Erich Williams's page

So I just got the email that I now have to buy MORE product to receive ANY product. At the risk of being banned or this comment deleted: is this extortion, and is it being allowed?

MerlinCross wrote:

brad2411 wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

Which is bloody pointless when the math is done.

Everyone keeps going on about "Customization" and "Options" and "Greater build Varieties".
I stand by the idea that we'll be back to Builds X, Y, Z within time anyway.

Just to make sure I understand what you are getting at. When you say builds X, Y, and X are you judging that by optimization or something else? If you are talking about optimization then yes I agree with you there well be a finite amount of builds that will be optimal within the customization provided. Any math based game is going to have that. But for a lot of people optimization is not what judges a build for them to make.

If you are talking about not having enough class feats to truly customize then I also am a little scared about that myself. With all the different things in the game needing all this space for feats (every race, class, skill, and general)

Both? Maybe. Lemme try to stumble through this a bit.

I find it not fun to lag behind even if I build the character just the way I want to. Having to spend Class Feats to get back to just how I want to play runs the risk of being behind because everyone else took the smarter "Math" picks. Every level is going to now be "Do I take this for Character or for Math" and depending on the group, Math will win again and again. See PFS.

At the same time if the selection of Class Feats is smaller(Either by amount or viable) then everyones going to be playing near the same class anyway so what's the point in giving us expanded Options if we're back to the same way we were before?

So uh.. Don't offer any feats or choices so every cleric is the same and there's no better/worse options? 5E is over there, my friend.

5e offers less outright customization choices because EVERY character can DO more out of the box. A big complaint I have about Pathfinder is constantly errata-ing improvised gameplay out by statting every possible combat action; with twice as many feats (or more if classes gain feats separate from your character level), that's double the problem. Just consider that, even though edition wars are basically forbidden: you're asking for LESS options by asking for MORE purchasable abilities.

Not sure how I like 2e's seeming habit of taking 1e classes and turning their abilities into feats. A big complaint I always had about 1e was the plethora of feat taxes. Sure, you do get twice as many feats, but I really think it hurts verisimilitude to have to "spec into" every little thing. To be absurd: I predict that Pathfinder 3e won't have skills, it will have skill feats. You'll still have to roll skill checks, but--shock horror--you can't roll on that skill without the feat. Good luck avoiding that trap!

I like the idea of this in-between style of campaign, longer than a module but shorter than an AP. I hope returning to form next year doesn't mean we lose this format entirely.

I wrote my response before reading the comments and it's hilarious to see I'm quite happy and positive about the rogue while most people seem quite upset by it.

Things I got from the blog:
* People are no longer flat footed for the first round of combat before they act.
* Debilitating effects from Pathfinder Unchained (or a variation) are now core (makes sense. I'm all for it).
* Skill monkey: I approve!
* Bluff has been renamed to deception.
* Skill feats (at least some of them) will resemble what we're accustomed to with rogue talents. Hooray!
* Class feats: Despite some very 4th-edish names, it looks like for the rogue at least we're getting class feats that are very much grounded in Pathfinder 1st edition.
* Action economy: I'm starting to see the benefit of iteratives at all levels with the -5/-10 penalty. It makes the "sacrifice an attack" abilities very competitive instead of in PF 1st edition which cost a lot to use.
* I like that they're finding ways to offer similar (yet grounded in reality) effects when it comes to spells (blank slate being an example).

Overall I'm much more happy with how things are looking for the rogue. However I am concerned we perhaps didn't get any examples of "legendary" skill feats for rogues. If they're over the top and break the "aesthetic" of the rogue, I continue to hope they'll remain highly optional and viable characters can be made by topping off at mastery for many skills (vs legendary for a few skills).

I am also happy to see no dex to damage. I hope Paizo can be creative in keeping the rogue credible without going "all classes get 1[W]+Primary ability score mod" for all attacks (no bards using charisma to attack people with weapons please. Let's have ability scores mean something).

I never understood this sentiment about ability scores. What bleeds more, a harder stab or a stab into a place that's more vital? There's an argument that STR shouldn't even be your attack OR damage stat, and that it should only be used for gear prerequisites, but the D&D legacy prevents that paradigm. The argument for strength seems only to come from the angle of keeping fighters and barbarians as a 2-stat class. Mind you, in PF you ONLY got sneak attack when flanking or when your foe is flat-footed (which after the first round is almost never), so after 1 round, unless you form the Conga Line of Death, the rogue's damage vanishes unless he has special tricks he paid dearly for. No one's saying bards should get CHA to damage, unless you're arguing spellcasting.

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I'd love to see more "non-Japanese" weapons from Asia.

Edit 1: I guess I should make a list and link to info/pics.

Edit 2: On the off-hand, this book would also be a good place to detail more weapons from non-humans (elves, dwarves, halflings, araneas, etc.).

For that matter, I'd love to see some 'half' weapons. "Great Scimitar: This weapon was developed by Half Orcs who liked the power of the falchion but preferred the option to use it one handed." (basically that would be a refluffed katana, but weapons made to play to the half breed's strengths is my thought.)

Apologies, but I can't resist complaining some more about how a very agile one-handed weapon in real life became a ponderous 2-hander that's bigger (but weaker) than a greatsword in D&D/Pathfinder. Maybe on Golarion "falchions" are an orc thing, but how and why?

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Legacy of Chaos? Legacy of Balance? Legacy of Law?

Oh...wait...Paizo doesn't care about the non-Good and Evil aspects of the game. Sad.

Hyperbole much?

The Books of the Damned are divided along the chaos vs law lines, for example.

But necessarily evil. He means Law as in "Lawful X," neutral as in "Neutral X," and chaos as in "Chaotic X." Law, neutrality, and chaos as facets of evil, or facets of good, instead of forces in their own right were the commenter's issue. I personally don't care because a lot of alignment-based crunch is inherently limiting and campaign-centric, but I feel you missed his point.

One thing I am hoping for here is a guide to help those who haven't run horror themed D&D set the mood. It's a delicate game of balance, as dark and scary all the time is too much and too little can result in Scooby-Doo.

*Ruh-roh Raggy!*

I'd like a guide on how to be less dark. My depression, and love for the horror genre, tends to come out in every campaign I run.