The setting of Goblin Slayer is something that I read as tragic but realistic if adventurers are given free reign on quests in a frontier context. The guild isn't so much as an organization that manages adventurers but a brick and mortar Craigslist. They facilitate the gigs they recieve and collect reports on what happened but not much else. They probably get a cut of the reward and function as a business reference with the tiered dogtags. In that context a group of new adventurers, which are probably a dime a dozen, come in to accept jobs and the receptionists can discourage this but has no real authority to deny it to them. Especially since they're the only ones handling goblin requests which are put up by poor farmers rather than being subsidized by people investing in those farms. That's where it's important to note that this is a frontier situation where no one with actual resources are invested in anything being threatened due to dealing with problems from actual taxpayers and when some kind of goblin uprising actually threatens something they're invested in you'd see organized troops quashing it. In the meantime you have freelancers making money off settlements that are nothing more than private colonies that decided to make a living in less crown protected areas to cash in on the taxless gains.
Another thing I noticed is that these events seem to be new. These settlements are probably date back to when they were very appealing because they could make money while the areas controlled by or lord or kingdom are busy fighting each other (The elf kingdom was reluctant to move on the goblins organized by another creature because mobilizing actual troops to deal with the problem would result in instigating things with their neighbors) but the recent development is the war between gods leading to more monsters appearing. In fully developed areas goblins are a non-problem. send in troops to exterminate them and be done with it but this presents problems for the frontier. Between fighting each other and the monsters that are a more immediate threat it gets expensive to lend support to poor frontier farmers when they have a problem that can be dealt with by groups of teenagers with attitude so they simply don't do it. The Adventurers Guild probably existed as a band aid that goes on well enough for what it is but the goblin situation seems to be increasing the same way an infection would. The more profitable farms that are easy to get to get protected because their taxes are indispensable and the weaker and more far out farms get left in the hands of plucky 15 year olds, which works for a while but each time they fail you get smarter goblins like resistant bacteria that appears when you don't complete your antibiotics.
However combined together these problems become bigger but still hidden by the bandaid and it won't be until it becomes a larger threat that affects people with money that anything will be done about it with any organization and precision. The Guild can't do that because they don't have the authority to have that level of coordination. At best they can put a note on a board, and divvy out the cash to whoever completes it. The only way they could do better is what they did when there was a large scale attack, which was subsidize the reward to make it worthwhile, something they probably approved because they personally felt threatened by the outcome, or they could assert authority by assigning tasks with their tag level being on the line if they don't follow through allowing them to steer new adventurers to less dangerous work as a form of training. However I'm certain they haven't done these things because whoever is running the guild didn't have a reason to and this way is profitable for some reason. They probably have a monopoly on that kind of service because of how isolated the villages are and extra administrative and subsidizing costs is undesirable to them. This will go on until the threat of goblins gets large enough to pony up the cash to deal with it, competition arrives, or management steers in a direction for long term thinking rather than short term.
I've had a rough year. Full of so many changes and risks. As a result I have not had the opportunity to find a group for the playtest or do anything with it really. With some free time coming up I wanted to record me making characters with my wife as a form of feedback. The reason for this is that often feedback is in hindsight and you don't really see the process that the players go through in the moment and it gets lost in memory. Sometimes colored with general feelings and analysis. I want to depict how easy or hard it is to make a character, especially with my wife, who has not read the playtest book at all. A follow up would be a one on one session to get a grasp of the rules and how things play out.
So my question for now is how to maximize the usefulness of such a video.
Anything I should consider? Is a top-down shot of the table, hands and books sufficient to know what's going on? Throw in some jokes? What should I focus on commenting on? How should I share said video? Would such a video even be useful for feedback?
Some of those I need to check up on.
I'm loving goblin slayer after going through the manga. The first episode is as squicky as the series gets but the main character is a genocidal psychopath against irredeemable goblins so the first episode is a good litmus test for whether or not the audience is okay with the rest of it so its perfectly okay to nope out. I'm just happy with my cute little murderhobo Pathfinder goblins by contrast.
I love Overlord right now but the light novels have been a way better experience than the show.
