Cancel all my suscriptions, pls.
Can you cancel the #3224119 order?
Search Posts
thank you, Erik! I love your customer service
Can I drop the hardcover "Inner Sea Gods Hardcover" from the order #3079604? Its too many money for one book. I didn't receive the mail with the preorder advice, only received the mail with the order.
Cancel my pathfinder tales and pathfinder companion subscriptions, please Thank you
Again, you are only looking at Damage Per Round which can be invalid in an overall quest, unless _all_ you do is hack/n/slash. Most often the builds I have seen that favor the Fighter is based on being able to access super-optimal magic items. If the magic classes and the melee classes only have access to random items, the magic classes can do far better. If nothing else, they can make their own items. Combat classes don't have that option, they just don't have the requirements to make enchanted items. Your arguments are invalid. Nobody do a spell point houserule and cut the warriors access to magical items. I repeat, if you limit access to magic items is your fault as GM (hey, one thing is to give all random magic items and failing to ensure that there are useful items for all characters and other thing is allow choose all for optimized builds. Warriors do not need to select all the magic objects --- only a few objects that are appropriate to their needs). You are comparing apples and oranges. It is absurd to suppose that you're going to penalize the fighters because you're creating a spell point system. My group has been playing with it many years (We also have other rules that favor warriors) and all players are very happy. If you are concerned by magic item dependence, then you should create houserules related with it (We also have done it) or do not limit access to magic items. But do not mix a issue with other. On the other hand, objects that warriors need are the most common in the treasury of most campaigns. Weapons, armors, cloaks of resistance, protection rings, objects that enhance abilities ... are the objects that NPCs need most. It is rare that the warriors do not get this kind of object. I guess you are not understanding the spell point balance issue I was trying to indicate. That even though the caster has the option to blow all their points on their strongest spell, maybe as a one shot wonder. They have the option to using lower level spells to stay in the game longer. I understand perfectly the balance of magic. Is good that casters not limit the adventurous day and last longer, especially when this is achieved by expending low-level spells (their contribution will not be spectacular) Look at the fifth edition or reserve feats of 3.5--- they give at will low-level spells (or spell-like) for that reason. As for being a nova with higher level spells, yes, it's a risk. But in mature groups is a minimal risk. If someone is a nova is useless for the rest of the day. In my group does not allow the adventure of fifteen minutes a day, so it's a system that works for us. If your players are not mature, do not use this houserule. Presumably, if the OP has created this thread is because his players are mature. If your players are not mature and you want a more flexible system than the classic vancian, read the Arcana Evolved system (limited to daily uses, of course) That approaches the magic to sorcerer instead of psion. And if you do not want to change the official system, what you do in a thread of house rules? Clearly the OP does want an alternative system. The issue also includes that they will be fully recovered by the time the next encounter occurs. That isn't an easy balance act. How boring would it be if the caster has access to their strongest spells over and over again? How boring is it if after a couple encounters you had to go home to rest, because your casters no longer had any power left to make a difference? Spell points are spent. You can not use your strongest spells forever, or you run out of spell points. Nobody has said that spell points regenerate each encounter. I repeat, I have several years of playing with this system. And nobody in my group believes that the warriors are outclassed. Not a single player. Casters do not really _need_ access to 'magic' objects. They might need access to materials. Most of the time These materials are relativamente mundane, When needed at all. They need to access Any magic items is due to low number of spells Their They can cast THROUGHOUT the day, Because Their Often duplicate spells magic Any access to objects, or should I say, magic spells magic the duplicate objects Already have casters. They just allow the casters more endurance adventurers as Effective Because It Does not Rely On Their internal magic. Again mixing apples and oranges. The construction of magic items is a different issue. Second, warriors can also craft magical weapons and armor and magical items +x (Master craftsman). Third, this is a team game and if casters can build magical items also will built items for his fellow warriors. Warriors are not going to run out of magic items if there are characters with craft feats. Spellbooks are not magic items. They are mundane, as casters can replace them, or create and have multiple backups of books. Get new spells isn’t easier than getting new magic items. Both come from the same source: other creators of magic. Both require that GM allow access. Why do you suppose it is more difficult for the warrior to get a sword than for a wizard get new spells? It is absurd to suppose that the warriors are always penalized for a mysterious reason. You insist on comparing unfavorable conditions for the warriors and that's not fair. Why there is no magic items for sale and yet the wizards sell the secrets of his power? That makes no sense. No, not so easy to get new spells ... at least not more easy than to buy magic items. Please do not mix apples and oranges. They are not the same. In addition, the OP is asking about a particular rule that favors casters. You do not know if he has other rules that favor the warriors. Quiet, I'm sure that he does not allow fighters are useless.
