Search Posts
I don't see anything there, either, but although I got the email from Paizo it was way before 26th October (when it was supposed to be released to the proles like me) so perhaps it's not even dispatched yet. I am very much looking forward to getting it, anyhow (it'll be in a competition for next campaign with running the Pathfinder Savage Worlds version of RotRL as my current group have never played Runelords).
US is their biggest market, I think, so it seems logical to serve them first if simultaneous doesn't work (and it appears from Aaron's comments that all the books were shipped to Paizo and then split up to international distributors, so it's not weird that US gets them first). Doesn't have to be "American thinking" at all, they were shipped to Paizo (to check them, I guess, and probably because it's cheaper to send one big batch to one place than to split it) Kickstarters and the like doing this--not to mention distribution from most companies, pretty much--is just the norm. It is what it is, and it's not malicious but seems like it's a fairly natural sequence given the logistical constraints a mid-sized company has.
I didn't buy into the pre-release as I wasn't sure about PF2 back then (had become a bit burnt-out on PF1), but now I love PF2 and am hoping the hard copy goes on sale to the proletariat soon, because I am all-in on PF2. Planning to run it with my group when we finally (soon!) finish Age of AshesIt looks like the end of October for those of us who didn't back. I'll reduce my clicking-to-check to once a day, then :(
Catching up on the Drizzt series during the pandemic really emphasized how much I want more Pathfinder book darn it. Especially stuff less stand alone than the ones they were making. Reading FR fiction makes me sad that Pathfinder Tales is still quiescent. They were nearly all significantly better than nearly all of the FR fiction (and also the Greyhawk and Dark Sun fiction) For me, it made Golarion much more appealing as a world in which to play. Having some novels (not just short-form fiction) in the 2e era--where some of the 1e AP outcomes are now canon--would be super-cool. Of course, me thinking something would be super-cool is not the same as it being commercially viable :(
Amazon is terrible about getting RPG books out. My suggestion would be to just hit your local store or B&N. You should get it soon there. If you don't want to do that, buy the PDF.Amazon actually list the "release date" as April 10th (after what they say is the release data for the GMG in March), which is very odd. I have never had their advertised release date be two months after the actual date, whether or not they get it late. I think that's just a date they grab automatically either from the publisher or the distributor(who presumably gets it from the publisher). I have bought RPG stuff from loads of publishers, from Amazon, and not had this problem (including from Paizo). I don't know what's going on with Paizo stuff and Amazon, but it seems worse for Paizo material then others. I mean, obviously I can do without the book--there's non-Paizo stuff on which I can also spend money, and I will get round to God's and Magic eventually, I guess--so that I am more bemused than bothered
I don't think it's a problem, in the new model for monster builds, if they aren't affected in the same way, is it? Other than 3.x, it's generally been the case in D&D that some things--level drain, my God--were worse for players than monsters even before you consider monsters deliberately design to only screw player (rust monster, come on down!). If one doesn't have a prior commitment to build characters and monsters with the same rules, then it's not that odd if some effects end up lopsided in their nastiness. Myself, I really like the idea of monsters being built like players, but it doesn't seem there's a way to do it simply enough given how d20 systems tend to work. If we give up on that--and I think we are, not just in PF 2e but D&D went that way as well, starting with 4e--then lopsidedness isn't really that surprising (and is it really that bad, anyhow?).
The DC is based on the healer, I assume, because a default success (and a critical success, for that matter) is more hit points healed than for a lower-level healer; the task is in that sense harder, you're trying to heal more in one go. I like the idea of being able to attempt a lower-level heal, with a lower DC, but as pointed out earlier that could be a problem if crits were the same. I'd probably say (or may house-rule) that if you take a lower DC for a better chance on a quick-and-dirty heal attempt, that you can't get a critical benefit. That said, I haven't looked at the math with the new DCs, but it seems like an easy enough fix.
I believe that in his original games, you couldn't even see the DM, he was hidden behind a filing cabinet or something like that. Of the tales of the early game with Gygax, this is one of the things I find pretty cool.
Sooooo a random healer can heal a level 1 arrow wound but "somehow" the same arrow wound on a level 20 suddenly is an impossible task for 98% of all the Golarion Healers ? Well, they get 20 times the healing, too. I am on the side that says they should be able to trade down on DC by trading down on the amount of healing, however.
