Ice_Deep's page

Organized Play Member. 225 posts. 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I heard they was making a 2E and I was excited! Yes, finally they can remake the core rulebook and include things like archtypes, traits, etc in the base book! I seriously considered ordering the actual books because I thought it's going to be a year between pre-release and the release.

The rules can be cleaned up, give things a polish and make them smoother and fix some things that need fixing.

Then the previews started, and the more I saw the more I thought... This is going to be horrible and not a system I want to play. I decided no I will just wait for the free PDF's.

I actually reupped my subscription to some products because I thought "I need to get another AP or 2 before this system stops getting product released" and "I need to re-order my core books before they go out of print so I have newer books with more up to date errata and to replace my damaged core book".

I did think well I will give the pre-release a chance and actually play in it to see if maybe I am just having a knee jerk reaction. And I still plan to sometime in the next week or two to try and play on roll20 in some games of the doomsday scenario.

The reason I am going to do this is because I remember my knee-jerk reaction to PF 1E, I told my friends why leave 3.5? I still really dislike some changes in 1E (removal of ORB spells, no warlock, etc) but it grew into something I enjoyed. Maybe 2E will eventually do that, or maybe actually playing will change my mind.

But honestly there is some things that I just can't see me coming around to like the following:

1. Build rules of PC's and NPC's being different. This breaks the immersion for me.

2. Spells not leveling up with the caster but not greatly increasing the number of spells per day casters get. This means that casters will get just a handful of useful spells which was already a issue in the switch from 3.5->1E for me. I thought maybe getting cantrips that auto-level up with you would make up for this but they level up at a pitiful rate.

"Heightened (3rd) Damage increases to 1d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier, persistent damage increases to 2.
Heightened (5th) Damage increases to 2d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier, persistent damage increases to 3.
Heightened (7th) Damage increases to 3d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier, persistent damage increases to 4.
Heightened (9th) Damage increases to 4d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier, persistent damage increases to 5."

I am sorry about wasting 2 actions to do 2d4+5 and persistent damage of 3 around 7th level is just laughable. It bothered me as a caster primary player in 1E when I had similar options because I knew I had high level spells that had great effect on things. But when I can no longer do things like use fireball at level 7 to do 7d6 because it's locked to the 3rd level version of the spell unless I use up a high level slot it's really annoying to me.

3. Locking good spell outcomes behind critical success but then locking attribute raising at character creation to 18 MAX.

4. Not having skill points means everyone is good at everything and one person is a "little better" which means nobody is special.

5. Resonance doesn't make any sense and kills immersion. Having things like bag of holding being a activated item just takes it from bad to horrible.

I said it during the previews and I will say it now and likely after I play some one-off's. This feels like someone took a video game and made it into a RPG and thats not why I play RPG's.

Ok, thanks for letting me know.

Walter Lindie wrote:
If you want to balance out crits I have had Gm make it so your next attack did half damage and another who put cumulative -2's on attacks vs that particular creature. Getting ones was rare enough that keeping track of it wasn't a pain.

So far the ideal game time I have gotten from my friend who is going to play is 11am EST (8am PST) to about 4pm EST (1pm PST). So that will most likely be the time, we would be playing every Saturday everyone can make it. Would that time work for you?

Walter Lindie wrote:

The phone stuffs fine and occasional funny I have had GMs type about Mysterious cloaked strangers who "stick at a fart table" letting the shadows surround them.

To your question I like rp a bit more than combat. But tend to like a decent challenging fight at least once every two games in the early levels. High level I start to like fighting less because it starts to take hours per fight.

I am leaning toward a redeemed monster following your reskin rules from the Brotherhood of Redemption seeking out to help his fellows.

Oh right two things I don't really like are rolling hp and crit success-fail tables.

Sounds good. That would probably be a great choice for this game as there could be some interesting RP dynamics. Would give me something to work worth and also probably create some group rp dynamics. Though I forgot to mention I don't show group PVP obviously.

HP I'm probably going to do full at first, at level up roll for half, and add the other half. Similar to PFS, so a d12 rolls d6+6+con mod. Helps even out the bad rolls. I'm not a fan of critical or fumble tables either. I'm open to suggestions to even it out so a level 10 fighter doesn't drop his sword against a kobold on 2 bad rolls. But there has to be something to even out the x2 or higher damage on a crit.

Walter Lindie wrote:

Hey this is a town that could legitimately stop high level adventures from robbing stores. That means its near stuff and dangers people that strong can deal with and prosper from. I will be a little metagamey in if someone rolls a knowledge and you say you get no information, I am running away.

Quick questions on Traits/Drawbacks, Mundane/Magical crafting and leadership. Pretty sure it would be 2/no/maybe/no/no and I am fine with that but no point in not asking.

2 traits, crafting I'll have to think about (in this world people have lost stone of the knowledge on crafting high power magical items so much so there is basically a monopoly on them). So I'm leaning towards allowing it with the meta knowledge if word gets out there could be consequences. Say you make a business selling high level items you night have some high level people looking into your business. Mundane I have no problem with as long as it's not causing a negative impact on the game in some way. Leadership is a no, but I'm open to people earning followers through game play, they just are NPCs who have there own wants and needs and thus can't be used and abused. Good questions though.

My question for you what type of game do you want to play in? Sorry about formatting at work on phone.

Sounds good, glad your as excited as I am. I think the world is awesome and I am going to be spending a lot of time digesting the 800 pages of content I have for the world.

But yeah I am pretty relaxed about someone having some time to figure things out, it's spending a ton of time metagaming a strategy I try and move people forward on since often it's done to the point the game slows to a crawl. But taking a few moments in a "oh no!" situation is something everyone should do. In the same manner I often need a few minutes to find out what I will have happen when the PC's do something off the wall like bust down a random door in town, search to see if there is cannon info on it, if not use random roll generation to see if something happens along with some other cannon response.

I mainly mention death as I am not want to provide only CR +/-X encounters. While obviously your less likely to bump into a CR18 than a CR 4 there is always that chance. I feel having only appropriate CR encounters (+/- 3 to 4) a bit to unrealistic in a living breathing world. Some of my favorite moments in gaming in 2E was when we level 1's stumbled on a high CR and had to get around instead of plowing through. But to that end I always give players a chance to think about things, and come up with a plan or discuss if something is to much for there current power level as long as it's not for a long extended time (I was just a player in a game were they spent 20 minutes discussing a encounter at the start of a session we had a week to think about).

I am going to be starting a Ptolus game, 2 of my long time friends will probably be joining but that hasn't been decided so I might end up needing 5 players. I will had a max of 6, but prefer 4-5 with 5 being ideal for the occasional person being unable to attend.

I will be running this as a open ended/sandbox campaign, there will not by any railroading it will be up to the players to decide what to do. Some things are determined to happen, but the group won't be forced to follow any certain story.

I run things pretty RAW, with almost no changes to the rules. It will be Pathfinder only, Core+APG+Ultimate+Campaign/Equipment/Magic/Combat.

Ptolus races will be allowed, but you will have to pick another PF race to get your stats from. For example you can be a Litorians (Lion people) for flavor but will have to pick another race to get your stats/rules from. So in my example you could use Human or Elf whatever, as far as game mechanics but flavor wise you could be Litorian. This is to keep things even and reduce the need for EL +1 type characters.