Very particular conditions always favor some classes more than others. But that's not normal. If you play a campaign under special conditions, do house rules to compensate the affected classes. There are particular scenes in all campaigns. For example, last week my wizard and his fellow fighter were ambushed when my wizard hadn’t spell components. The fighter was no armor but he had a weapon, so he was able to face the enemy while my wizard was useless. That particular scene does not make the wizard class useless. It's just a special circumstance. But if you play a whole campaign with few magic items and do not put some rules to balance the campaign shame on you as GM. The magic item dependence is a system failure, not a caster classes fairule. And this has nothing to do with the issue of thread. Moreover, it isn’t right to put all caster classes in the same bag. Divine casters are more self-sufficient than the wizard, for example. Remove the wizard’s spellbook, and the wizard becomes a useless peasant. Do not let the wizard learn new spells, and the wizard will be a character terribly limited. Let the wizard a spellbook with many spells but do not give him a headband of vast intelligence- his spell DC will be bad and not efficient against many enemies. There are not many buff spells in the wizard/sorcerer list and most benefit more the warriors (o cleric) than the wizard himself (for example, haste) but I insist- this has nothing to do with the issue of thread.
The comparison is valid, because increasing the cost of damage spells only makes useless and nobody uses it. Damage spells are the weakest, need not be weakened further. So no matter that a spellcaster do 15-16 points of damage on average for the cost of 1 spell point when the warriors are doing much more damage. That damage can not compete with the damage that warriors are doing. Warriors are not affected because a wizard is doing 15 points of damage when they are making many more. It would be different if they were doing the same damage, but is not the case. If damage spells have more cost all you accomplish is that casters only use other spells ... the strongest. Casters also need many magic objects (and wizards access to new spells) All classes are dependent on magic items. It is a failure of 3.X/PFRPG. I have not considered, because it is a condition that is never going to give in a game. If the GM wants to can make it impossible for the wizard study his spells interrupting his sleep every night. GM can steal the spellbook and the wizard will be useless. These considerations are silly. These events are rare, not the rule of the day.
What is the problem? For when you can cast 5 missiles warriors are doing tons of damage. Magic missile (CL 9th) only makes an average of 16 points of damage. Damage spells do little damage compared to weapon combat. It makes no sense to penalize them increasing its cost. I use the Unearthed Arcana spell point rules without caster level increase cost and it works perfect. Also, from level 10-11 this system gives fewer spell points than the conversion of spell slots should give. There are no Sorcerer or Oracle in my games. Build one of these characters is a matter of background and choose feats that favors this concept. In my opinion there are too many classes with the same role.
I like your rule. In 3.0 DR/magic was DR/+1 or DR/+2, or DR/+3… you had to have a magic weapon with an enhacement bonus appropriate to surpass DR. 3.5 changed that to DR / magic, but never convinced me.
Could you cancel my Pathfinder Tales Subscription? Thank you.
DC 14, fixed. Very bad spell.
Wicked Elves can change to drow. I love the idea. But I have doubts, 1 - A drow can be redeemed to the point of becoming an elf? I understand this may be even more difficult (and rare) than the change elf-to-drow. But is it possible, given the right circumstances? This would also explain why there is no good drows in Golarion. 2 - The drow are evil because of a deep corruption of their souls. It's logical. But are they born corrupt, or would this corruption be taught during their childhood? Drow’s babies are elves o drow? If they are elves not yet corrupt, like any other mortal, then they will grow into a drow (as their education is not going to allow them another way) After all, mortals are not born with predetermined alignments, unlike devils or angels. Mortals usually have free will to decide which alignment to take (even if this freedom is severely restricted by the environment where they live ... as the drows) English is not my native language. Forgive me for the attacks that I have made to your language in these two short paragraphs.
Why? Because they do not know how to handle magic in their games. These DMs should be playing other games: D&D/PF is not right for them. Conan d20 has almost no magic, for example. They should play games like that. Fifteen years DMing. And no problem with magic or spellcasters- Wizards, Clerics, Druids or whatever. You just have to know how to handle magic in your game. It is clear that maaaany people in these forums do *not* know. How can give you problems weakened PFRPG magic? It's terrible! I never use the magic of PFRPG. True magic for my games, thanks.