I'd be all for this but I think spheres presents an opportunity due to how it functions. Specifically magic in spheres of power had a lower word count due to not having a bunch of spells so streamlining other parts of the game that spheres has to worry about because the rest of the game exists can potentially make everything less lengthy and more inclusive from the get-go. That opportunity opens up a few more things like defining monsters as creature type advancement plus talents making monster easier to create and opens up classes that want monster talents.
But I'm just spitballing here.
I think Drop Dead Studios with spheres, Rogue Genius Games wit Talented series, and Legendary games have the most promising material for a 3.8 ruleset. DDS, RGG, and LG all have spectacular alternatives to core classes to the point that I wish they'd be their own system so they can be the default. Even if it's small scale and not meant to compete with Pathfinder 2.0 I would overwhelmingly support a Sphere system above a 2.0 conversion or rewrite.
Oddly I can't say the same for Dreamscarred Press because they tend to produce things I want IN Pathfinder as opposed to replacement options.
My Spheres of Might book came in today and got me thinking. Pathfinder is a pretty complete game.with what's out there I can spend a lot of time before I get bored so I don't need a new game that's more of the same. Out of all the third party stuff, Spheres of Power/Might have been the most well received items in terms of straight replacement options. I haven't had enough time with Might but Power has been more fun and more flexible than most magic systems in Pathfinder and the only book where I bought multiple copies for myself to support it at my table and copies for strangers just to convince them that it's good.
I would fully support a sphere based RPG built on an altered Pathfinder chassis. Not even all the martial and magic spheres need to make it, or even the classes. Just enough to build a core rulebook recreate the Fighter as a full practitioner and the wizard as a flexible high caster and fill in grids from there.
I wish I had more time nowadays. I started writing PF1 retrospectives but that kind of fell on the wayside.
Basically relooking at each of the Pathfinder RPG books as well as third party products that I consider make Pathfinder 'more complete'. For example, things like New Paths Compendium, Advance Bestiary, and Ultimate Psionics are what I think would make believable actual releases that extend the logic of the game, while Spheres of Power, Path of War, and Thunderscape, things I still really like drastically alters tone or balance, and books that drastically improve things but aren't available as fat books/have a narrow class focus are discounted.
If the PF1 books are still being printed and the srd is still online, you could reasonably just extend the life of PF1 by buying a backlog of third party books. There's enough of that to represent another decade of PF1 releases and that's just the objectively good ones. The only thing desirable from Paizo would be Campaign Setting books and PF2 and PF1 can just share those since they're mostly Golarion fluff.
I think the implication that shield actions can potentially give your allies DR is huge. That means that shield wielders are naturally annoying if you're trying to drop the caster or archer forcing you to have to go toe to toe with them quickly in order to keep you from flying in the sky. And since the rogue can avoid reactions rogues are very important for accomplishing this without having to deal with the fighter. I'm seeing a bit of rock, paper scissors design.
There's enough information to determine that the new power attack does very different things with the new action economy and the way crits work but people will willfully ignore that information when formulating their math. Just like in the skills discussion where proficiency levels and numerical bonus does different things and the immediate numerical variance of two high level characters is stated to be around 15. This is enough information where you have to scratch your head and wonder what's going on but people are still hung up over the numbers as if they still mean something in the new paradigm. Hi proficiency skills do cartoonishly overpowered things that PF1 high numbers don't come close to doing, I think we have enough information to determine that proficiency is more relevant than the skill bonus. Same thing here. The new action economy makes over attacking crit which may well be laughably easy for a fighter. Be adding dice as opposed to numbers means a bucket of dice of extra damage. Which is useful because now shields can potentially grant DR at first level. If you still relied on minor bumps in damage a shield guy can just turtle up. And what if that guy can catch attacks towards allies. Now you have to get rid of him to get to the caster and now you have to fall victim to attacks even when he misses if you try to gang up on him. There's very different things happening in this edition.
I'm still waiting for what legendary proficiency in weapons actually does. The examples we've heard from skills are extreme to a superhero degree like living without air for survival or being able to steal armor off of someone. I'm expecting you get to use Giants as melee weapons or cut so hard it creates a tornado.
Also nobody is trying to copy Marvel. They think they are but they aren't. Make movies like comic books (singular titles that intersect at Eve talk and crossovers), and don't show utter contempt for the source material.