I don't fudge dice, or encounters. If it's a random encounter and you decide to not run from a APL+5 that's your choice and what happens, happens. If you get critted and die, that's what happens. I am a firm believer in the dice has a say in the story just like you do and I do. So don't join if you can't except character death.

Basically Ptolus has about 2 campaign plots/adventures with of material, those will be options as well as doing your own thing. I will also be throwing in some PFS modules if I can to give the players plenty of choices on what to do. Politics is also another route the campaign can go, I want to let this be a sandbox the players determine what happens in not me forcing a story down everyone's throats.

I will most likely be running this game on D20Pro (thought Roll20 is a option but I had subscription services), so you will need to be able to run the software, and might have to purchase a license. I might be willing to purchase 3 additional licenses if thats whats needed as people can't afford to, or don't want to purchase the software (10 bucks) just to play.

I expect anyone who joins to be able to make most games, if someone regularly misses the games I will find someone else to fill your spot. Occasionally missing a guy with prior information that you won't be showing up is ok though, we all have lives.

I am flexible on the time Saturday we will play, but I want to run a 4-5 hour block so we can move things along. I will also be open to running 1 hour earlier and later than our set session for people who have more time to do things as a individual like join a society, guild or similar.

If you want to know more about Ptolus the players guide is free online, it's about 30 pages. Any questions hit me up I will be glad to answer.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Icedeep, I see your point, but there are blasting spells. You CAN deal those not-so-high-damage and contribute to the fight in that way.

You want orb spells for the "no-reflex save" mainly? would you mind if they were 15d6 or 10d8, save: no, spell resistance: yes?

To me the main thing is give me a single target spell I can use to get past saves when I am facing a high save enemy and I am not "Worthless" because I don't have "spell X".

So as long as it's versatile enough so that I can deal damage the vast majority of the time (even it's not on par with other spells with saves, or spell resistance checks) then I would be happy.

Right now Scorching Ray is about as good as it gets, and then Disintegrate (due to it's multi-use nature) but besides that I can't contribute with damage dealing spells easily.

Take for example fireball, it deals some damage over a wide variety of targets. How about a something like that for all damage types (So Fire Stream, Ice Stream, Wind Stream, etc) that only damages one person and bypasses saves with a bonus to overcoming SR (this is optional).

Maybe even make it so it only hits the first target, so if someone somehow steps in front of you before the spell goes off it hits them and doesn't go through like a "line" spell does.

That would seem fairly balanced to me, especially if it's evocation and fit within the theme of the school.

Would that be overpowered?

Cold Napalm wrote:
Orb of force...create a non magical orb of magical force...that right there was the death of orb spells for me. I am okay with the orb spells going in evocation with SR yes. Orb spells in conjuration was somebody at WotC playing their pet favorite class mut be uber (aka ed stark and the druid). It made evocation even MORE of a no brainer banned school and conjuration even more of a no brainer specialist school. That is just piss poor game design and I honestly do not want to see spells like the orb spells back in conjuration...and this is from somebody who is a cheesemonkey wizard player.

Thats why I was hoping Paizo would make some adjustments to those spells and make the middle ground were they exist and are not overpowered, or problamatic.

Is it that hard to make a simliar spell that is Evocation?

I personally am one that thinks it fits Conjuration, but maybe it's because I have been use to them. I wouldn't cry if they had changed them to Evocation, and/or removed the Force spell. But to not attempt to fix them (as there is no simliar spells) is just plain sad in my eyes.

But then I bought this book, and joined the subscription (which I had never did before for the basic game books, only AP's, and some AP rule books) because I wrongly assumed Paizo would give me something like that. :(

No I get spells that give me a swarm of this, or a swarm of that :P Like I care...

I just wish they had said "we will not re-do any save/spell resistance bypassing spells in any form even in reduced damage, etc" and I would have said ok and prob not bought the book. :(

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Cartigan wrote:

Acid Arrow is conjured and has no SR or saving throw. And there is no implication that the acid is magical either. AMF won't stop the recurring damage.

"there is no implication that the acid is magical either".

In fact, has a reasonable, we can say "realistic" damage, does not go up to 15d6 + save vs effect.

BTW, that save was a fortitude, very weird vs targets with mettle (the old stalwart). But in that case, weird in an awesome way :P

@Ice_Deep: that stuff is there for a reason. moreover, if you increase spellcasters damage, I wonder what remains for meleers.

Whats more fun for the Melee character, killing a uncounsious badguy, or hitting him and doing the final blow when the wizard and cleric/rogue couldn't finish him off?

I would say a Wizard doing damage with the other players.

Take for example the BBEG Human guy, he has say 200 HP...

Is it better for the wizard to

A) Hit him with a orb doing 30-50 points of damage
B) Disable him completely or stand there

Seems if he hits him with the orb the Melee and other character have plenty to do he only did about 20-25% of his HP in damage.

Now if the orb did 100-300 points or something like that, yeah that is overpowered, while 30-50 is what a 5th level fighter would do on a nice shot, and a 10th+ level fighter will do a ton more than that.

The orb isn't overpowered just like Magic Missile isn't overpowered because is bypasses everything (you don't have to roll to hit even) because of the fact the damage it deals doesn't kill anything worth wasting a spell on for the most part.

I was hoping we would get a slightly reduced powered orb type spell so I could have cannon damage spells, and unless I am wrong Paizo never said they wouldn't come out with those type spells. I enjoy many of the spells in UM, but frankly without those the book is a lot less in my eyes as it's a simple spell to add compared to the silly and mostly unusable type spells I see. Sure drinking someones blood and learning a spell from them is great... But frankly is that going to be used a ton by PC's? Not in comparison to how much use a Orb of Force could get, it's a thimble in the ocean.

So to me bad move by Paizo, and this is someone who loves the company and have been a big proponent on my players buying more books because it's official balanced material that was filling all the needs for me as both a Player and a GM. Not giving casters back those spells doesn't work for me.

Shoot it's a non-core book so if you didn't like them and thought they were overpowered you (or the GM) could not allow those spells. By Paizo not including them I have 0% option of including a PFSRD/PFRPG Orb type spell, and this sucks. Sure I could convert over the 3.5 spells, but then it's not Paizo, it's a house rule and it causes more issues. This also produces the question of why buy further books if I am going to just start creating custom content for my game?

To me it's silly a Wizard/Sorcerer or caster couldn't come up with a better spell for direct damage than is out there considering the powers that *are* out there.

A high level wizard can stop time, travel the planes, stop aging and death...

But heaven forbid you bypass spell resistance, and/or saves and do a whole 1/4-1/3rd somethings HP in damage with a spell. Nope.. nope.. that's tooooo powerful!

Guess I will just have to used a one spell to knock the creature defenseless instead, because that of course isn't over powered...

Huh? LOL! Please!

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Ice_Deep wrote:

Put me down as one who wish UM had some type of ORB like/simliar spells..

Wizards/Sorcerers need a way to bypass saves and spell resistance it's not to overpowered, especially when compared to control spells.

Really sad and disappointed :(

Why put defenses on monsters if they can be easily overcomed?

Because damage isn't the best way to deal with a monster in the number of spells used, it's pretty much a fact for many years because of the high HP of monster in comparison to there saves.

But for someone who played 2E a lot, I really miss being able to blast once in awhile and kill things that way. Sure I can blast a horde of kobolds, but honestly couldn't the fighter take them out in a round or 2 without me helping at all and no damage taken?

