combat starts. Reading through the rest of the book, with scaling DCs for everyone, the players will never feel 'heroic' as they are going to be failing at things as often as they succeed, and for some reason everything will be getting stronger as they do. (Is Paizo working with Bethesda on the next Elder Scrolls game?) Starting the dungeon. Imagine your party doesn't roll particularly well on saving throws or perception in the first chamber. In round one, the first character into the chamber takes 1d6+1, 1d4, and 1d4 damage, and maybe even another 1d6+1 +1d4 as that second strike comes in at a +2 to hit. (so..14 damage on average if your GM rolls like I did last night) Even so, you manage to kill the low AC slime, get the individual healed up, and you think...okay, we have resources, we can move on. Luckily for your party the goblins in the next room are SO FOCUSED! (I mean, what goblin isn't FOCUSED!) That they don't hear the sound of the filth wave or subsequent 6 seconds of spells and weapon blows, and thus do not prepare to ambush the players. So, you get to roll initiative against the goblins, rather than having them all firing arrows at you when you bring a light source into the room that is filled with darkness...cause even that doesn't actually distract the goblins, the program did not include a reason for the goblins to roll a perception check here. The goblins, being goblins, once engaged, are bastions of courage - they know that there are centipedes that will not attack them (why?) living in their den, but they won't run from the PCs to hide in there, nor will they run off to try and get more of their kin to come and assist with killing off those nasty longshanks - because...well, that part of the video game hasn't loaded yet, so just be quiet until we get there. Then again, why would they need to? With three attacks at +6,+1,-4, why do they need to run? Why would they not be proud to stand there and fire off 3 arrows each at that guy standing there that doesn't look like he's wearing armor. With only a 12 AC, that first shot is going to be a critical hit on the roll of a 16, and the second shot has a better than 50% chance to hit. Oh, so you say the goblins would never focus on a single enemy like that...well, that's okay, they switch it up...because that first attack still crits on an 18-20 against that guy with the big sword too. Score one for the players - the creepy crawlies won't attack goblins or leave the room, so a wizard with the electric arc cantrip can just go ahead and stand in the entrance and zap them all to death. The embedded code in this video game does not account for hostile actions, they will not leave the room. Oh, look, party member a goblin? He can just go stab them all according to the program code, they won't attack him. Mindfog Fungus -(don't get the next part wrong, I dug this little shroom) if you were ever wondering if your first level titan-mauler barbarian could kill your wizard - you have a decent chance of figuring this out in this encounter with a mostly inanimate object. The fountain, the idol, and subsequent attack by two 'creature 1' demons. 'Creature 1' Despite having a 4th level spell, an at will 3rd level spell, and an action that can be used every round to heal themselves almost as well as an alchemist can spending one and a half to two resonance points. Also not accounting for the +7,+3,-1 (keeping in mind that the last attack has a 1 in 4 or better chance of hitting all of the party members that do not have a 16 ac) attack option. Never mind the idea that it can change shape into something that moves faster than any of the characters, with a better attack bonus and knockdown...if they don't simply decide to turn invisible, hit someone and fly away...and repeat this until everyone dies to the poison on their attacks. (This, played by someone who does not assume that the int +0 creatures are not in fact completely unaware of their own abilities, means the near instant death of whichever player happens to spawn the creatures, and likely, if the party is not at full health, a TPK.) BUT! OUR PLAYERS HAVE PREVAILED! The demons are dead! Fighting previously mentioned quasits is again somehow not loud enough to be heard in other chambers - the goblins are only aware of the PCs if they happen to trigger a trap in the hallway. Since our PCs had a rogue, they've managed to bypass the alarm. But hey, those goblins sound distracted, so what is in this other chamber? Skeletons...wait...they aren't following us...queue anyone that can disrupt undead from outside the chamber... Back to the goblins? Eh...they're still talking...let's bash open this door. Oops. Our cleric didn't notice that this was a pharasma trap, and the rogue didn't think to use stealth on a statue cause they forgot that being sneaky applies to finding things. Everyone takes 1d6 damage if they fail their save...once. You know...sand lingering for a minute...but...first level...so one time you choke, after that it isn't so bad. Keep in mind that gagging on this is not loud enough to distract the goblins you've ignored, or the guy in the room over here because the monsters were not programmed to listen for these sounds. The 'boss' of the goblins will continue to eat, and always be eating unless the PCs engage the boss only after not successfully opening a door on the first try or sneaking up from the other direction. Never mind that in order to successfully get to this point, the PCs may have gone back to the surface several times to rest and heal. The number of goblins in the chambers will not change, this particular meal has an endless supply of blood, so it's all good. Fighting this guy though, that's not good. Those quasits were 'creature 1'. This guy, he's a 'creature 3' his attacks are at a +10,+5,+0 with his sword if he stands there and swings. He crits that monk there on a 16. Wants to use his claw instead? Eh, that second attack is a +6 instead, sure it does less damage, but at this point, he's grabbed that poor guy and is going to hit him one more time...now he's flat footed. That ac is a bit lower, so even though it's a +0 to hit, his target is now only a 13. Poor guy has just taken a minimum of 12 points of damage. If this guy didn't drop any of your players to 0 hp, you roll really poorly, or play your monsters a lot differently than I do. I assume the monsters actually don't WANT to die, but rather to live and continue their evil plans.