Universal made a universe before making individual titles so messed it up already, and they also look like they haven't even seen the source material as evident of making non horror movies. Disregarding that those characters have been in a successful cinematic universe TWICE in the past. DC likewise have writers who have not only displayed a contempt for the source material but the fans and mostly creatively driven by a director that didn't 'get' comic books until he read one that was a cynical deconstruction of superheroes written by a wizard that adds 300% more r*pe in his stories than what's necessary. The failures of other cinematic universes has more to do with a lack of competence so it's a poor example.
Vital strike as opposed to a flat damage bonus is more insane with the current crit dynamics. Especially since it's sacrifices the attack least likely to crit. Like imagine a +1 longsword. PF1 has 1d8+3 to throw around one handed with power attack before str and modifiers. On a crit it's 2d8+6. So 16 on average and 22 max. PF2, assuming longsword is the same die it's 3d8 and 6d8 on a crit, average 30 max 48. If over attacking is easier than hitting crit ranges damage die go a long way and an extra lottery ticket for crazy damage.
Only partially what I expected. Since weapons are involved I thought it would go by BAB paradig. Untrained is 1/2 level, trained is 3/4 level, expert is full level and so on. The numbers here are way flatter but it's hard to evaluate if functionality is locked behind proficiency levels. That may make things fine or make it unreasonably difficult to ad hoc DCs for functions not specified in the book.
On the other hand after spending ten or twenty levels trekking the wilderness and fighting monster I somewhat expect the stupid Wizard to be able to climb a fticking rope. Likewise after twenty levels of adventuring and the Barbarian still doesn't know what an owlbear is unrealistic. I really need to see this in action because as I'm imagining it, this solves issues and also causes new wierdness.
Everyone is comparing a lvl 1's bonus to lvl 20 characters, but that's not very fair. How much does a trained first level character really know? Sure a wizard can study how demons work and is this trained but a 20th level untrained figher has surely heard legends of, met and punched demons in the face. He must know something, probably more than the wizard but not specifics. Like the wizard knows what kind of demon it is and what it does because he's trained but the fighter knows that flaming swords definitely do not work.
If a legendary in survival let's you live without air what does legendary with martial weapons do, cut into the future.
What city are skill ranks? Mark mentioned it and got all silent about it. How many factors are going into permanent bonuses for skills? Something is not being told that makes everything better or worse.
I don't think that this is worth getting into. That situation sucked in the first place and tossing the only weapon back and forth to jump it is goofy but I would have done it if I could. I went in there as a lvl 1 Halfling Cavalier with no magic items along with three other people that had no way to deal with ghosts. If you don't wan't 'line stabbing' to be a thing then don't make that kind of situation.
Also I'm pretty sure I've seen this happen in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Supernatural or something.
Well these are things I never really interact with other than one character where my backstory was that I was evil and didn't change alignment but was under magical compulsion to change alignments. So I guess I'm against interacting with alignment to that degree, but otherwise I don't care either way whether alignment is in or not. I just don't think that doing an evil act under compulsion should do that.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
My issue in this case is that the change is permanent except by an atonement spell. Just the atonement spell is kind of bunk because it admits that doing something out of your control can change your alignment. That part doesn't make sense to me.
The effect itself is okay in the sense that turning under magical compulsion is a common trope to play around with but this functionally renders that character an NPC given that it messes with the player's agency.
@ Helm of Opposite Alignment:Dafuq?! Why does it change your alignment permanently? It can be a fun item if it lasted as long as the helm is on. We did something similar but having a party member turn evil isn't fun if they're neutered so they got powers but they didn't have to atone for stuff they didn't actually do. That doesn't even make sense.
I feel like I'm the only one that has played an evil character in the same party as a paladin and it was a positive experience.
I also have a recurring PC that plays around with the concept of good and evil and alignment shifts.
Why on Earth would there be water that made you evil without immediately giving you powers from being full of profane energies that would cause such a thing or render the PC an NPC? That's a terrible example. In fact I was witness to a similar situation where the effecton the paladin was not "You are now evil. Enjoy" because that's not an alignment shift that's gold kryptonite. Instead the player was rewarded with powers for evil deeds encouraged by a voince in hiss head. Of course the Paladin fell and wasn't butthurt about it because we all knew good and well what this was leading to. A surprise forced alignment shift is not something that makes sense or is fair.