Playing a Sorcerer my character dominated the field with Color Spray (Levels 1-2, and some of 3) ending many fights with 1-2 spells which isn't fun for the other players.

Me casting a ORB like spell and taking 1/2 it's HP away would let the other players do something and contribute instead of the GM going "ok there all unconscious and the battle is over" It would be ok this guy is down 1/2, and this one is unhurt (because I can only hit one) and then the fighter kills the fresh guy while the others finish off the hurt one.

Yes I have the options later at some spells like fireball but frankly that is a pathetic spell thats not worth a slot in my known spells. A damage spell like magic missile but that did real damage WOULD be worth knowning, which is why the wizard/sorc NEEDS a orb type spell. The only direct damage type spell worth knowing is Scorching Ray, thats the *only one*, IMO.

It's ok I will just start customizing my game, but that is bad news because it means less money for Paizo as why buy cannon when I can just make my own and get what I want without paying for it?

Edit: Note my Sorcerer is prob the most powerful person in my group from 1-3 and then from 8+, and it's not from direct damage spells since I barely learned my first one (Scorching Ray) and this is during the time my character is weakest. After level 8+ I will be the strongest character because I will have a 70% chance of putting down any enemy for 3+ rounds multiple times a day at CR 4-5 higher than my CR. Do you think a Orb type spell is going to beat that effectiveness? Never!

Put me down as one who wish UM had some type of ORB like/simliar spells..

Wizards/Sorcerers need a way to bypass saves and spell resistance it's not to overpowered, especially when compared to control spells.

Really sad and disappointed :(

I just wanted to confirm that order Order #1667134 will be reprocessed on the same card. I did click it to do some, but haven't gotten a email, or charge notice. I guess your just waiting until you ship to charge :)

John Lynch 106 wrote:

If using Bestiary 2 monsters is more appropriate to the flavour of the adventure Charles would rather see them used without having to do without word count.

This +1

xn0o0cl3 wrote:

I've got a pit of Gormuz-esque project going, in that I'm digging a big damn hole. And the Worldwound is an amazing idea! A swathe of blighted wasteland is just what the upper world needs!

How about locations that already have maps, like dungeons and such? I've got one friend building Vordakai's tomb and another building the Stag Lord's fort... I imagine there are much more exciting dungeons to recreate though. Having them mapped out already is ever-so handy when converting to Minecraft...

[threadjack]Sorry, but know any good pointers, or places/must reads for someone who has never played?

Also I wanted to play the survival game, but is that discontinued? Thanks![/threadjack]

To me the jungle (don't remember it's name) would be the most interesting to explore in Minecraft :)

I would say Riddleport is a must simply because of the Arch!

idilippy wrote:

Also, just reading through it I know a lot of players who wouldn't care at all for the town since they aren't really given much reason to care. The daughter is sympathetic, which is great, but one NPC can't keep a whole party involved unless the players are great and buy into the premise anyways. That isn't a huge deal to me though, as I modify, add, and remove NPCs all the time to make sure the players have interesting people around them as much as possible, and the NPCs weren't completely terrible as presented, a little tweaking and I'm sure they'd be fine.

I am going to play it up as the following...

my hooks:

1. I am going to play the daughter a NPC in the party if they want here, and provide a bit more insight into the deceased which might be of help. I know some people don't know "GMPC's" but it's pretty standard in our group.

2. The daughter is going to be a bit grief stricken at first, over a day or 2 and is going to indicate that she doesn't think she can stay there "with so many memories of her father"

3. After the first week she is going to say she has found a buyer, but he is coming from out of town and will be there (around day 10)

4. This gives me the hook of also maybe the buyer comes and he sees the ghosts around the town, or the blood on the statue and doesn't want to buy, or is lowering his price. The daughter is "stuck" until the town (and thus the prison) is cleared of these ghosts

5. The daughter (even if not a GMPC) will ask that she (once the house is sold) request to travel with the PC's to the city they are taking the chest/items, and will pay them a bit for the waiting

Just some ideas on how I am going to play it

I am sure others have plenty better ideas, but this (I think) will work for my group.

Reckless wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
Reckless wrote:

The adventure itself is marvelous, and my players like riding the train. Choo choo!

** spoiler omitted **

It is indeed marvelous, but the railroading talk mystifies me, as this as far ax modules go is fairly sandbox as it offers multiple methods and paths for the PC's to achieve the objective, and goes at great length to offer and even suggest ways to make the adventure less linear. If this still isnt sandbox enough for you, modules probably are not the best choice for your party as all of them contain a unifying story, or at least theme. True sandbox parties are best run home grown.

Actually, that wasn't any bit of sarcasm. After two APs that were very sandboxy, my players are enjoying having a more linear storyline. That's right. Enjoying.

The railroad talk stems from a few things: 1) Stuck in town for 30 days will feel constrictive to some 2) The nature of the Trust points system forcing conformity to a certain ethos 3) Dungeon crawl etc.

So yes, this adventure will feel "too" railroady to some. I'm not one, neither are my players. We're glad to be back to a more traditional modular feel. Not that the open trails were bad either.

I love the start to this campaign. However, I stand by the criticisms against certain parts of the AP book. Especially the Trust Point system as presented.

Yeah I mean there is restrictions, but it's only when you push up against those "walls" that they are really known.

I really think the start is a excellent way to get the PC's hooked into staying. I can't really not see the PC's checking out a number of things, and be willing to spend 1-2 weeks in town, and it's only in weeks 2-3 I see some issues.

Now since there is a "time frame" for the bad things happening I think the PC's will finish everything during that "2 week window" where they don't feel "stuck here because of a railroad".

Look at kingmaker

Kingmaker walls:
In kingmaker you can't leave the area, you can't go beyond the area indicated, etc

So to me it's just what you have to deal with in a published module. It's just easier to notice the "Walls". I still think it's a great book #1, and I look forward to running it.

James Jacobs wrote:
Brandon Hodge wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
It's, in fact, my favorite example of how RPGs can get derailed and bogged down in unnecessary "gun porn," with the designers losing sight of what's good for the game's pacing and getting all caught up in writing a gun encyclopedia instead.

Though to be fair, the original Call of Cthulhu game set that precedent by publishing stats for just about every imaginable gun in every frikkin' caliber variation over the years in various resources, many times with very little difference, if any, between (for example) a Walther PPK and a Browning Hi-Power. I always thought that gave players too much credence to worry about the gun their investigator carried, when they needed to be more worried about the book of spells in their satchel that they hadn't bothered to flip through. Those charts were pretty tiny print, though! =-)

While that's true... they didn't take up more than a few pages at most in their core rules; they left the actual gun porn for later, supplementary books.

Guns are one of those topics like sailing—since they are a popular real-life hobby with real-world histories and lots of real-world facts to get neck deep into, when you have someone who likes RPGs and who likes guns (or sailing, or whatever), they tend to want to treat both hobbies with equal attention to detail.

We don't have dozens of different crossbow brands in the game, in other words, so there's no reason to have dozens of different submachinegun or revolver brands in the game. That is to say... if we DO... they should be in their own books so that fans of the base game don't have to be sad that their core rulebook has a huge chunk in it that they have no interest in.

This is why we're putting firearms rules into something other than our core rules, for example, and why we haven't tackled a nautical/ship rules set yet. That topic needs its own book also.