Curse of the Crimson Throne.
Oracle is another redundant class. Pathfinder has too many core classes.
Because that's how D&D 3rd Edition was designed; remember that Pathfinder grew out of the D&D 3.5 ruleset, with an emphasis on backwards compatibility. The class system could have been completely redesigned, but that's not what the gaming community was looking for at the time. the class system need not be redesigned. I use half of the BAB to AC; armor works normally. Easy, easy.
I use a spell-point system, but with Wizards. I eliminated the Sorcerer class. It is a superfluous class, and always has been. A party need the flexibility to someone with more spells known than a Sorcerer; the sorcerer is good for a dungeon, not for a campaign. Pathfinder has too many core classes.
I would liken to humbly request the paizo folks to add the metric system to the game. it would be veryn helpful to all the non-americam gamers out there to get a better grasp of the distances and wheights involved in everything you guys publish. please. Try this Converting Tactical Distances & Speed table
Do you roll your characters? I am an experienced DM. I have no fear of high abilites (or magic, as some of these forums seem to have lol) I prefer that the characters have high abilites- my players are not powergamers and they give high importance to social skills. And I like characters mechanically functionals but with other abilities important for the concept of the character (barbarian chief with high charisma, why not? Cha isn’t important for combat, but it is for the concept). Also, my players do not like having many ability-enhancers (they think that these objects are boring)- with high abilities these objects are less necessary. In any case it works for us. My players are happy and I haven’t problems. But if you play otherwise, my houserule can be used with any array. Each table is a world! Sorry for my poor English- not my native language.
Do you roll your characters? No… and yes. The players first buy their characteristics. Then, in front of me, they roll 1d6 six times. Each dice is a random extra point to one stat, determined by the outcome of the roll (1: str, 2: dex, 3: con, 4: int, 5:wis, 6: cha) They can not exceed 18 in a stat (re-roll in this case) For example, the player buy this set: 16 14 14 12 14 12. Then, he rolls 6d6, and the results are: 3,3,6,5,4,6. This is +2 con (because two 3), +2 cha (because two 6), +1 int (because one 4) +1 wis (because one 5) No major differences between characters, players have competent characters but there is some randomness and more fun. How long have you been gaming? 17 years What system did you first game in? AD&D
1) Too many spells nerfed. I hate this.
I prefer my houserules to PFRPG changes, but sticking with 3.5 allows me to take the good from PF :P
I apologize to the moderators, I will speak in Spanish. The people to whom this message is addressed will understand better my words. Mi DM la ha traducido así, y personalmente creo que queda bastante bien, no creo que los goblins sean expertos en cuestiones de rítmica y poesía:
Soy administradora de un foro donde hacemos traducciones (a la carta, si alguien las pide, si no según la gente le vaya apeteciendo poner) de cosillas de PF, y tenemos dos temas abiertos por cada AP, uno para DMs (obviamente plagado de spoilers, pues los DMs dejan ahí sus dudas, comparten experiencias, y comparan opiniones), y otro para jugadores (donde los spoilers se controlan más cuidadosamente) Os dejo los dos enlaces de Rise, por si os interesa pasar por ellos. No olvidéis que si hay alguna duda de traducción siempre hay alguien en la comunidad que intentará echar una mano: [D20] Pathfinder AP1: Rise of the Runelords [sólo DMs] [D20] AP1: Rise of the Runelords [Jugadores] Y un enlace a un tema de recopilación de links de traducciones (aunque hace mucho que no lo actualizamos, una vez que sabes los blogs donde se están colgando traducciones cada poco tiempo, sólo es mirarlos algo más a fondo) [D20] Material Pathfinder y sus traducciones Tenemos bastantes cosas traducidas para apoyo del DM y para dar a los jugadores un contacto inicial con el trasfondo de Golarion. Y además os podemos dar enlaces a blogs u otros foros donde hay más traducciones (y alguna cosilla que no nos atrevemos a poner en público por si nos pasamos con derechos de copyright se podría pasar a los DMs por privado) Yo puedo ayudar con más traducciones de CotCT que de Rise (dirijo Curse), pero aun así hay unas cuantas cosas de Rise que podríamos compartir. Parece más que claro que no vamos a ver una traducción en nuestro idioma, así que lo que sea para ayudar a la gente a jugar estas magníficas aventuras. Es una pena que a pesar de que el inglés sea una asignatura obligatoria en todo programa escolar aun haya tanta gente que se siente intimidada a la hora de leer una aventura en inglés…
Name of PC: Noah
Story: The group head back to the heights, and face Nihil, who is hiding (Improved Invis) within her devil servitors. She did not need them. One Blasphemy, one Horrid Wilting and one Chain Lightning later, Noah is down. Malatrothe have taken his soul- PCs will can free his soul and raise Noah.
