My PDF order has been stuck on "Pending" and "not available" since 10am this morning, but the CRB came through just fine. Is there something up with the Bestiary file or is it me?
Search Posts
Love the panoramic shots of settlements, and I totally understand how difficult they are to pull off, but I'm sure somebody was pretty mad when the one on page 7 came back.
I adore them. They’re the last fragment of the old vernacular of Dragon, and they give me enormous insight into what the creative lead was thinking when developing the AP. They are the first thing that I read in every issue, and the only thing that I have read in every single one.
Still subbed. Time flies.
Finally! :)))) Indeed! I'm honestly quite surprised that they lasted as long as they did. I loved the journals in the early years, but I looked at them less and less as time has passed. Now, I don't even glance at them. I think this is good news, and I can't wait to see what Paizo does with the extra pages.
There is a ton of space available for this one. Won't you come along and toss some dice with us? The event occurs a week from tonight on Wednesday.
Competition. Raw, brutal, yet governed competition. This is Conflict PvP. Conflict focuses on the ultimate combat experience — player versus player combat. Ayronis' Arena is a casual and competitive Pathfinder RPG one-shot in which player characters fight one another in a battle to the death using the Conflict PvP team-combat rules. It is a fun and fast way to play a character build you've been dying to try while winning glory and renown among your friends. We play entirely online with the SyncRPG VTT(Maptool) & G+Hangouts, and one session takes about 2-3 hours. You wanna fight? See Game Page for details: Ayronis' Arena.
Posting just to say thanks to all three of you for this thread, especially John Mangrum. I needed settlement stats for Katapesh and this helped.
This is so awesome. You guys are my heroes.
We still have slots available for this one. Please register your 3rd level character here if you want to join us on Wednesday night:
We're hoping to get at least a 3v3 going, but we've only had 2 signups so far. Anyone else interested? Currently 7 slots remaining.
Competition. Raw, brutal, yet governed competition. This is Conflict PvP. Conflict focuses on the ultimate combat experience — player versus player combat. Ayronis' Arena is a casual and competitive Pathfinder RPG one-shot in which player characters fight one another in a battle to the death using the Conflict PvP team-combat rules. It is a fun and fast way to play a character build you've been dying to try while winning glory and renown among your friends. Played entirely online with the SyncRPG VTT & G+Hangouts, it is a fun and easy way see the token sight and dynamic lighting, combat and spell macros, and high-quality art—all for free. You wanna fight? See Game Page for details: Ayronis' Arena
Thanks for all the awesome, Sean. "He came to us from California. Never failed in his duty. Kept his vows best he could. He rode far, fought fiercely. We shall never see his like again."
After reading, and loving, the Kobold guides to Game Design, I already had pretty high expectations for this one. I was not disappointed in the least. There is at least one solid take-away to be found in every essay. This book should be a must read for anyone who has played the game for a few years and is ready to delve into the craft of world building in a serious way. I wish I had this book fifteen years ago. While there are larger, more complete, surveys of demography and climatic issues, I have never seen such an effective survey of the topics that really matter, and make the difference, in delivering a quality game world to your players.
In the feat index, a feat "Crane Reposte (Combat)" appears in both the "C" list and the Combat Feats list, but I am pretty sure it is a typo for Crane Riposte (Combat) and should be deleted.
I have to agree with what the others are saying here; this is a beautiful and inspiring book. In so many ways, this was the campaign setting that I had been looking for since I first made the change into Third Edition. It takes advantage of many features of 3E+, especially and including the new stuff in PF, without deviating from the expected norms for the game. It innovates where it should and leaves the core assumptions in place. This makes it a useful setting for new players and a handy tool for GMs, even if they only want to mine it for their own setting. There are a LOT of good ideas here. The flavor details are sophisticated and intelligent, without being overwhelming. I have been excited about this product from the very beginning (Patron), but I am a more than satisfied customer. This is one of the finest products I own, and I am excited to play with all my new toys.
The Axial of Virtue
I did not tell the players that I was tracking their sins. When they reached Runeforge, I used the surging sin-magic to create “flashbacks” to their characters less than benevolent actions. This served as a great device to remind the players how far they had come over the three years of our campaign, and it gave them fresh reminders of their character's habits, which made roleplaying the surging emotions easier. This folded nicely into the effects caused by the Runeforged weapons, and the Prideful character in our group has become almost intolerable now that he has a Domineering Runeforged weapon. It has all made for great flavor as we wind up the final approach the Mhar Massif.
These essays are historic and will be treasured for many years. Thank you for taking the time to write them. They are really informative, moving even.
This is an outstanding thread. You are an inspirational creator and a good rules tinker. Nicely done, sir.