Ehhh I love guns IRL, still keep them out of my fantasy world for the most part :)

Heck I like sailing to (though never have been, only boating)! What is wrong with me? ;) lol

wraithstrike wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I think what I have discovered is that RAW can not account for every situation. Ok I already knew that, but what I mean the attempt to do this by RAW is nigh impossible because judgement calls would have to be made that some will agree with and some will not at least with respect to the mind blank spell among other things. Neither side can prove hiding can be done forever or the counter. Oh well it was interesting to say the least.


It's a b%&$+. Now imagine this thing at an actual game table, and the trouble it could easily lead to.


I think any player expecting to pull this off is in for a rude awakening and is more than likely just being given enough rope to hang himself. I think it is better to just tell the player up front that his greed will not bring him any profit instead of let him get himself setup.

It's one thing to say I am using GM fiat in order to keep the game fun, and in control for everyone to enjoy. It's another to say you are not using GM fiat and then explain away why something can, or can't be done.

I am fine with GM's using fiat in situations like this, just admit to it instead of using vague rules, and interpretations to seem like you are not doing so.

Brandon Hodge wrote:
These haunt rules aren't anything new. They've been around since AP #2 (The Skinsaw Murders), and have been well received since that time without giving people a whole lot of trouble. I suggest you take a few minutes to read the GMG or PRD rules really thoroughly, because they answer most of the questions raised on this thread, and them adapt and incorporate them into your campaign in a way that your players will accept. If they don't work as published for you, that's OK. Give them a tweak until they do. =-)

OM, don't even start on running ROTL before they had the official Haunt rules (maybe online, but pre-GMG), it was very weird. To me they didn't work right, and I didn't know how they worked so I just "winged it".

Now with those rules, and the way it's written it's much better, and I think they add a lot to the adventure :).

13garth13 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Under books being referenced (and posted for free on an SRD) anyone with an internet connection (which is clearly everyone on this forum) has the option to use that monster. This causes more time for DMs who don't own the book, but ultimately they're still able to gain access to the content (unless they lack an internet connection which clearly isn't anyone on this forum).

Yeah, or you know...anyone of my lads/lasses (Canucks) or yours (Yanks) that are serving overseas without a reliable internet connection. Not trying to play some patriot card in the game here (really!) just pointing out that while clearly everyone posting on this forum has an internet connection (duh!), there are some segments of the population who are gamers and Paizo/AP customers who can't necessarily count on an internet connection (at least not reliably).

Shoot, the USA is behind MANY countries when it comes to internet connections. My internet selection is between dial-up, and wireless broadband (with a tiny download limit). Seems like a great selection huh? Not!

Yet internet isn't a issue for me.

13garth13 wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Clearly you and Charles can't be catered to by the same product (this isn't a snark. Just a neutral statement of fact). It is up to Paizo to determine which customer represents the larger population and which population will given them more money in total.

You might be right (although I hope not) but the galling thing for me is that for all the previous APs this was not the case, so it is unfortunate that a product which we had both enjoyed must now lose/make unhappy a certain portion of its previously very, very happy reader base.

And bloody hell, as I keep saying, we can both have our cake and eat it too, if we just accept that some word count is going to be lost for the sake of both sides being happy. For me, it's a small price to pay, especially since we've (finally!!) lost the iconics at the back :) :)
I do accept (and fully understand why, especially for those who write the darn things) that for some, losing a 1/2 page of text (or even, heaven help us, a full page of text) is just not acceptable. But for me it is, especially if it keeps both parties happy. *shrug* I do know that my...

I will give you the 1page, will you give me anything that eats up more than that? Like if they want to include something (or more than 1 thing) that is going to eat up 2-5 pages, will you then say it's worth it to not re-re-print?

Megan Robertson wrote:

BBC feature on how time zones affect everyday life... you may be interested in the last story!

Time Zones story

Nice, that you Megan?

Shar Tahl wrote:

Favored class options are not going to make it the "go to" race for ALL sorcerers. I play the apparently much maligned gnome sorcerer and I have not felt hindered at all or lower in power. The fact of the matter is that it can't overpowered you since it does not give you more power at all. It gives you more versatility to add more situational spells, but as another pointed out, combat lasts a limited number of round. You won't get all your spells off, so the extra 16 really don't come into play in most situations. It won't make everyone always choose human just to get more spells.

The fact is, most players choose human for the bonus feat and because it's the safest and easiest to role play for most people since they are humans as well. I, for one, never choose human unless I need the feat very badly or the concept I have in mind fits human. I don't like being a slave to power mechanics and choosing the most mechanically superior combination of Race, Class, Feats and Skills every time I make a character.

The goal is to have fun. No one wins for having the best character.

I understand, but we all have our quirks, mine is I will build the best character I can. Does that mean I am not having fun? Nope, though I would have been able to have a little more fun if it wasn't stuck to only humans. I didn't need the extra feat, though I am making use of it.

Now also I know all characters need a chance to shine, so even when I could end all of a encounter in 2 rounds, I will take some time off to let the fighter get some "smashing" in. I also work with the GM on making the world my real, and not abuse the rules.

But as far as creating a character, I am going to pick the "best" for what I want to do, thats how I work. That promotes the fun for me, and having a substandard character is not something I would enjoy in the least.

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
I say Hyrum needs a flun- ur, intern to do his junk for him. He shouldn't be bothered with mechanics and whatnot. Back in the old days, if a monkey had laser eyes, he didn't have to put up with that kind of crap.

Yeah but it's really hard to find monkey interns, and the last human intern really messed up the special steering, and pedals ;)

Mournblade94 wrote:
Klebert L. Hall wrote:

This used to be called wanting to Have Your Cake and Eat It Too, and was considered somewhat contemptible.


You know I have never understood this particular Cliche. I mean who wants cake you are not allowed to EAT. If I am given cake I expect to eat it. If someone gives me cake and then says I cannot eat it.. well then what is the purpose of the cake? Cakes are delicacies.

Quite honestly if someone asked me if I wanted cake and then said by eating it I would be somehow contemptible, than I am going to throw it back in their face.

To me this cliche would be like saying the following:

He wants to have his salary and spend it too.

What other point is there to salary other than spending it? (if you are purchasing health care or rent, or paying bills, you are still spending it).


Zark wrote:
Ice_Deep wrote:
Ellington wrote:
I do think it's the most powerful favored class bonus available, but I do not think it's game breaking. It certainly wouldn't be a factor when it comes to choosing a race for my sorcerer.

Maybe for you :(

I can't get myself to play any non-human Sorcerer as long as they are the only ones to have the option for 16 lvl1+ bonus spells. I wanted to play Gnome, and I brought up that it would be nice for them to have the Favor Class bonus of bonus spells, but the GM was wary.


It certainly would be a factor when it comes to choosing a race for my sorcerer. Most players will play human.
Gnomes suck, so why you should play them I don't know.

I had a idea for the build, but since I couldn't get the spells.. Well human it is.

Ellington wrote:
I do think it's the most powerful favored class bonus available, but I do not think it's game breaking. It certainly wouldn't be a factor when it comes to choosing a race for my sorcerer.

Maybe for you :(

I can't get myself to play any non-human Sorcerer as long as they are the only ones to have the option for 16 lvl1+ bonus spells. I wanted to play Gnome, and I brought up that it would be nice for them to have the Favor Class bonus of bonus spells, but the GM was wary. Now in my games (as GM) it will be allowed for all classes, it's to good not to be IMO.