I tried to place the order #1350761 using the "holiday10" discount code, but the discount hasn’t been applied. Could you fix this? Thanks!!
Great! Thank you, Sara!!! :)
You send me only two manuals? What about the rest of the manuals for this order? Could I receive them this month? I know a friend whom you have sent the Pathfinder Chronicles: Book of the Damned, Volume 1: Princes of Darkness... Thank you for your time.
Now that said... I've been hearing an increased desire for high level content lately, and while I'm not 100% sure it's not a tempest in a teapot (traditionally, higher level products take a lot more resources and time to create and sell a lot fewer copies)... I'm probably convinced that the time is right to try taking an AP all the way up to 18th level with Kingmaker. We'll see how that goes... high-level Pathfinder Modules connected to the APs is an appropriate solution, yes. And low-level Modules connected to the APs allow the APs start at 4 or 5, leaving the middle levels (preferred by most players) for the APs. Anyway, the first module of the APs do not usually have much to do with the plot.
I believe that it would be an easier sell if Paizo turned their talents to addressing some of the issues that can plague high level games. No, thanks. I have found that the real problems at a high-level are due to the way of playing rather than the rules themselves. I think if Paizo plays with the rules the cure will be worse than the disease. They've done enough things that I do not like in PFRPG.
I want that Paizo make more high-level modules, but I think that if the APs reach level 15 is good. It’s fine that this is the norm, with some exceptions that go farther (an AP that go further may lead to other more epic finals) What I do not like is that increasingly take longer at low levels. Many people consider the first 4 levels limited, and when you play many times at those levels, they become bored, because the characters really have few options. In addition, you get tired always seeing the same monsters. I really think it would not damage the APs start at level 4-5 and then advance more slowly than before. Two modules to reach level 5 is too much, I don’t like that. As DM, I also found that I can make low-level adventures easily, so I value more than Paizo save me work with higher-level material. However, I do not see how the APs can reach level 15 by norm, if you take the medium XP route and begin to level 1.
Polar ray is a shame. Nobody uses polar ray! Cone of cold before was more powerful than fireball, because there was less resistance to cold. But in 3.X/PFRPG this isn't true (or it is in a lesser extent), so the spell is obsolete. The problem is that HP and monsters have changed much since the early editions of D&D, but the damage spells have not changed. Designers should having updated them taking into account the new rules ... but they have not done, and now there are many spells that are obsolete. Low-level spells increase in damage every two or three levels (magic missile, scorching ray) This makes them different of lighting bolt or firewall, which are scalable to each level (and high-level spells can affect to more targets). So, high-level spells are better. Now if you want to have a Cone of cold that is best but do the same damage than fireball (and with worst area!) you should make it more appeal with the same reasons that before: it can bypass better ER, for example, or SR, and so on. You can not use as example spells that require review because they are obsolete
Remove spell level caps. This is very, very necessary. HPs continue to grow to infinity, but the damage of spells, no. This causes damage spells do not work.Not a bad idea. Would make lower level spells a LOT more powerful. It is the only change I have done to damage spells, but it works. Thus, a spell makes less damage than a melee PC, but as another source of damage and often affect multiple enemies makes them useful. If you want to do as much or more damage than a melee, you need to resort to metamagic, which means investing feats or money and become a very limited resource (over the limited resource that the spells are themselves) Mematamagic need new rules, too. As it is not works (too expensive), but to stack multiple metamagic feats makes it too powerful (that causes the damage spells are a waste, but with one or two metamagics become too powerful bombs) I have some rules about it, but it isn’t the appropriate topic to talk about them. It's a shame that Paizo has ruined so many spells instead of solving the real problems of the magic. Anyway, 1d4-damage spells should disappear in Pathfinder, since d4 hit dice are gone. To play with PFRPG I would escalate the damage to 1d6
I did not like anything this module. It is short, is poorly developed, and has nothing of the originality that characterizes Paizo's adventures (originality that made me fall in love with your work) I hope the next volumes are much better.