Tymon, in the River Kingdoms, is what you are looking for. It is covered in the story portion of Pathfinder #35.
There are a few references to Taldor having a gladiatorial tradition as well.
Sorry if its an obvious question, but if a city said Spellcasting 7th, does that mean there are people who can cast 7th-level spells or is it that the highest level npc would have a caster level of 7th? It is the highest level of spell that is available for purchase at that settlement. It is left up to you to interpret what classes/NPCs actually can facilitate this, but by knowing the highest level available, you can effectively gauge the power in that particular site. From the PRD:
Spellcasting: Unlike magic items, spellcasting for hire is listed separately from the town's base value, since spellcasting is limited by the level of the available spellcasters in town. This line lists the highest-level spell available for purchase from spellcasters in town. A town's base spellcasting level depends on its type.
Wow, tough crowd. I didn't realize some guy's list of suggestions for ways to avoid possible mistakes in world-building and storytelling would provoke so much vitriol for guns in PF. Especially since it isn't even about guns. My bad? I rarely post on here, but I found his thoughts on (4) and (5) to be particularly stimulating so I thought I'd share. I never considered the way terms like "vandalize" or "champagne" could break verisimilitude for a reader (player) before. And the comments on the economy aren't about figuring out the economics of your fake-world, but instead gives us a way to identify how much accuracy is needed. I thought it was interesting.
Someone (Shaun Farrell?) posted an interesting article on adventuresinscifipublishing.com entitled: Five Things You Should Never Do in Epic Fantasy. It is technically about writing fiction, but I think the advice could just as easily apply to writing PF adventures. The list is summarized as follows, but see the article for the full explanation: 1) Do not put baled hay into a world that has not had its Industrial Revolution.
If we had more call for 18th, 19th, or 20th level adventures from our customers, we would do one. I've been pushing for us to do a 20th level module for a long time, but it's REALLY hard to justify something like that when lower level modules just make more money and are just more popular. I would love to see a 20th level module. I hope we get to see one someday. Even if I never had the chance to run it, having an example of one would be invaluable to me as a guide when I need to write my own adventures around that level. How important do you think the need for Mythic Level rules is then, if there isn't even sufficient interest to produce 18th+ level modules profitably?
Unfortunately, it is not possible to take make a full attack during the Surprise Round. The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs. Consequently, you may only move or attack during a surprise round so it would not be possible to make more than a single attack, even with the Surprise Attack talent. This talent provides the advantage of making attacks against enemies during the surprise round as if they were flat-footed *even if you lose initiative*.
Absolutely loving this addition. Thank you Paizo, I will get extensive use out of this (these?).
Those of you who interpret SR as affecting all spells, including (harmless) spells, how do you interpret:
The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. One can insist that Spell Resistance applies to all spells in RAW, but how then do you interpret the "Spell Resistance:(harmless)" label on numerous spells? Do you simply ignore it? If so, why don't you ignore the other (harmless), in Saving Throws, and require the target to make a saving throw?
How do you interpret the meaning of “harmless” spells? Specifically, does Spell Resistance (SR) force a caster level check with harmless spells or not? This is significant because there are many beneficial spells, specifically Cure spells, that become hard for monks after 12th level (Diamond Soul) to receive, but it applies to a few prestige classes and many monsters as well.
If we read the term "harmless" to mean the *same thing* for SR as saving throws, then it would look something like:
This suggests to me that the intention of (harmless) was to allow people to benefit from helpful spells if they want them. The next line,
functionally renders the meaning of (harmless) useless. This sentence means that all spells require SR checks. Note the "must" and "such" in the rule above. Read in this way, what is the purpose of having a (harmless) category for SR at all? The issue is further confused by the legacy. Look at this passage in previous editions:
The wording in 3.5 clarified that it requires a standard action to lower Spell Resistance, which is something that 3rd Edition never specified or described. I think that the (harmless) category was always intended to make it possible for characters to receive beneficial spells if they desired them. In light of the fact that the final sentence in PF functionally renders the concept of "Spell Resistance:(harmless)" meaningless, and the development of the wording in previous editions, I think that the intention to make beneficial (i.e. harmless) spells accessible is clear. So how do we interpret the rule? The first and the second sentence contradict each other. The first sentence allows it while the second one forbids it. In light of the development of the wording and consequences of this judgment on beneficial spells, I urge GMs to interpret this for themselves. Personally, I think the (harmless) category was always intended to make such spells available to characters with SR and this is how I plan to play it, but I am curious to hear other interpretations. So how do you interpret the meaning of “Spell Resistance: (harmless)” in your games?
