Hopefully Gaiman gets as much say in the series as he did with Good Omens. He's not the writer, though, so that's not a good sign in my eyes.
He was so closely involved only because it would have been a joint project with Terry Pratchett. He wanted it to be what Terry would have wanted.
Yes, I meant reduce the 1000 XP needed to level
j b 200 wrote:
Much simpler to award everyone the same XP but lower level characters need less XP to go up a level. So 1000 for your middle characters, 800 or 900 say for the lower level characters and 1100 or 1200 say for the higher level characters. (800 is for fast progression in Oblivion oath)
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Means there's no point in hoarding them. Use them, save one for get out of death free.
75%? I'm so surprised at seeing so many people like the new way of building monsters. I have always thought monsters should have statistics more like PCs as they used to. But to my surprise people don't seem to prefer this nice old way.
They're too restrictive. All fey have d6 hit dice, good R and W saves and 6+ skill ranks per level. All of them. All animals have the same base - mammals, reptiles, fish. All aberrations. You should not be able to look at an aberration of all things, decide it's got roughly so many hit points, d8, so x number of levels and then know it's BAB, saves and number of skill ranks.
They don't offer any diversity for statistics within the creature types
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Huh. I stand corrected ☺
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Except humans can choose a class or a general feat as an ancestry feat, which kind of implies they are equal. Or else humans can get stronger ancestry feats than anyone else.
Forgive me if i'm behind the times and these rule have already been changed or removed but adding level to everything is just silly and wrong. Why should my gnome sorcerer steadily get better at skills, and by default now maneuvers, that he's not investing in just because he's leveling? Why should I be able to better hit or grapple and pin a creature because i'm a higher level????? Still a gnome sorcerer....It's a silly mechanic. I don't want my character to get better at anything that I shouldn't be getting better at without resource and roleplay allotment. Am I missing or misreading something?
Essentially for convenience. So you are not over 20 points behind the specialist who invests when you both get to level 20. Because if you are then either the specialist always succeeds or you always fail, and writing the adventure becomes extremely difficult.
Zi Mishkal wrote:
Paizo printed copies to order. I placed a pre-order within the deadline so as to be confident of getting a printed copy (which fell through, and I wound up ordering from elsewhere, but that's beside the point).
I was not expecting Amazon to have stocks of printed copies. If Amazon and other traders have ordered printed copies in bulk that they're now not going to be able to sell, that's kind of on them for misjudging the market. And not really relevant for Paizo, I think
Strachan Fireblade wrote:
I would love to try the game but don't have a group to play with. My job at the moment is exhausting and I don't have the energy to find one. Don't appreciate being labelled disrespectful because of that. All I can offer is my opinion on understanding the rulebook. I'd like to think that's worth something.
What concerns me about the Exploration mode stuff (won't have a chance to test it out until later this week) is that certain actions cause Fatigue which can only be recovered with the nightly 8hr sleep. Seems like making the wrong choice in Exploration mode will leave characters out of luck when Encounter mode hits.
Reading this in Exploration Tactics says take a significant break to recover. Which implies to me 10 or 15 minutes or so. The condition p. 322 says 8 hours, which, I agree seems unreasonable, and probably not adjusted for fatigue in the changed Tactics. I don't think it's intended.
You stay in exploration mode while moving through the dungeon, looking for hazards or enemies or interesting features. Up till (typically) a fight breaks out and you call for initiative. When the encounter is resolved, (typically the opponents are defeated) you return to exploration mode.
Nathanael Love wrote:
I was watching one of the seminars from GenCon on Twitch (Paizo 18 and onwards, I think it was called) and I'm fairly sure they said there will be Pathfinder 1 tables next year.
Why can't we make like a hundred of these? All they are is "one of two ability scores, one skill feat, one lore skill". I mean, how many traits did PF1 have?
I think at least there should 1 per level 1 skill feat. One of the abilities would tie to that feat.
I'm also not happy at an adventure having such limiting backgrounds. Traits didn't restrict your feat choices.
Agreed. I ordered through Amazon UK, got an e-mail about problems with stock, so I cancelled it and ordered through book depository. That was Friday,and it's confirmed dispatched today. Really, really disappointed with Amazon UK.
(It's in the post. Yay, am happy!)
I didn't mean to imply you did.
You're ahead of me reading the book,though. I haven't got the printed copy I ordered yet, and am finding using the pdf slow and tiring. Also, without a gaming group, I've little prospect of actually playing, so little incentive to start builds.
I will say that your group have developed a way of play under one set of rules, and now you're changing the rules, which is bound to cause some issues. If you were starting now with these rules, you would most likely find different solutions.
Paizo have said they're going to show play sessions from the module on Twitch, which will go on you-tube. Maybe wait and watch the 12-ish level game for ideas?
A stated goal is that at the highest levels the differences between AC, saving throws, skill checks etc will be less than 20, so as to avoid auto successes or failures (e.g.if the best PC can fail at the task, it's not an auto failure for anyone). That seems bound to push the numbers closer at 13. If supporting your play style means not fixing high level play, I'm afraid you're probably out of luck.