DakonBlackblade's page

Then don't buy it. For me the value is there because of the amount of time similar prep takes me. If you don't need or want that level of prep nobody is twisting your arm to buy this.

Why do ppl think this is a valid argument when discussing price is beyond me. That I’m not buying and you are is already established, stating that has no bearing on the fairness of the product price tough.

For further expansion on this, I run four games right now. Three I'm doing all the prep work myself.

Wrath of the Righteous: I have prepped through the end of book 2 and have started prepping book 3. In Foundry I have 480~ hours to my players 80. That means I've spent 400 hours of prep in Foundry. This does not include the time spent remaking maps (something the official modules do as well), the time spent in Photoshop making good tokens for every creature (again something the official modules do), or the time spent formatting journals in google docs so they're easy to copy paste. I've probably easily spent 500 hours on this campaign.

Curse of the Crimson Throne: Moved from Fantasy Grounds at the beginning of book 2, and moved from 1E to 2E in the middle of book 2. Have spent 116 hours in Foundry prepping the latter half of book 2 and all of book 3. Players have spent 16 hours in that world. Again does not account for maps and tokens, but 100 hours of prep in Foundry.

Rise of the Runelords: Campaign just started. I've put 136 hours of Foundry prep in to make Sandpoint as living and breathing as I can. Players have spent 8 hours in the world. 128 hours of prep work just in Foundry.

Now lets compare to Abomination Vaults, for which I'm using the premade module. My players are nearing the end of book 1. All three books are prepped for me, my prep is reading ahead for the day and seeing whats coming, along with the time I spent reading the AP at the beginning. I have spent 88 hours in my AV world. My players have spent 52. 36 hours of prep compared to over 100. No prep needed for map making. No prep needed for tokenizing. No journal formatting needed. All of my prep has been either reading the AP or prepping for a specific night's activities.

Not that much if use a PDF importer and is smart about how you take notes, track stuff and watnot. And from reading reviews they didn't even do all the works, since a bunch of scenes that warrant maps but don't have one in the AP did not get a map in the mod either, so...

Ppl trying to defend the price are funny. It is quite an absurd price, all the Foudnry modules are overpriced but this one takes the cake by a large margin

Tooosk wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Karneios wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Karneios wrote:

Since shocking grasp is the only spell slot attacking touch spell they've printed at all ever I don't think it's that safe to assume, hell just looking at attack spells available at all in the arcane list kills any belief that there's gonna be some great replacement coming for the magus

I do not think nerfing the Magus was a design goal for Remaster. YMMV.

I don't think it was a goal either, I just think it was an outcome that wasn't really considered because I look at the attack spells on the arcane list and just don't think that magus in general is really considered

Unlikely IMO.

I mean, the evidence that they didn't consider Magus very much in this change is evident in Sayre's post. He first talks about Ignition being a big benefit for Maguses when it's roughly the same damage as Gouging Claw or Telekinetic Projectile. It's only a boost for Maguses in the subrange of targets where fire is preferred to physical. Fire is a common weakness so I don't want to minimize that too much, but is it more common than once a day if I was preparing Shocking Grasp in one spell slot per day?

And THEN, after using what amounts to a micro-example, he says we shouldn't look at micro-examples when considering design. When the entire base Magus spell selection is an investigation of micro-examples because there are so few of them.

Shocking Grasp fills these design niches pretty much exclusively for a Magus:
- Balanced for touch-range damage
- Balanced for damage only
- Based on an attack roll

To be clear, Shocking Grasp wasn't ever overpowered, it was just designed to be used in a niche that the Magus excels in: doing as much damage as possible with the most risk involved.

The reason you could make a claim that Shocking Grasp should be "replaced" by Thunderstrike is that, well, the reward for other mage classes to enter melee range is less than the risk

...

No I wasn't, I was replying to someone that answered my original post, where I said I don't see the reason to remove the Magus best spell form the class, and the person said "they had to cause lawsuit", which for the 100th time, isn't an argument in this case, there were ways to change the spell without repurposing it and they are clearly not only changing things for legal reasons, as they themselves said so.

DakonBlackblade wrote:

I'm still pretty sure no one can actually have generic name and generic spells as intellectual property

Unless you are an intellectual property lawyer well versed in Paizo's use of the OGL, then I have no reason to believe that your opinion actually protects Paizo from being sued by Hasbro.

As has repeatedly been said, Hasbro doesn't need to win a lawsuit. They just need to inflict a great deal of financial damage via court costs and defense lawyers.

They can be factually wrong, and still cripple Paizo.