Thank you for drawing our attention to this passage. The issue is now really muddled. If we read the term "harmless" to mean the *same thing* for SR as saving throws, then it would look something like:
This suggests to me that the intention of (harmless) was to allow people to benefit from helpful spells if they want them. The next line,
functionally renders the meaning of (harmless) useless. As TriOmegaZero points out, this sentence means that all spells require SR checks. Note the "must" and "such" in the rule above. Read in this way, what is the purpose of having a (harmless) category for SR at all? The issue is further confused by the legacy. Look at this passage in previous editions:
The wording in 3.5 clarified that it requires a standard action to lower Spell Resistance, which is something that 3rd Edition never specified or described. I think that the (harmless) category was always intended to make it possible for characters to receive beneficial spells if they desired them. In light of the fact that the final sentence in PF functionally renders the concept of "Spell Resistance:(harmless)" meaningless, and the development of the wording in previous editions, I think that the intention to make beneficial (i.e. harmless) spells accessible is clear. So how do we interpret the rule? The first and the second sentence contradict each other. The first sentence allows it while the second one forbids it. In light of the development of the wording and consequences of this judgment on beneficial spells, I urge GMs to interpret this for themselves. Personally, I think the (harmless) category was always intended to make such spells available to characters with SR and this is how I plan to play it, but I am curious to hear other interpretations.
Gorbacz is right. I quoted the relevant text above.
I think it is pretty clear here that you only apply Spell Resistance "if it [i.e. the target] desires". For those of you ruling that you MUST apply SR to Cure spells, how do you interpret the meaning of (harmless) in the SR field?
I remember you mentioning that Second Darkness wasn't a popular or well recieved AP. As it's among my favourites, I have a hard time comprehending why you say that. What was it about the AP that wasn't good? Thank you for this insightful response James. That was an extremely informative and useful answer. It shows how much you listen, but more importantly shows how much you really understand this game. I am consistently impressed by you guys.
This whole project shows a lot of dedication and class. I love it. Thank you, guys and gals.
Wu Jen... certainly not. However, there were Wu... and they were most likely the inspiration behind the Wu Jen. You can find a wikipedia entry about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_(shaman) That was fascinating reading. Thanks for sharing that link.
Thank you for making and sharing this. I will get much use from this.
Great post Fergie. Thanks for doing the math. Those are some interesting figures to think about, especially the "No Magic" one.
I don't see why making monster listings a higher CR actually has anything to do with the amount of magic in a game. Low-magic games can be quite powerful. They can have equal amounts of treasure and equal amounts of DR-breaking items, especially silver and cold iron weapons. The party caster can use his spells shrewdly, even if he has fewer. It doesn't have to do with the amount of magic per se; it has to do with the re-balancing that is necessary when magic spells and magic items are made less available to the player. With NPCs, this isn't an issue, but some monsters can become much more dangerous if magic isn't available to combat them. The lack of generic 'Big Six' items doesn't mean that the party is weaker. It may mean that they need to play better in order to overcome some of their foes. At the adventure design level, the baseline CR system assumes the player has a certain degree of magical power. If you remove this, you are essentially increasing the CR of most enemies that were not similarly penalized. Most low-magic games reduce the amount of magic items, so it isn't just about the lack of the 'Big Six', but the lack of magic items at all that makes the party weaker. There are a lot of variables in all of this (e.g. how much less, why kinds of magics are reduced, etc.) I believe the game can allow for these changes without too much difficulty, but the GM needs to be able to design encounters that consider the change. NPC encounters are no trouble at all since they are similarly affected, and many monsters work just fine. But in my games, truly magical creatures get CR increases of +1 to +3 depending n how unfavorable the circumstances of the encounter are. In Auxmaulous's example above, I would probably treat that Bebilith as CR +2 (=12) since my players would have few defensive items but would still have access to a few clerical spells or scrolls.
Fergie, without rehashing the details, I am fully convinced that you can accomplish what you are looking for. Mok's right, that you should build a table of values to compare things with, but in principle I am sure that the main game can be played with only minor adjustments. I believe that the most important issue, by far, is campaign tone. If magic is rare, wizards should be rare so you'll want to make sure the party composition corresponds to this. If magic items are less common, then be sure to reduce the number. I find the best way to reduce the number of magic items is to consolidate the treasure rewards into fewer special items. Running an AP this way should require only minor adjustments to NPCs, and the only major change would be to particularly magical monsters, but the use of templates and CR adjustment that considers the conditions (lack of magical weapons/defenses) should allow for relatively painless conversion. Good luck. I am really enjoying this thread.