The problem with this idea, is that it makes it easier to crit on the check, which might actually make reducing the dc to reduce the damage healed... actually make you heal more damage(on average due to the increased odds of criting). This could be changed by removing or changing the crit success effect though. Yeah, we could either have no critical success benefit if they use a lower DC, or else modify how the critical success worked (but the former is pretty simple).
Your daily prep/infusions do lag behind, though, right? For an extra feat, you only get them at level/2 after the 1/2 level ones up to level 10 (so, level 5) and then at level - 5 from level 12 on (at the cost of another feat). I'm not saying it's bad as a dip or a longer-term commitment--it's appealing, which is ought to be, I think it's about right for a multiclassing that's interesting and worthwhile--but I also tend to think that alchemist is pretty close to good if it just has more ability to do stuff in a given day (whether it's larger batches or a resonance bump, or spell points, etc).
That situation from PF1 Oracle's isn't mentioned in the fortune/misfortune sidebar, though. It's about rerolling successful or having to reroll failures, or rolling twice and taking the higher/lower result. However, I haven't searched through all of the fortune tags, so maybe there's stuff like the Oracle's power in the other parts of the book.
It says that "Fortune and misfortune effects can alter how you roll your dice. These abilities might allow you to reroll a failed roll, force you to reroll a successful roll, allow you to roll twice and take the higher result, or force you to roll twice and take the lower result. You can never have more than one fortune or misfortune effect come into play on a single roll."I don't see why that won't work with a secret roll you know is happening, success or failure are available to the DM to trigger the event (or give you the choice). You won't get a sense for how hard the roll is--did you get a 19 on the die and still fail? You're probably going to fail next time, too!--but I think that's right for the sorts of situations that cause private rolls.
Surely one could adopt an approach of saying alchemists just need enough resonance to get their mojo on enough in a given day? It doesn't have to be limitless--certainly, the daily preparation stuff shouldn't be without limit, so a constraint has to come in somewhere--but you could just give them some more resonance, which would both solve the problem of being constrained for resonance and also the alchemist multiclass character maybe having a point more of resonance than the alchemist themselves.
Well, resonance could be a nice way to tune alchemist power if resonance wasn't going to get substantially changed or nuked, which seems more likely. There's a new document of multiclass feats, allowing multiclassing into all of the base classes; it was put up the same day as update 1.3 (24th September). I meant tune up alchemist power, really, but resonance is surely going away/changing a lot, in some way or another.
I just wrote exactly this preference--to be able to reduce DC in exchange for healing less damage--in another thread, as I hadn't read this one at the time. If it doesn't get made a rule, I'm house-ruling it 100% of the time, but I genuinely think it has to be a rule in the game. Other than this issue, I like Treat Wounds.
In most cases (non-sorcerer) it's only a single point more, up to level 9 (when alchemists get some extra resonance for quick alchemy; getting quick alchemy at all is an extra feat for the Dedicated, obviously). The main problem feels to me to be the one you mention, that alchemists are pretty resonance-bound. That seems to me to be a fairly simple thing to fix, just reducing resonance costs somehow (or increasing daily prep batch sizes by one or maybe more at higher levels) as a class feature, or giving them a resonance bonus, so that the Alchemist Dedication feat-holder doesn't get it. I don't think any of those will break anything and actually, at least at lower levels, resonance-balancing is a way to tune alchemist power which is arguably fairly simple.
Even someone with a 16 in Cha - not hard to manage, especially for Clerics, Paladins, Rogues, or anyone wanting to face - is going to have more Resonance than a straight Alchemist. It's true that it's a pretty good feat even on its own--Remarkable Resonance is a level 1 feat and this is level 2, but this also lets you do limited daily prep (only up to level 2 items and then you need to buy higher levels with more feats, up to half your class level)--but I don't think it's epic (you also don't, I assume, automatically get new formulae every level).
Update 1.3 has actually encouraged me. Resonance I still don't really like, but the rest seems pretty good. I'm a bit bothered by the DC for Medicine used to Treat Wounds--yes, you get healing of hp in proportion to the healer's level so that's an argument for having the chance of success/the DC track the healer's level, but I do think the healer should be able to spend down the DC by trying to heal less damage, say (trying a simpler healing, will heal fewer hp but it'll be easier to succeed)--but otherwise I pretty much like all of this update. In fact, I haven't disliked any of the three updates, and it feels to me like things are moving fast enough that we can get something pretty sweet out of the end of this process.