BPorter wrote:

Actually, I do worry about it a fair bit. The retcon I cite from the 3.5 version is evidence enough that "firearm influence" may be occurring in the setting canon. Couple that with Greenwood's Alkenstar web fiction & the Gunslinger class and I see it potentially shaping up to be a significant problem.

As for a musket-style fire-and-draw steel kind of game, if I were playing in a Freeport or Iron Kingdoms campaign, I wouldn't mind it. But I'm running compaigns in Golarion that are influenced by many sources, but are primarily grounded in swords-and-sorcery roots/traditions (plate armor, lances, bows, cavaliers, swords, axes, mail armor, etc.). I want something closer to Conan, knights, & traditional fantasy than I want a RPG set in a tech era comparable to the 15-18th centuries. I want that classic late-medieval/early renaissance period that the games' roots and traditions started with.

Bottom line, firearms can drastically change the tone and feel of a setting. Under the original paradigm of "primarily in Alkenstar", GMs could increase the prevalence of firearms but setting canon effectively relegated it to a niche technology. Just as it's easier to add magic in than take it out, the same applies to tech. Pathfinder is High Fantasy - prevalent magic comes with the territory. Prevalent firearms, regardless of tech/effectiveness -- no thanks.


13garth13 wrote:

Exactly, I agree 100%. I don't need any extra options from some rule book to spice up my NPCs and monsters..... if I want to give some special ability, I just make up a feat or give 'em a supernatural ability or something.

As you asked, what follows down the road, eh? I mean, I do recall when it was (happily embraced by me) official policy that the only things that would be referenced by page number were the core two books and everything else would be written up....and that changed, right? So who knows what the future will hold.....seems safer to print the extra material (and again, yes, I know it cuts into word counts, and that does suck {I understand completely!} but maybe that means the authors will have to be selective in what they include as "extra" goodies in the maybe only five critters from the ToH Revised instead of six, you know?).


The bolded makes me cringe. But I think this is the main difference here, my group is a strict by the rules group for the most part. If I (or any of us who GMed) started making up feats, or special abilities that NPC's (or even monsters) had that were not in the books (or for NPC's accesible by PC's) then it would become a pretty big issue.

Of course it sounds like you are more the set GM, and we have a rotating GM situation.

I guess it depends on the amount of what we are losing. If we are losing 1%, ehh.. not a big deal. 2, well thats a really nice NPC, when we start losing say 3-5 pages (3-5%) then I would say it's well worth it for them to just use the material whats already printed from AGP/B2.

But I have weighted in, so I will let everyone else say what they think :)

I dislike the assumption that all Efreeti have this knowledge of how to use the Wish spell to there advantage. If the GM is not giving any opportunity (i.e. chance) for the Efreeti to not have this knowledge then I would rule this is the same as Efreeti being omnipresence and God's and say this is the GM screwing the players.

Now if your willing to say there is a certain percentage, and leave it to a role then I would be more understanding.

Diego Rossi wrote:

What are you saying here?
The wizard is powerful, he cant incant stuff while adventuring?

Or you mean that the wizard has 2 full hours every day to add spells to his spelbook? (I don't know where you get the 8 hours when adventuring. Your wizard has nothing to do when the group is moving around or at a camp-site? He can write while walking/riding and get no guard duty?)

While reviewing the other week I came across something that said you get 2 free hours a day towards crafting, this is assumed to take place during off time at lunch, meals, breaks, etc.

Diego Rossi wrote:

The wizard need a source to learn a spell and then the time and resources to put it in his spellbook. So unless your gaming group find plenty of scrolls the wizard, in a typical Pathfinder story arc has little time to add the spell to his repertoire beside the 2 he automatically learn every time he gain a level.

With a few thousand dollar investment, between the 2 hours gained from "down time" during the day and the 6 hours you gain from a ring of sustainence you have 8 hours every day to craft (or put spells in your spell book, make scrolls, etc).

Diego Rossi wrote:

To buy a scroll or a spell you need a city and money, same thing to buy the inks, same thing to buy a blank spellbook. Then you need the time to copy those spells.

If your in a campaign where you can't get to a city, or town, or you have no money (which in my experience is about never) then yes if you kill no spellbook carrying casters you won't have spells to put in your book.

Diego Rossi wrote:

A wizard is relatively easy to "de-fang". Remove his spellbook and his components and he is reduced to a couple of spells. If he want to protect against that risk he has to spend 2 feats (eschew components and spell mastery).

I am really perplexed by the "pooor sorcerer" position I seen a lot of people taking.

Ahhh, but if you got to the wizard then something was wrong. My sorcerer has been hit from close combat zero times, my spell casters have had there spellbook stolen zero times, they have had there spell component pouches destroyed zero times. Also it's not like I played spell casters once of twice. Since my old 2nd edition days I have played casters about 80% of the time, and 90% of those were wizards. I am sure plenty have a ton more experience to draw on but honestly if it's never happened to me I can't see it being a huge drawback.

Are sorcerers impossible to play? No. Are they defenseless or worthless? No. Are they inferior to Wizards in most ways? In my opinion yes.

Erik Freund wrote:
Ice_Deep wrote:
Edit: I guess you, and your players are not very interested in the options the APG provides? I know I couldn't imagine my players not wanting to play those options so maybe thats the difference in our groups?

If a player wants to love and invest and dig deep into a character to figure out how all those extra options interact on his sheet, then power to him. I've found it actually takes a player a few sessions to figure out how to get a character to "work right."

But as a GM, I don't need or want those extra options in my one-battle-then-they-die NPCs. I'll end up just ignoring all those extra options and just charging into the combat (leading to a very unsatisfying encounter), because I really wasn't expecting the PCs to attack that NPC this session, so I didn't spend the 20 minutes nessecary to figure out a good battle plan for him to use (I spent those 20 minutes elsewhere during my 3 hour prep time).

Again: today it's just PHB+APG. By year's end we'll also have Ulimate Magic and Ultimate Combat (and all the guns rules!). By next year? Or the year after?

See for me the APG is a help for those really tough guys. Everyone has fought such and such so many times, but what about the Anti-Paladin? ;)

Fought a amazing number of sorcerers, but what about oracle or witch?

To me it really (atleast for me as a GM) adds some flavor, and I don't have to get bored playing a bad fighter who is trying to kill the players, but now I get to be a evil paladin and make the players shake in there boots! :)

Atleast thats how I see it, but again I don't mind spending some more prep time making some character, especially when I am using Hero Lab and will have a character sheet of them from 1-20. Oh they killed them? Who cares, he comes back as a different person with a few feat changes and different charastics and the players will never know.

Now this goes for me as a GM to the AP's. I prefer the AP's have a wide variety of content, or my players will get bored with them. After playing in 2 AP's in a row they already want to not play in CC :(. That means even more work for me, lol! But we all do what we can to make it fun for everyone, and we each know our groups I think.

Thanks again for the constructive conversation.

Diego Rossi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

As for whether it's balanced or not... I suspect it is. It LOOKS really good, but in play, having a few more spells isn't all that overwhelmingly as game-breaking as it looks. If that means that there's a lot more human sorcerers than not... I'm kinda okay with that, since "sorcerer" isn't a class that's classically been associated with any of the other races anyway (not like rogues and halfings, or wizards and elves).

From my point of view he is.

The only advantage a wizard has against a sorcerer is that he get higher level spells 1 level ahead of the sorcerer and that he has a wider selection of spells in his spellbook.