I am tremendously excited to see a race of creatures that have such a widespread population and diverse culture be adapted to a 'core' concept race. People talk about things that you had to get DM approval for, or might cause controversy in a game, but that can happen just by having an elven wizard and a human sorcerer in the same game if you are actually ROLE-PLAYING. Conflict resolution within a party is one of the things that make the story interesting. I am currently running a campaign - on a home-brew world, with the pathfinder rules. The party - with no goblins - encountered a group of goblins and killed most of them until one of the characters thought to knock one out for questioning. After questioning, they decided that they should let the goblin live, and offered it a place in their party. They now have a goblin 'mascot' that needs reminding occasionally to behave. Their 'mascot' has gained class levels, and assists them in their objective, realizing that it will be taken care of far better as an adventurer with the rag-tag group of characters that let him live than he ever would have been with his own people, just by the vary nature of their culture differences. He still won't ride a stinky horse, but he'll happily scarf down all the jerky they can provide. Why is it so difficult to imagine a goblin hero in a world where you can have a dark elf, or tiefling that are 'usually bent towards evil' end up as your party's 'good' cleric?
So, a dragon of this age and power is a likely place to have accumulated some pretty amazing things. If I wanted to teach my PCs that really powerful dragons were really powerful, I'd give the dragon two items in addition to his treasure. A talisman of the sphere and a sphere of annihilation. I would then make liberal use of illusion spells. This would be a very short lived experience for the PCs.
Not so much as a question - but more of a high level crafting thing - I'd love to see more information on what it takes to create artifacts, huge areas of permanent spell effects, and unique items. There are whole lists of unique items and they often give the requirements for the items themselves, but it would be nice to have more flavor information on why these things are unique...as in, what certain ritual affects might have on crafting an item. To take a real world example - the traditional means of forging a katana include everything from the outfit they wear to where the ore comes from. It would be really cool to have rules for certain things, even down to a special plant they use to make the ink for harrow decks. Special rules for using special materials - and having all of those materials in one book would be awesome too. edit - to clarify - I'd like more fluff for crafting info. Crunch is actually pretty clear for most of it IMO.
I have played an oriental themed caster right along side a wizard that was using standard spells. If you want some good ideas on how elemental spells work for defense and offense, look to the L5R/3.5 Oriental Adventures books - specifically to the magic of rokugan and way of the shugenja books. There is a whole list of things that are elemental themed and not like the spells in any of the other books. If you get really into elemental combinations there are spells that combine elements to do interesting things. Probably one of my favorite characters I've ever played was a full on Rokugan Shugenja that had a bunch of feats so he could take all the different spells.
Aaaaand le dots continue.
Last line of the entry says 'this ability replaces arcane school' - that means that they don't get any of the school related benefits, including the universalist school benefit.
I would think that something like this could easily fall under dexterity instead of strength for the check - all about the accuracy of the shot. Think hitting kneecaps or elbows. Personally I love the idea of being able to mix guns and a class for guns into my campaigns, as I like all things steampunk - and I can't imagine a steampunk type game without them. However, until they are balanced with everything else, I have to wait. I really dislike building my own things and then having everyone else playing out of the rulebooks - so I often prohibit 'homebrew' things in my games...but this is one of those things I'm seriously considering as an exception to that.
If a decent POS system was in place, they would be able to track things better, which would alleviate some of the issues. After the service tracking issues, the rest of them are really just logistics numbers that Paizo could set, if the stores didn't agree to them, then they wouldn't be eligible to set up the subscriptions. I don't by any means think this is an easy fix, nor do I think it is one that Paizo should be putting the effort into creating. I work for a POS software company, and this kind of thing isn't simple at all...but it could be done, and done well. It honestly is on the end of the stores that changes need to be made, because if those changes were made, the rest of the setup on Paizo's end wouldn't change from the business model that you are using currently... the POS system interfacing with a database maintained on Paizo's end would be able to manage it all, if the POS system was well written, and designed with applications like this in mind. The unfortunate thing is that most POS systems are very generic, and something like this would need to be done in a very specific way. After it was in place - then Paizo might consider working on resolving the remaining logistical problems. Until then, I wouldn't expect you to try to do anything at all with it...it's not worth setting up for one or two stores that are capable, it would have to be something where the stores met certain criteria, and the subscription prices would be higher - and the customers would know that, and choose to do it or not. I appreciate you taking the time to respond though! I think Paizo is doing a great job with the business model that it has - and that you shouldn't be looking to change things on your end.