I trust Paizo's legal counsel.

As has repeatedly been said as well this is not an argument because they aren't changing stuff only because of legal reasons, they made a lot of design choice changes. And pls don't quote one sentence out of a 2 paragraphs answer and then comment on it out of context, I gave plenty of examples how the spell could be completely changed while keeping the same functionality and you chose to ignore it.

Also if the fear is Wizards using some bogus reason for a lawsuit they can’t really do much, the game was born in the OGL, a bunch of books are still OGL, if Wizards intention were to do that they would, they could claim the new Thunderstrike is still similar to Shocking Grasp for instance, it’d be just as bogus as claiming a spell called Acidstrike that deals 2d12 acid damage with a melee touch attack was based on Shocking Grasp and therefore is infringing copyright, but they could do that. They know, however, that doing this bull would be terrible press and they hopefully learned their lesson with the OGL debacle.

DakonBlackblade wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

DakonBlackblade wrote:

Michael Sayre wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

HUH yeah unexpected, we originally thought it was a replacement for Sudden Bolt.

I wonder if we'll just get some more spell attacks, or if they'll hit the Magus with an errata that makes it not rely on spell attacks.

One thing to keep in mind is that magi have extremely limited slots and are more reliant on their cantrips and focus spells. Ignition is a significant buff for the magus with how it boosts their basic routine compared to produce flame, while thunderstrike is much better for classes like the wizard, who are significantly more reliant on their slotted spells.

Giving too micro a look at a specific interaction can lead to missing a broader macro picture where each kind of class and character got buffs in the places they most needed it.

The limited slots is exactly why Thunderstrike was good for Magi, you can only do it once or twice a day so it better hit like a truck. Anyway I'm not gonna ban any Magi in my table to select Thunderstrike, the spell has been the class bread and butter for ages, I dunno why you guys felt the need to take it away from them.

Lawsuits.

Because if they didn't WotC may have taken away the entire game.

Common man, you understood what I said, they did not need to change how the spell worked, just the name. It could be called whatever and still have the same effect. Also I'm pretty sure they are overeacting at some points, anyone can call a spell Tunderstrike, that is no one's intelectual property.

I trust Paizo's legal counsel.

That is not an argument at all, I'm still pretty sure no one can actually have generic name and generic spells as intellectual property, what is protectable here, touch spell that deals lightning damage? Because the rest of this spell is completely different from its 5e counterpart, the damage is different and the mechanics are different. If that's the case Wizards can claim an infinite amount of concepts as theirs. Paizo did not at all needed to go scorched earth here, but since they decided to go nuts they could have changed the spell to "Acidstrike" made the damage acid and there you changed the spell, the name and did not shaft the Magus class. Call it "Force Blast" makes the damage force and there you have another and Magus kept their best spell. Call it Eletric Conduit, remove the word touch, say it only works if you use something to conduct the electricity like a piece of metal (or a sword like a Magus would) and there you changed the spell again without screwing an entire class.

Not everything they are changing are because of lawsuits, there are things that were design choices, this is one of those cases and it wasn’t a good decision at all. It’s already kinda bad they are treating some classes as second rate since they don’t have a players core planned to update every class, they did not also need to remove powerful tools from those classes.

DakonBlackblade wrote:

Michael Sayre wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

HUH yeah unexpected, we originally thought it was a replacement for Sudden Bolt.

I wonder if we'll just get some more spell attacks, or if they'll hit the Magus with an errata that makes it not rely on spell attacks.

One thing to keep in mind is that magi have extremely limited slots and are more reliant on their cantrips and focus spells. Ignition is a significant buff for the magus with how it boosts their basic routine compared to produce flame, while thunderstrike is much better for classes like the wizard, who are significantly more reliant on their slotted spells.

Giving too micro a look at a specific interaction can lead to missing a broader macro picture where each kind of class and character got buffs in the places they most needed it.

The limited slots is exactly why Thunderstrike was good for Magi, you can only do it once or twice a day so it better hit like a truck. Anyway I'm not gonna ban any Magi in my table to select Thunderstrike, the spell has been the class bread and butter for ages, I dunno why you guys felt the need to take it away from them.

Lawsuits.

Because if they didn't WotC may have taken away the entire game.

Common man, you understood what I said, they did not need to change how the spell worked, just the name. It could be called whatever and still have the same effect. Also I'm pretty sure they are overeacting at some points, anyone can call a spell Tunderstrike, that is no one's intelectual property.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

HUH yeah unexpected, we originally thought it was a replacement for Sudden Bolt.