And when a spells effectiveness can vary from 0% to 200%, and the right spell being able to be cast = 100% effectiveness gain, I say thats huge. Being a level behind is big, being a level behind and knowing 1/3rd the spells makes it a huge difference.

Diego Rossi wrote:

The sorcerer has all his spell available as long has he has available slots, the bloodline powers are more numerous and generally better than the powers of specialist wizards and he has a higher number of spells.

They need the bloodline powers, or they are worthless compared to a wizard with good spell selection. Consider they have (as a specialist wizard) 80% of more of the # of spells, if they only gain a 50% gain in there spells efficiency due to being able to select from such a wide variety they are at least 130% as good as a sorcerer. By giving the Sorcerer 20 extra spells (at 1 level lower than there highest) there might make up 10% of that gap at most.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Lessening even further one of the two drawback of the class make him even more powerful.

In the typical PA arc you have little free time so the wizard advantage in versatility is further reduced as he has little time to add spells to his spellbook, while the sorcerer get them automatically, so again increasing the number of spells know to a sorcerer make the class even more potent.

I think your stating your opinions as fact here, which I disagree with. Consider that you automatically gain 2 hours a day for crafting, 8 hours a day is almost guaranteed by the rules (unless your adventuring 16+ hours a day).

Diego Rossi wrote:

RuyanVe wrote:

If you are still bothered: just give the evil adversary the same option *shrugs* and see if it really turns the tide of battle. If so, tone it down (there are various suggestions mentioned already) - my idea was to restrict the spells thematically to the bloodline, i. e. give each bloodline two additional spells as bloodline power as the sorcerer gains new spell levels.


It don't really work that way. Giving the extra spell or spells to a NPC that will be met one or 2 times in an adventure don't change the balance between the arcane spellcasters players.

Giving more spells to a class whose main drawback was exactly the limited number of spells accessible change the balance between the arcane spellcaster...

I don't know but I know in my personal experience I thought Sorcerers had surpassed the Wizard, but in my playing experience it's not the case. It's only that a non prepared Wizard will always be beat out by a prepared Sorcerer, but a prepared Sorcerer will barely be able to stay even (if that) with a prepared wizard. (By prepared I mean proper spell selection, and memorizing).

Also with the Arcane Bond the Wizard gains one of the main benefits of the Sorcerer, the ability to pull out that "one spell" that is needed, and since they have such a huge selection it's normally a better spell than the sorcerer can pull out.

I will be ruling that it's a option for all races, it's to nice a option for Sorcerers for every race to not have that option.

Without it I wouldn't play a Sorcerer, and I won't play a Sorcerer thats not Human as long as thats the only race to get the bonus spells.

With that said it's not overpowered only the superior choice for most people, but because it buts it just slightly less than the Wizard, but the Wizard is still the better class.

To me it's the only thing that made a Sorcerer worth playing, so nerfing it to 1/2 would just mean I would play a Wizard ;).

Stonesnake wrote:

I find the Haunts quite interesting and I can't wait to run them, however I have several questions about their mechanics as my players are very much rules-lawyers and will want to know EXACTLY how they work.

1) I understand that with most haunts only positive energy will damage them ... but I'm still a bit unsure on how that works exactly. For example, Cure Light Wounds is only supposed to work on living creatures and haunts aren't living (or even undead) creatures from what I can tell. However in the description of the haunt itself it mentions that cure spells could in theory work. But even if those spells work, since cure spells are touch spells what would you touch exactly to inflict damage on the haunt?

positive energy spells applited to the haunt (via channeled energy, cure spells and the like) can damage the haunts hit points (no will save), attacks must hit a 10AC to effect the haunt.

Stonesnake wrote:

A good example is The Piper of Illmarsh, his haunt seems quite tricky as he first manifest as a floating flute and then also as ghost. Can you attack and damage both of these items at the same time? Which brings me to the next question...

2) When it comes to combat against a haunt how does it work in terms of AC and hitting it? Again my example above, when the floating flute appears I know my players will try to hit that thing with positive energy. But there are no stats for hitting the floating, moving flute itself. How should this be handled?

I would say since the haunt manifests in both, then both qualify for the "must strike AC 10 in order to affect the haunt and not merely the physical structure it inhabits". Not this is for ONLY channel, and cure type effects, nothing else damaged a haunt itself.

Stonesnake wrote:

3) Would a Cure Light Wounds Potion (or similar positive energy potion) damage a haunt?

Not unless it drinks it, IMO

Stonesnake wrote:

4) Finally the most confusing aspect of the haunt is the destruction item. Haunts are described as very similar to traps, but the main difference that I know my players are going to fight me on big time is that with a trap the disarm function is largely done in the abstract. You just need to do a successful roll and the trap is disarmed, you don't need to know EXACTLY how to disarm the trap, that is all done within the roll itself.

However with a haunt that is not the case. You need to learn and understand a specific action on how to destroy the haunt, and some of those methods I don't think I would ever figure out on my own they are so complex.

So how is the best way to handle learning how to destroy a haunt. I know my players will want this to come down to a simple roll like disarming a trap (i.e. the old "I might not know what to do but my PCs would know what to do!"). Although learning how the haunt works and then destroying it would be a lot more fun and better storytelling, I still can't understand how a PC would learn this information.

I understand that this is largely up to the GM, but I also know my players and they always HATE run rules are so generic like that. They want/like very specific rules that they can follow and plan for (or better yet, roll for). So any help on this would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

You might want to just show some effects from the haunt, and for example if they need to free a corpse stuck in a wall (one of the haunts) they might see the haunt, and maybe a "shadow or a ghost" clawing itself out of the wall. Give them a knowledge/religion check to have a idea someone is trapped in the wall, if they get really high then give them the info they need to be buried.

Mainly to me there not supposed to destroy most of the haunts until they put the whole place to rest, the prison is supposed to be a scary crazy place where your always watching your back for the object coming to life and attacking you.

13garth13 wrote:

Heh. Believe it....there are two (count 'em, two) copies of the core rule book from a pool of six players plus me (the DM/GM) and only one Bestiary, and then two Bestiary 2 copies (myself plus another player). Now, maybe this same player who also has the Bestiary 2, and the core rulebook also has the APG (I haven't asked him), but it's a moot point, as it doesn't come up in the games I run.

Now, I sure don't know if I'm in the minority, or you are in terms of numbers of books floating around gaming tables....that is indeed an interesting question.

And where we differ is just my basic philosophy that ONLY the core rulebook and...

Thats rather interesting because from my perspective I would think Core and APG would be the most sold (at table) books. It always seems to be "player oriented" books such as APG are plentiful at the table, and GM based books such as Bestiary II are harder to come by.

But since I don't have as much experience with who has local product because I no longer work in a gaming store I am unsure if my "feeling" holds true locally, let alone nationally/globally.

I just know in my years of playing 3.5 it always seemed a MMII, or MMIII+ was harder to come by, but the Complete books were very popular in comparison. To me thats why the APG should be the first to be included if one is.

Hopefully whatever Paizo does will find a way to keep as many of us happy as possible. Thank you as well for you constructive comments :)

Edit: I guess you, and your players are not very interested in the options the APG provides? I know I couldn't imagine my players not wanting to play those options so maybe thats the difference in our groups?

thenorthman wrote:
harmor wrote:
SkyGuard wrote:
Well after reading a ton about the G-tab, and trying out a xoom at the verizon store. I'm going to give the G-tab a try. A large part due the the crazy deal on it today over at woot. Thanks Ice_deep for all you help. I will try to put a post with my impressions of using it for role playing once I get it.