I think the terms "low-magic" and "low-fantasy" can mean very different things to different people. I have run a "low-magic" campaign for over a decade. I have experimented with a variety of methods to achieve the tone and feeling without changing the game too drastically. My early experiments always knocked something out of balance that made mid-level play wonky, but I rather like the system I currently use. The most important element, by far, is to develop the tone of the campaign setting to reflect the mood you are looking for. This is very important. If magic is rare, peasants better be impressed with it and those who do know something about it better have visible opinions about it. These are some of the mechanical changes I've made. Remember that the desire isn't to "cap" magic at some level or to remove it from the game but simply is to make it feel special again. * Replace spellcasting classes with campaign-specific classes whose tone and theme suit your campaign setting.
* Double the price of potions but make them "alchemical" and non-magical. * Reduce wealth by level, treasure tables, and NPC equipment by one-half. (As per the PF rulebook guidelines for low-magic/fantasy)
* Monsters that are especially magical have their CR increased by +1 or even +2 depending on the circumstances. These few simple changes have gone a long way towards making magic feel special. It is "lower-magic" but I am not sure if this would meet everyone's definition of low-magic. The most effective change was simply changing the default spell lists by using alternate spell-casting lists. This changed the list of magic items that could be made easily and what magic means in the world. Only the most powerful evangelists in the world (13+ level) can cast Raise Dead, for example. The mechanics of these minor changes allows one to use virtually anything that exists in the game, but the special "oooh" factor remains present with magic until the very upper mid-level range, at which point the characters know they are legendary.
Wonderful news. Paizo, you guys are the best!
Oh! Why not put the four level one iconics at the back of the free player's guides for each AP? This gives the players a chance to look at a sample character, it's a free download already and you don't make print versions of these anymore anyways. This is a great idea, actually. I second this.
As I posted in the other thread, I would like to see the two pages be used to show suggestions for further personalization. The reason the original Dragonlance adventure path was such a huge success was because the pre-generated characters had personalized events that were revealed as the adventures unfolded. These do not need to be fully fleshed out, but a list of brief suggestions, just a few words really, using the iconics presented in the first volume would go a long way. They would demonstrate to new and old GMs the areas that can be used effectively to incorporate a PC's background even more. It would be great to see how an author envisions some of the captured murderers from Valeros's background being used in an AP, or a comment about a stick in a forest that Lini would find special, or a developing lead that Sajan might follow to his sister. They would stimulate the GM's imagination, be an example of good adventure path customization, and show the many and interesting ways the iconics are all connected to the world of Golarion.
I would like to see the two pages be used to show suggestions for further personalization. The reason the original Dragonlance adventure path was such a huge success was because the pre-generated characters had personalized events that were revealed as the adventures unfolded. These do not need to be fully fleshed out, but a list of brief suggestions, just a few words really, using the iconics presented in the first volume would go a long way. They would demonstrate to new and old GMs the areas that can be used effectively to incorporate a PC's background even more. It would be great to see how an author envisions some of the captured murderers from Valeros's background being used in an AP, or a comment about a stick in a forest that Lini would find special, or a developing lead that Sajan might follow to his sister. They would stimulate the GM's imagination, be an example of good adventure path customization, and show the many and interesting ways the iconics are all connected to the world of Golarion.
Why 36? That seems like a strange number to pick (as opposed to 40, or even 30 or 35). This is such a good idea. I have been completely against playing anything above 20th level until I read this.
Check Frostburn (written by James Jacobs and Wolfgang Baur, at that), which was actually IMO the best of the "environments" books. I totally agree. Frostburn is easily one of my all time favorite gaming supplements.
I think that people would have more fun if everyone made a manifesto like this before playing together. Obviously it would be impractical, but it gives excellent insight into the mentality of a given DM/player. Thanks for sharing - it makes me want to make something similar.
Moonbeam - This is great. I read the entire thing and benefit greatly from your interpretations and suggestions. It must have been an incredible amount of work, but I am glad you did it. Thank you. Do you think it would still be possible to have such organic, complex dialogues if you had more players?
There are too many changes to sub-systems. Although the names and abilities all look the same, under the hood there are some considerable revisions (channeling, racial ability modifiers) that push the learning curve too far, in my opinion. There is a power-creep that frustrates me as well. I am a huge fan of the Mythic Vista settings by Green Ronin, and the introduction of so many additional powers makes historical campaign settings much less compatible than 3.5. (limitless cantrips and orisons, channeling, etc. The HP increases make abstracting wounds much more challenging.) Extra options are wonderful when they add to a stable foundation, but conversions that require more than a couple quick changes make the new system much less useful.
Thanks for sharing this. I mirror your concerns on almost every issue. Much of my early enthusiasm for this project has been diminished by the deviation from 3.5 SRD. When it started as adding options, I was 100% behind the innovations, but there are now so many changes to various sub-systems that I am not sure the final game is going to be one that I will still know how to play.
|