I wonder if we'll just get some more spell attacks, or if they'll hit the Magus with an errata that makes it not rely on spell attacks.

One thing to keep in mind is that magi have extremely limited slots and are more reliant on their cantrips and focus spells. Ignition is a significant buff for the magus with how it boosts their basic routine compared to produce flame, while thunderstrike is much better for classes like the wizard, who are significantly more reliant on their slotted spells.

Giving too micro a look at a specific interaction can lead to missing a broader macro picture where each kind of class and character got buffs in the places they most needed it.

The limited slots is exactly why Thunderstrike was good for Magi, you can only do it once or twice a day so it better hit like a truck. Anyway I'm not gonna ban any Magi in my table to select Thunderstrike, the spell has been the class bread and butter for ages, I dunno why you guys felt the need to take it away from them.

I wonder what will happen with the classes that aren't getting a revision in either player core 1 or 2, like Thaumaturges, the psionic ones and such.

I also wonder if they intend to release other bestiaries in the future, I always love me some monsters, I can never have enought bestiaries.

Have npcs show but don't force them on the party. Ensure both groups benefit from any alliance

It is an interesting take on the situation your players opted for
I did run a session zero, and with an all human party they all had relatives and relationships within the village

Two of my PCs had relatives on town but the other 3 convinced them it was best to run and plan a counterattack. They healed Aubrin (cause they figured she might help with the counterattack, knowing she was a seasoned adventurer), the group abrbarian carried her around and they ran, even with me telling them there were still ppl in the inn, some injuried and some had run to the uper floor, and with Aubrin asking them to help the other villagers, they had put it in their heads they couldn't linger a minute here or be sllowed by anyone, theyd have the upper hand escaping and comming back with the element of surprise and somehow thatd be better than helping ppl now.

Since they werent stealthing while fleeing, they kept to the outskirts of town but were boltig, they got into more than 1 scuffle with the Ironfang Legion, and here I couldve killed them cause they weren't being cautious at all so I couldve ruled they attracted like an army of bugbears and hobgoblins, but I tought itd kinda suck to kill everyone on session 1 kkkk. They got to the bridge managed to kill the guards there but were in very very bad shape, they ran inside Fangwood, still carrying Aubrin and thats were we stopped.

Since they never destroyed the bridge what I think Im gona do is have the refugees cross paths with them when they first decide to rest (I might have at least 1 important person from the familly of each of the 2 PCs who had familly in Phaendar amongst the refugees so they will feel more inclined to help). The refugees will give a small run down of what the hobs are doing to Phaendar and will drive the point that the city is super well fortified to possibily dissuade the PCs from commiting suicide by hobgoblin. If the PCs don't stay with the refugees them I'll just have Aubrin go with the refugees and set up an independent camp of sorts that can have future interactions with the PCs.

Aside from that Im pretty sure they will want to destroy the Ironfang Legion cause all of them have pretty strong reasons to do so, 2 lost family on Phanedar, 1 had a divine vision from his god showing him battles to come and took that as a sign that he has a part to play in those, the other had his entire elven village murdered by the Ironfang's (he didn't see the attack, but found a tattered Ironfang Banner) and the weakest link is a barbarian that just realy like fighting, I guess he would go along with everyone else considering the 100% chance of many battles happening if they fight the Ironfangs.

Do both. Have some NPCs show up pleading for help, but already kinda self sufficient and let the PCs decide if they want to throw in with them or keep wandering around on their own.

Probably what Im gona do, but judging by their reaction when in Phaendar I believe theyd want to help, they had a plan to help the city it was just very bad as they didn't quite consider the fact theyd have to figth an army of hobgoblin and everyone would probably be murdered already if they did manage to go trough the army of hobgoblins, so its not liek they dont want to help, it was just very poor planing.

Thanks for the insight into your point of view, Dakon. Some people like detail and structure, and actually prefer to work with experience points, particularly in situations where characters can come and go, or only be involved in some portions of a campaign.

Also, random encounters aren't just there to increase XP or treasure. They often lead to unexpectedly interesting happenings. I've seen occasions where an unexpected encounter helped to reinforce the danger of an area, or the threat of travel. I've also seen a random encounter become a recurring enemy :)

Im all for using random encounters in that light, sometimes PCs will just wander off to somewhere dangerous and you want to reinforce that its dangerous, or sometimes you just need some combat to happen after a long period of RP, but its very common to see DMs resort to them for XP reasons alone wenever they think the party is falling behind, I don't agree with that at all.