I actually read this post from Vic shortly after it was written. It honestly makes me sad that there are so few hobby shops that actually can track things and offer service in an 'acceptable' manner. That's really on the shops though, and while I can't do anything to improve people's faith in one of the last mom and pop style stores left in the world - I can maybe work on writing some kind of point of sale software for the hobby shop industry. Apparently it's in need of some inventory tracking help.
I love my local brick and mortar store. It's the reason that you don't see pathfinder ___ subscription after my name on the forums. If there were an option that I could have my books delivered to my brick and mortar store, and give them the business they need to survive, while still using my account to be a pathfinder subscriber, I would do so. I honestly think that is the route that Paizo would need to go with to satisfy their subscriber model, and still support the brick and mortar stores. Allow people to have subscriptions that are set up through a brick and mortar place. Make them follow all of the normal instructions for downloading any PDF's that come with their subscription. Make them get to their brick and mortar store to pick up their book. I would think that a model like that would not only be feasible, but have the advantage of other companies doing some of the marketing work for Paizo. On the forums, and for their subscriptions, you could allow stores to upload store logos. It'd be spiffy.
Almost every instance I have seen on these forums that says 'level 10+ is bad mmmmmkay?' seems to be a direct result of parties not being played with a group of people that don't have a balanced group. (i.e. missing a cleric or a wizard) OR people who are complaining that encounters at that level are either too easy or too hard to deal with for the party. Personally, I think that it is a matter of some groups not understanding that the gameplay is designed around having a balanced group of adventurers as well as a variety of challenges...many things can be circumvented, but with careful planning on the part of the campaign GoD(yes, I like Game Operations Director...it makes me happy), high level campaigns are some of the most entertaining to run, because they present challenges for GoD as much as they do for the players. No, you can't just assume that you can make a BBEG and a horde of dimwits to support him and call it a campaign. Yes, you can expect to put hours of design into a gameplay session that may only last half the amount of time that you put in to it. But - even given those things, high level adventures give people OPTIONS for their characters that aren't possible at lower levels. Campaigns can start to span entire continents without having to take months of off time for travel, and adventurers can break hordes of low level monsters and show off their abilities. Some of the most memorable gaming sessions come when a character manages to do something in a creative way that GoD didn't expect.
@ the OP - yeah, I feel the same way. Unlike a lot of other people though, I love the crunchy bits that come from prestige classes and from other things, and would love to see them come in to play in a way that I don't have to sacrifice my right arm in order to receive them. One thing that's always driven me nuts about a lot of the content, is that it all comes in to play by taking away from the original class. I don't want to lose bloodline things or familiar advancement to take a prestige class. I don't think that anything that is a specialized style should limit something that is at the core of what your original class is. I understand limiting things that you get that haven't happened yet, but stopping something that already is progressing to me is silly. Wizards and Fighters wouldn't continue to gain feats from their classes, but progressive things that are already going would continue. Yes, this makes characters more powerful, but it's also more logical. Archetypes are silly when you get to the point that multiclassing outperforms them, and this is true for quite a few of the newly presented archetypes. Give me crunchy options to make my characters unique, and remember that even a character that knows all the spells and has all the feats in the world can still only take a certain number of actions in a round. Remember that not everyone thinks that just because they're 20th level that they should have maxed out their casting stat. I hate that I can't have crunch because other people min max their abilities.
I have found that having a player that is experienced enough to share key parts of the DMing is more useful than having a character as a DM. I co-DM a campaign with someone and we often trade rolls, even in the middle of the session. The other players get a kick out of the slightly different personality quirks that we each bring to the player character that we use, but we get the best of both worlds - a full PC that the other characters know is part of their party, and the ability to gently lead the party in certain directions when we need them to move. The one thing I would caution is to make sure that a character played in this way is NEVER the leader of the group. They might occasionally insist upon a course of action, or even act on their own, but they should not be dragging the group around by the nose.
There are several feats in the advanced players guide that do not show up as 'monk feats' for the purpose of selecting them as part of the list of 'bonus feats' that a monk gets. Why would there not be additions to the list, some may require a specific level of monk before being able to be selected, but why weren't feats such as 'spider step', 'cloud step', and 'cockatrice strike' added as feats that a monk could select as part of their 'bonus' list. It seems like they would fit in nicely with the already listed feats in the core book. It is frustrating to see feats added to the list for fighters in each book, but not for monks. |