The adventure is fine as is. I only miss more social encounters in the third module (the rakhasas are wasted, its true potential is social), and a more elaborate revolution in the sixth (the assault on the castle did not need to be so long)
Remove spell level caps. This is very, very necessary. HPs continue to grow to infinity, but the damage of spells, no. This causes damage spells do not work.
I'm probably convinced that the time is right to try taking an AP all the way up to 18th level with Kingmaker. We'll see how that goes... Yes? These are great news. I was going to cancel my subscriptions after reading "The Bastards of Erebus" (which I did not like anything), but now I'll wait. I still have faith in Paizo.
From anywhere. He says that is what is fair- beyond 2000 are no longer common objects. Which would otherwise be too good, and that this will save us lots of money (of course, a sword +1 costs 2300+...)
I would treat it as very similar to the "Identify materials created or shaped by magic" use of Spellcraft, meaning it requires no action and allows no retry. Otherwise one could Take 20 on the Spellcraft check. Yes, I assume this. Retry or take 20 isn't logical Thanks for your answers!
I agree, is what I thought (except for relics, artifacts and objects that are not common in the culture of character) Does anyone else think so?
One of my friends thinks that the trait only allows identify magic items of less than 2000 po, which in my opinion is very useless. So I want to know what kind of magic items can be identified with this trait. My opinion is that all but artifacts, relics and objects that are not common in the culture of character (typical drows objects, for example) For him, “common” means “cheap”- something that anyone can have. We play with 3.5
Researching the Blot: You may or may not be seeking membership into Riddleport's most prestigious magical guild, the Order of Cyphers, but you have certainly heard their call for aid in determining the nature of the strange shadow in the sky above Riddleport. You arrived in town several days ago and had some issues with security and safety at several inns before you finally settled on the Gold Goblin; you've been staying there as a guest for several days now, and the owner, Saul Vancaskerkin, seems like a nice guy. He's given you a pass to attend the gambling tournament he's about to throw - you're not sure how into gambling you'll be, but perhaps there'll be some visitors from out of town you can talk to about the strange shadow in the sky. At the very least, you're hoping someone at the tourney will be into magic - there's not really enough folk in this town who seem all that interested in magic, you've found. Your interest in magic dates back quite far, and as a result, you've developed a knack for identifying common magical items at a glance. You can use Spellcraft to identify magic items. The DC is equal to 20 + the item's caster level. What is the meaning of "common magical items"? Are all objects except relics and artifacts? Or only cheap magic items? If so, what is the limit to be considered common?
Thank you!!!
See this It's an awesome work.
This is the first news that I like in a while. I'm glad the Set Pieces are gone. Personally, I never really liked the set-piece adventures. Thank you, Paizo.
I will not play with PFRPG. I will play with 3.5. And as I suspected, it will not be compatible with the APs. Pity, though I saw it coming.
I have always regretted that the APs do not begin to level 5. I never liked the first module because of its level (although in general they are well made, I have millions of low-level adventures, or I can create without effort). The first APs ended at 16. Not bad. Finish at 14 seems too low, yes. The third module of Kingmaker begins to level 5, and this implies that half of the campaign happens to levels that I am not interested in buying. As simple as that. These are my preferences. If you're happy with low-level APs, very well. But I'm not. Respect my opinion. Your tastes are not necessarily mine.
yes, finish around level 16 is fine. Around 14... I would prefer to start at 5 instead of 1, if space is a problem.
Is that I am not interested in buying low-level adventures. I design these without effort. If the APs stop at 14, and forces me to DMing half of campaign to a level that does not interest me, why continue shopping? I will see. I am not yet decided to end the subscription, but I believe that the quality of your products has fallen for some time, and since I have no interest in buying more low-level adventures, this could decide. In fact, the only thing stopping me is that I liked a lot the idea of Kingmaker. It's the kind of campaign that I love DMing (or playing). But, three modules of very low levels? No, thanks. That don’t save me work. I hope that finally Kingmaker suits my needs. I will read your news.
Is that I am not interested in buying low-level adventures. I design these without effort. If the APs stop at 14, and forces me to DMing half of campaign to a level that does not interest me, why continue shopping? It is clear that the next APs, and perhaps all in the future, are not suitable for me.
|