$285 for the If you were in the market for a non-3G iPad this is really tempting.

Nice comparisons.

But why do they compare it to a 3G model when the gTablet doesn't even have 3G on it? I can understand the comparison if it did but other wise it screams trying to inflate a price of the iPad to readers.

Of course I do have a WiFi only version 64 GB.


Bad thing is it's wrong on some accounts..

Gtab does have a light sensor

Gtab does have a accelerometer

as examples, I didn't look over every detail but caught those 2.

Glad to be of help, yep the Woot deal is great and I wish I had gotten mine at that price :)

If you have any issues I check here pretty often and will help if you start a new topic, or you can always check out XDA.

Edit: Note on battery life, gameday went 11 hours without plugging in my tablet, and still had 30% battery :), how is that for battery life?

I understand the perspective of those who don't wish to use the newer books. To me it is just a negative on the AP's to have to reprint more things that have been put out their, especially when it's something included in only one or 2 books.

I honestly can't imagine many groups not having a APG, in fact we have 3 amongst my group.

While not as many have the B2, I can tell you one does have it, and I will also be purchasing it.

Now if everything is going to be reprinted in the AP's I would be less likely to buy a B2, as it would be useless during the running of one.

So to me APG should for sure be included, I could maybe see not including the B2, but in 6 months-1 years time it should because most groups will have 2-3 copies.

But as you said, maybe I am in the minority in having a group with 3+ sets of most books. I think my set (gameday carry) will be Core, APG, B1, GMG, B2, Inner Sea World Guide (Possibly adding UM, and UC later). Now I have a number of other books in PDF format though none others in physical format (accept Carrion #1).

Of course I also had a 400 page homemade GMG back in the day with more charts than you can shake a stick at, and a duffel back with about 100 lbs of 2nd edition books (about 3-1/2 feet tall stack), so carrying 5-7 books to the game (even with a laptop, tablet, notebook, etc) isn't a issue.

Steve Geddes wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
I also like to think we learned from some unfortunate choices in Lost Cities (too much room spent on sample campaigns, for one), to make Dungeons of Golarion a lot more useful for folks who want to set campaigns in them, by the by. We'll see if we were successful once it's out.
I am very confident I'm going to enjoy the choices you've made in this new product. Nonetheless, I wanted to mention that the sample campaigns at low/med/high level were a big part of what I enjoyed in Lost Cities of Golarion. I finished that book with half a dozen campaign ideas I wanted to run immediately - the blend of in-game story elements with practical 'how to use this setting in a game' suggestions was an excellent feature, in my opinion.


+1 me to.. I actually bought a few more books (PDF's) because of it, and then found out it was the odd book of the type (though Fractions was good IMO). The more books like that (a mix of crunch and setting) would be more likely purchased by myself. I just recently subscribed for the new campaign setting so I will be interesting in watching the next few books to see how this goes. :)

Hopefully you find the right mix to keep as many of us happy as possible.

Hey I understand where you coming from, this it really group dependent. I think between the 3 "major" players, we have about 50 years of gaming experience (not trying to brag, just saying), and 60% of the group has many years of GMing experience.

In my past experience only the really tough things that were TPK's in other AP's (example RotRL giants), would get 1-2 kills at most, and a lot of those are due to the minor mistakes the players make.

Like I said I will let them get to level 4 before that fight, by having them level the fight right before you almost guarantee they are totally 100% fresh for the final fight. 2,400 exp isn't going to kill anything as far as "being into level 4" so thats not a issue right?

And to me I compare him to a normal ghost, he has less AC, HP, and the attacks are the same with the exception of magic missile. Now since he can use his Touch attack without worry of running out (both a regular Ghost, and the Splatter Man) wouldn't you say if he is to hard for a 7CR, then a ghost is also to hard for a 7CR?

As a 7CR it's completely acceptable for a part of level 4's, it's a epic boss fight as it should be with 1-2 party deaths (which will have little effect due to the potions they have).

Now one thing I will say is I am not "relentless" when it comes to combat, I don't play the monsters that way unless it's really called for story wise. So yes I will focus on one player, but it will most likely be the fighter, and they can keep him alive for 3-4 rounds I think (which should be long enough to kill the BBEG). If someone else gets close (a softer target) well thats what they get right? ;)

Notice I said level 4 party, not level 3.

I am speculating between Channel Energy (9-10 pts a round), Magic Missiles (4pts a round), and the damage from the fighter (20+ pts a round, so 10 a round) they should be able to kill him in 3 rounds.

Remember he can't leave a certain area so if they die it's the parties fault for not just leaving that area and coming back prepared.

Ehhh he is not that much tougher than a normal Ghost which is CR7. To me since the Magic Missile spells will do about as much at the touch attack he is about a CR7, though on the high end. Also he has lower AC, lower HP than the "stock" ghost out of the B1.

I will try to make sure they are level 4 by that fight, but honestly 4 level 4's should be able to take on a monster who is trapped in a certain area. If they can't, well thats on them ;)

And I also agree, I am playing Second Darkness right now, and we almost haven't had a challenging encounter, and that is after the GM admitting to upping some of the encounters. And we are a group of only 4 PC's, though sometimes a 5th (1 time) and not completely all optimal.

So to me having something your forced to play "up to" and have a possibility of losing/dieing to is part of the game.

Since he could potentially be dead in 2-3 rounds with a smart party, or he could potentially TPK a dumb party in the same amount of time, which is good for a boss fight.

Just received this book though I have the PDF. The PDF can't compare, it's gorgeous, and the layout seems excellent. I enjoy the large map, but the maps of each nation are what make this product so excellent.

I can imagine telling a player some things to get them excited about "visiting" a nation just by looking at the map of some of the nations and reading some of the places.

Though now I know the island I was going to use for my independent nation is being used by Katapesh (IIRC). So I think with all this good info it's time for a read and see which nation I want my players to topple/free/takeover, or at least start in :).

Also I can't wait to show this to the group Saturday they will drool! :)

Erik Freund wrote:

I'm not interested in getting into an internet flamewar with anyone. James said he wanted feedback. Yelling at me and saying you're annoyed with my purchasing habits isn't going to change me as a person, nor other people in the same market segment as me that just aren't posting right now. It'll just make us quieter on the forums.

I consider myself an AP and module-line customer. I do not consider myself a crunch-book customer. Yes, Paizo puts out both these products, but that doesn't mean they are the same markets. I'm currently using Internet Explorer to type this post, but I do all my email through GMail. Just because Microsoft makes one product that I like, doesn't mean I'm going to use all of them.

Back under the WotC days, I never purchased a single "Complete" book - I'm just not interested in loads of crunch. I'm one of those "light gamers" that would currently be using an indie gaming product were it not for the high-quality APs that Paizo puts out. I really like the APs, and consider myself a faithful AP customer. Heck, this winter I bought people AP issues for their Christmas presents, and I otherwise exhort my friends to pick them up (as well as other fluff-centric) materials. But I can't withstand the heavy weight of complex crunch that pulls from multiple different sources that all need to be looked up ahead of time. I just can't do it. If you can, then that's great for you and your players. I'm saying I can't.
(Here I'm principally criticizing the APG and my fears of the upcoming Ultimate books. Bestiaries I can handle. But Inquisitor Judgments and how they interact or stack with a Battle Herald's Inspiring Commands? Too much research and FAQ-searching for a one-off fight. (And when it comes to PC class's powers, but players will not let me handwave or bend the rules, because now I'm messing with "their" stuff. Please don't argue this logic, it's just the way it is with my friends.))