Leaving aside the question of whether it's "insulting"--it's only a rule, after all, for our pretend-elf-game--the sorcerer with the alchemist dedication is probably the main beneficiary because they already have their key ability in Cha; for just about every other class, this bonus just remedies the fact that their key ability, or likely secondary abilities, don't line up with the resonance-generating ability.
You know, right now, in PFS the gm can do private rolls right? Is it likely that a player would lose 2/3 of their skill checks? I get that it could be fairly common in some circumstances; perception (other than initiative), knowing-stuff rolls and stealth, for example, but a bunch of other rolls won't be secret (including the soon-to-be-much-more-common medicine rolls under update 1.3). Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, I think it adds to the dramatic tension in a way that's typically a very fair trade for losing the fun of rolling dice and seeing the result. The fairness of the trade is obviously a personal issue--we'll all have different opinions about it--but I think it's got a reasonably long heritage in RPGs; I remember a lot of us of my age doing it pretty soon after we started in the early 80s (although there were obviously also skill-based games around before that, like Runequest and Traveller) for precisely the reason mentioned by someone above, that the number on the dice gives you additional information over and above what the DM tells you, reducing the "do I succeed/fail?" excitement that comes with rolling dice in the first place. I like getting that excitement back through the unknown roll but I also can't see a better way of doing it, given the way most games (including PF and D&D) are set up, given that the DM has information players do not and controlling the reveal of that, in response to character actions is a big part of successful DMing in most games.
Do threads really need to be monitored like this? I can understand trying to eliminate bullying,abusive language etc but policing the forums like this seems heavy handed to say the least. I think that if the playtest forums are to be much use, they have to be moderated like this, at least based on the previous playtest (the big one, for PF1e). If every thread moves from more focussed to a free-wheeling discussion of complaints outside of the initial focus, and disagreements inevitably start on those, the forums become much less usefil other than being a place for that, but why spread it over many threads? For what it's worth, the overall design goals don't seem that opaque to me, but I do follow a few sources outside these forums. I don't blame Paizo folks for taking to other forums, WotC did the same sort of thing for 5e while they were playtesting.
The DM isn't God--it's a collaborative endeavour--but to me, secret rolls make a lot of sense, I've always done them and to have them included in the mechanics is something I really like. The DM knows some things the player doesn't--that's not about being a God--and, for me, that should absolutely include how well players have succeeded at some tasks. It doesn't just make sense in a narrative sort of way, it helps build tension. Meanwhile, while rolling is a lot of fun--it's one of the things that hooked me--I don't think players are really substantially lacking many other opportunities to roll, and get that fun, and the dramatic tension secret rolls help support is well worth the sacrifice, for me.
I think that "need to be said" is an unusually high bar to set before posting on an elfgame forum...But not for communication in general. I think conversations would be pretty stilted if people only said what they thought was needed; it's not a very natural way to converse. Telecons and work meetings, on the other hand, could often do with better filters to make them shorter (but then, we don't have any choice about being in those). Also speeches at weddings.
While I don't doubt Paizo know how they feel about a sustained outage, I don't think they're in the business of telling their customers not to express disappointment, irritation or inconvenience as a result, either (so long, as Azih says, it's not profane, etc). I don't know why the outage happened, but I know a lot of us here also code or run a variety of complex systems (including legacy systems) with uptime requirements and are entitled to professional opinions at the level of consumer even without knowing the exact cause (which Paizo can keep to themselves, of course; many companies don't broadcast the reason for IT failures). Non-professional consumers are also entirely entitled to their opinions, as well. It doesn't have to be "meanspirited" to offer those opinions expressing displeasure, and I didn't read anyone saying it was the "worst thing happening in my life", either, or other significant over-reaction. For me, it was only really inconvenient and a little embarrassing; I was trying to get a new player into our playtest group and it looked a bit crummy that the site was down for so long (that person is in the computing business, actually, but it'd have been a bit painful whatever they did). If I were using the forums for a PBP game, or wanted some rules advice, etc, or was trying to order something from the webstore, then it would have been more irritating and might encourage me to go somewhere else with more stability, I guess, and those would be legitimate decisions to make, and to explain why.
Hi, sent an email last week but maybe you can update me here: the order page for the replacement says "unavailable" and (thus) no expected dispatch day range is given. Ah, I feared this might be the case; anyway, thanks for resolving this (and for the credit and the plan mythos buddies, which I shall have to work out how to paint, but which isn't the worst problem in the world).