So my PCs had the brilliant idea to simply split from Phaendar without rescuing anybody cause they decided "lets run away and come back later to assault the city and save everyone". So now I have a bunch of PCs who have 0 survivors with them, wich worries me greatly if they will ever even want to set up camp on Fangwood forest, doesn't seen like theyd do it. Im wondering if I should have a swat of runaway NPCs just show up from Phaendar as well, and pleed the PCs to help them or if I should just let the PCs wander arround and figure what they want to do.

I don't understand why ppl worry so much about XP balance and whatnot, just grant the PCs levels at key points on the adventures, problem solved. XP is a very poor system as pen and papper RPGs are based on all kinds of interactions not just combat and XP is mostly combat, when you grant XP for non combat encounters youre basicaly aproximating and its all subjective and you do it with the purpose to give your players enought to level up and not fall behind, so why don't you simply not give any XP and level the players at set intervals ? Its way more logical, the party is never underleveled or overleveled, you don't need to throw random encounters left and right just for the PCs to catch up and you keep the PCs happy with a steady flow of levels. You don't even need to tell them youre not giving XP, just say you keep track of it internaly, they dont need to know youre actualy granting levels arbitrarely.

So im in Brazil, the shipment here is just way too expensive so it is not cost effective at all to buy physical versions of the books, I was wondering if there is an option for a digital subscription of the Adventure Path. Also how often is a new entry of an Adventure Path released, once every 2 months ?

Is this Season only 2 Adventures ? or is it still incomplete ?

Is this Season only 2 Adventures ? Or is it still incomplete ?

zeroth_hour2 wrote:

I feel like part of the test with Season of the Runelords is going to be using new wording with old cards, most of which haven't been updated to new templating.

It's already going to be somewhat tough with the Class Decks and RotR, because we don't have an Oracle that tell us the newest text of each card like in Magic.

This is something I am hyper-vigilant about. Especially with Pathfinder Adventures using the same card text. It's a bit like traveling back in time. But we'll make it all work out.

This begs the question, why don't we have an Oracle telling us the newest text of each card like MTG does ?

At the risk of being a total downer... does it concern anyone that this releasing may be the death of the physical card game? It's shaping up to look like this is the superior version of the game in every way and if it delivers, I can see Mask of the Mummy being the physical game's last AP. Part of me is disturbed by the idea but the other half would be happy to convert. As I write this I'm sitting in a room lined with games from the modern consoles running back to the Atari, so I definitely can't say I wouldn't get behind a video game version.

I don't see what they have to gain by limitting their userbase, it is not like having this tablet only will make ppl crave for the next Obsidian tablet only release or will make the game sell better. Having this on both plataforms would make way much more sense. And there is presedent, Hearthstone could be compared to this game and Hearthstone is a smashing sucess and it isn't a tablet or PC only, its on both.

Still can't figure out why this is restricted to tablets and smartphones and does not have a PC version. The game is shapping up quite nice Id love ot play it on my big beautfull high res monitor instead of my small screen smart phone.

Why exactly isn't this comming out for PCs as well as tablets and smartphones ? Doesnt seen to make much sense to me.

Since season of Righteous is mostly composed of 5 or 6 scenarios adventures wouldnt adavncing a tier when you complete 4 scenarios and them advancing another one once you complete the adventure essentialy make you too high tier to play the next adventure by adventure 3 ? Youd get 2 tiers on adventures 1 and 2 and would reach 3 on tier 5. I was under the assumption you either advanced tier after 4 scenarios or after te adventure was complete, but once you completed an adventure those scenarios wouldnt count for advancing your tier anymore or if you had advanced a tier prior to completting the adventure you wouldnt advance it again.

Ty very much. Gona try to get this show on the road this weekend.

As long as you follow the guidebook, you can do the same solo. Now I've never actually ran any scenarios solo but I have run a reported character with a part of non-reported ones. (I was trying to get a character leveled up to play with other players.)

And in this case Id proceed the same way as I would for the party game, register the event on the GM tab and report my progress there right ?

SO I live in Brazil, in a small town, theres 0 chance Ill find a Parhfinder Card Guild event going on anywhere on a 1000 miles radious around me, but I do own Wrath of the Righteous and S&S and among me and my friends we have a couple of class decks and were willing to buy the online print and play versions of the seasos to play. My question is, how do I make these local sessions "count", I know I can just run the game using the Organized Play rules but Id like to register my character have my ID and all those shenaningas.

Also can I make an official organized play session while playing solo, the guidebook talks about this but I didnt quite understand how it works.