You are a valid market segment too, and I don't mean to invalidate you. You...

I understand your reasoning, everyone is entitled to do what they wish in this regard.

My question to you is do you really feel you have enough monster in MM1/B1 without MM2/B2, or any other books to run a campaign? I understand where you coming from, but honestly I am curious if your using only one Monster book, or 2.

If your running with the MM2, then what is wrong with a B2?

I am in a pretty good situation when it comes to access.

I own a laptop, smartphone, tablet and had access to a portable wifi-hotspot (and wifi at my gaming spot).

With all of this I bought all the PDF's, downloaded the offline d20pfsrd and set myself up to run RotRL.

It was a lot more pain then it should have been simply because I had to make "copies" of the PDF to have different sections of a "book" easily viewable. When you have 10 pdf's open even a brand new laptop can start slowing down a bit, or the PDF program would freeze leaving me keeping my players hanging for minutes on end.

Now I am a player, and the current GM only has PDF's for the AP's (books for the Core/APG/etc) and he is experiencing the same issue. He had said multiple times he will be buying books 2-3 for the AP so he can have them there for play.

So recently I went out and bought the Core/APG/B1, I have GMG and Inner Sea World Guide coming in the mail, and will get B2 and UM next.

So it seems even people who have access to the net, access to a PDF/Web all the time will also buy the books.

Now that I have the books I find as a player I can help the GM a lot by quickly looking up some things on the SRD, or my tablet (spell effects, conditions, etc) but that off rules reference is quicker looked up in a book. Being the "rules lawyer" who tries to help fix any rules question, and being a bit more familiar with what I need to look up makes the books better sometimes even when I have the SRD/PDF.

1. PDFs/SRD are great for prepping, reading on the go

2. Books are superior for GMing, especially because of the need for so many reference points being easily accessible.

3. Having both/all is even better as you can pick and choose.

4. Memorizing page numbers and looking them up in 2-3 seconds isn't very easy for PDF's

5. Even with a tablet it's hard to let people "view" something like I can by using a book. Though it's great for showing just a picture as I can "snip" a picture off a PDF and pass it around (without letting players see stats)

Hopefully once I run a game again (noting 1/4 of my books I have in PDF only) I will be interested to see how having the books works now.

Jabarie wrote:

ok guys i have billion ideas for games my mind is exploding

but i cant seem to put my mind around detailed mod building

how do i make sure the adventure is balanced and not over powered

not sure how level appropriate some things are. how many minions can i

throw out with a boss befor i exceed cr of the group and such,

and most of my ideas are high powered even if i didnt mean them to be

how build a low level mod properly and stil have fun challenge and story?

what are good general guid lines?

any mod building tips guys i got bad writers block

The main thing is just start writing with what you know you want.

Only have a level 18 bad guy right now? Not a problem. Don't have any ideas? Look at history, try and take some ideas from times during time were people had to persevere or humanity as a whole would lose. Pick someone who is threatening that humanity (or at least a small country).

Build him, his places of "business" and then now you have some ideas I imagine for what he is doing just keep expanding out. How is he effecting the little guy? Make a trail of 3-4 lesser BBEG's and some hooks to why the PC's will need to "deal with them".

Now you need a start, think of say 5-10 ways they can "fall into" the storyline you will start down a path towards this BBEG. By the time they fall into one or 2 they will hopefully go down the trail of breadcrumbs you have lead until they get to your BBEG.

As a example...

During the land expansion for the Chelaxian Empire a lesser Shoanti noble being kicked off his land leaves his land with as many of his people he can gather. Setting out for destination unknown on a half dozen ships you finally comes across a uninhabited island. The island has many strange runes all around, and after exploring many of the crew who went in with the Noble did not return, but the Noble had diamonds which was proof they had been destined to come here.

700 years later, after many generations the island has been almost 1/2 filled with the disendents of the Shoanti nobles journey, but by imposing harsh laws, serfdom, and leaving the people little freedoms the back of the people is almost broken. The is many underground resistances.

One main thing is the King has a imposed 5 year period where any Magic User/Caster must work for the state, there is a Mages Guilde completely run by the state and also a division within who hunt and kidnap children who "show the gift". Anyone who refuses is put to death for crimes against the state.

Now the PC's sitting in the Market see someone running away from a group of Mage Hunters, there is multiple items around nearby, do they use this chance to stun/slow the Mage Hunters so the guy gets away?

At the last second he tries to use some magic to make a bag of flour explode to conceal himself for a quick turn around the corner, and one of the PC's (hopefully) a merchant push the guy into a "secret" door (barring missing that, some footprints would be visible more easily).

Do they question the merchant? Turns our he needs help moving this man out to the forest where they is a party of people who take such men, but of course he can't do it. He would be willing to outfit the party for the 3 day journey and give them a little gold for there risk as well.

Little do they know the merchant, and man on the run are both working for the King, will they find out? Will the find out in time to stop the upcoming raid? Find the hidden statue? etc. etc..

Just think of a little think and keep it moving until it gets to your BBEG :)

sarokcat wrote:
Ice_Deep wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

I don't.

Which is why Jade Regent will have an unfair and arbitrary limitation on teleporting the group from one side of the world to the other.

*cringe* I can hear one of my players complaining already. :(
Yeah in RotRL one of my player(s) was going question after question on why he couldn't teleport to the lost city.

Simplest answer. i always enforce the rule... you cannot teleport *SAFELY* to anyplace you or the one doing the teleport has not seen. Answers 99% of the problems right there... sure you can use pictures or descriptions... but those always have built in innaccuracies and incur risks most intelligent(ie high level) spellcasters aren't willing to take unless they have strong personal reasons to.

This brings in higher level scrying (and many important places like Xin Shalast would be hard/dangerous to scry, and may attract the notice of people in those places), studying the location, and THEN procuring the teleport... usually not just one spell. but several high level spells in conjunction, which not only begins to get expensive quickly, can still possibly be dangerous. Hell teleporting in front of one of the largest landmarks in the city... (say... castle korvosa)... will get you swarmed with gaurds faster then a pirana can strip a halfling most days. So remember! always use caution when bouncing around realities!

Yeah the issue was just one I didn't see coming, so I had to roll with it. In the end it worked out well as I used

the Mt Rushmore type head (can't remember, Mar something) as a hook for later return to the characters after the AP ended, and indicated that teleporting was not possible. This affirmed their thinking the teleport blocking wasn't to much out of line I felt.

James Jacobs wrote:
Ice_Deep wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Yay! The elf-ear argument returns! :-)
James Jacobs wrote:
We've had our elf ear look more or less locked in for almost 4 years now. Not sure why the arguments are still going, honestly.
Hmmm.... Split personality there? ;)
Nope. The first post was filled to the rim with bitter sarcasm. The internets stripped all that sarcasm out; I was hoping the smiley face would put some of it back in.

LOL, I was just being silly. To me the ear debate is becoming one of those classical debates like AMD vs Intel, or Ford vs Chevy, etc... It will live on forever regardless of what happens.

I personally don't care, it's just ears :)

1 to 50 of 225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>