It would be cool if there were a few suggested vignettes for Mythic PCs to gain their/more Mythic powers, though. I'm happy to deal with the mechanical side of the PCs getting Mythic ranks, but if the people who write or edit the story--and know what's coming next, for those of us who don't read the whole six instalments before starting--suggest how one can mesh Mythic PC advancement into the story, that'd be nice, and I don't think it'd detract from the AP for the people not having mythic PCs.
I sent a couple of emails about this order (made July 18th). Am I going to get sent the stuff? It says "Pending" but I am not sure whether it's ever going to happen (it also has part of the order as "Originally expected to ship in an unknown time frame" in the confirmation email I was sent when I ordered). Thanks!
Aha, thanks! Unusually, each of the lines are good...
As I said in another thread, I'd totally be into Vudran material. East Asian/Tian Xia material, though? Zero interest from me (and the Inner Sea bits of Jade Regent were probably more interesting to me than the Tian Xia bits, unsurprisingly). I'd also be really into some Southern Garund adventure material, and some Keleshite stuff. However, if East Asian-themed can't sell, I suspect the stuff I will sell even less.
But, Mr. Jacobs has said multiple times that the Tien Xia stuff didn't do so well commercially. For me, it's just that I find East Asian-themed stuff--including the existing Paizo Tian Xia material, which I bought--snore-worthy. I just have no real interest in it. A South Asian/Vudran AP, though, I'd probably buy in its entirety.
The lawful restriction really is in the class's DNA, I would say. It makes about as much sense as the D&D alignment system does, it seems to me, which is to say "not much at all"; I'm not sure how big a restriction it is, other than for people who want to multiclass Barbarian and Monk, but I guess it would vary with how strictly people's tables treat alignments.
I'd be interested to know what was the Unchained authors' list of things which needed fixing for the monk, and where MAD was on it (and whether they felt that they'd addressed it). I guess a quick table fix is just Wis for to-hit and/or damage, although that wouldn't help PFS players. The extra focus on Wisdom would also alleviate the Will Save issue (frankly, I always thought it was cool to have the Monk as a strong-minded cerebral
Well, surely the biggest element by far was the 3e monk, whose biggest inspiration by far was the 1e monk? They're so similar, allowing for the transition in rules in-between.
I saw Liz tell people to cool it and be nicer to each other, but not that we can't discuss it. From purely academic interest, if I see Mike Mornard online I may ask him; he's one of relatively few people, still alive and into the gaming scene, who played in Arneson and Gygax's games back in the old days and he may remember more about the origin of the monk.
It seemed (and seems) to me that the 3.x monk is entirely recognisable from the 1e monk. It might not be obvious to everyone who started with 2e, because the monk was absent for most of 2e, but it seemed pretty clear to me, at least, that the 3e designers were trying to produce a 1e monk with the new design goals of 3e (the 2e monk which did eventually appear was very similar to the 1e monk). The monk extensions from Paizo, particularly through archetypes, are a mix of things, probably including anime, but I'm not sure there's much which isn't entirely consistent with the original kung fu/martial arts live-action movies or the more modern ones (Crouching Tiger being probably the most mainstream example). I do think there's plenty of anime influences around in Pathfinder in general (not a source of great joy to me, because I'd rather stare into space than watch anime, but it doesn't ruin my fun or anything like that) but, perhaps oddly, the 3e monk isn't really that different to the 1e monk (and although I never played OD&D--I started with Blue Box (Holmes) basic then straight onto 1e), although I think most people would agree that it was less powerful (although the 1e monk did start off pretty feeble, that variation in power curve was a feature of several classes in 1e).
Flurrying has been around since the kung fu movies of the 1970s (and, for that matter, it's been around since the 1e monk, who got 4 attacks per round by the end). For Westerners, at least, I'd say that anime has followed on from the kung fu movies which also inspired the 1e monk (no monk in 2e at the beginning, but it came back, at least in Greyhawk, towards the end of 2e). When kids like the younger me were reading about the monk in the 1e PhB, it was about Bruce Lee's movies and David Carradine's monk in the TV series Kung Fu. 1e predates 1983 by some way, but my point was just that there's been fast-striking martial artists in both movies and 1e before anime was a big deal to Westerners. That fast-striking is consistent with that older material (which I personally think is the source for the 1e monk) and the newer anime material, so that's why I don't think one should say that the "defining class feature" is anime (it's certainly consistent with it). |