I'm going to say that the only time I've seen a freakout over alignment was the player that thought LG should not be in the party because it would be a straightjacket to being murderhobos and always goes for CN as an "I can do whatever I want and alignment can't stop me". I don't care what you do regardless of alignment but if you murder the friendly barmaid because the mead was terrible your character is a psychopath and cosmic entities lean to peg you as an agent of entropy and death.
One joke me and my wife had while watching the last Hobbit movie. Near the end goblins approach. It was casually mentioned that there were about 100 of them and two of the dwarves would handle them while the rest of them go up the hill. I told my wife they must be Pathfinder characters. In 5e two dwarves of any level is going to have a hard time with 100 goblins, but in Pathfinder by level 10 that would be a breeze.
I agree with Caleb. One of my first thoughts was if the Big 6 are mostly gone and magic items use up a daily resource then magic items must be hardcore. I immediately thought of flaming weapons that got more powerful with more resonance so you don't have to throw it away for something better when you level. Starts off as a sword on fire and at high levels it's a lightsaber that shoots lava.
Logan Bonner wrote:
I feel like that's missing out on some design space. Unless charisma casters have some native abilities to generate magic items like the Bladebound Magus or a Wizard's bonded item. Not that that's far-fetched, a Bard's musical instrument, the Paladin's Divine Bond, a Sorcerer's scepter are all things that could be a class feature that interacts with resonance as an item.
Question: Are CLW wands a problem?
Do they screw up the math of healing or is it because they break immersion?
If we're so reliant on having full hp before every battle wouldn't it be best to have full healing between fights or a separate HP pool like Starfinder? Either that or treat HP as an actual resource with some limit so that having healing abilities have an impact.
I personally like Resonance because it solves tracking daily powers across multiple items, give charisma something to do, limits Christmas tree effects,feels really flavorful to me (a more experienced person can get more use out of an item using more force of will), and opens up some design space. However most objections seem to be around our relationship with healing, to the point where I kinda want Stamina in the game.
Currently in Pathfinder there's a lot of x-per day things that aren't even class features that I have to keep track of. It's to the point where character sheets I use are more annoying unless there's some sort of tracker in the item box. In fact I printed out a universal thing tracker for all the junk I have to keep up with. Any change that reduces this to fewer pools of numbers is fine by me. Plus it gives charisma something new to do. Just make it interesting, like items that increase in power the more you resonate with them so you can keep using your flaming sword you like longer because now it's a lava sword at higher levels.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
True, but Runelords seems like the go-to adventure for introducing Pathfinder. Possibly because of the anniversary edition but something about it screams 'classic Pathfinder' and is next to Kingmaker in terms of APs I see people start with.
I feel like Rise of the Runelords was a huge bang for Pathfinder 1e. A classic story of the PCs becoming heroes, stumbling into a plot of an ancient evil being awoken. Goblins, ghouls and Ogres not only get in but become distinct entities in Pathfinder in styles that are familiar but with a new level of personality. Lots of ways to waste time endearing to the town of Sandpoint that the first book takes forever.
What should the first AP be like?
Of course we all want a good adventure but this isn't something that should be good, but a fantastic adventure that paves the way for a new direction and starts PF2 off with a bang. Something iconic and memorable, new and familiar, exciting but simple.
I'm hoping that with a new edition the first AP will be about exploring a frontier region or new place. If Kingmaker didn't already happen I think that would work but its also loaded with kingdom building when I think being a hero should take priority. A hidden Mcguffin quest into untamed territory filled with buried relics of ancient evils is something I'd like to see, especially if it involves the advancement of the PC's civilization.
A visible but untouchable villain would be great too for an urban adventure of taking down an old system of rule would be worthwhile too. But most of all I'd love to see more memorable villains. I particularly hope for a non-caster villain. I never see Rogues or Monks as the big bad but they have potential. A rogue can have stolen something powerful and previously unstealable and it changes him. A monk could be such a stickler for human perfection that he seeks to wipe out the 'abberant' ancestries that taint humankind. Either way the themes of ushering in new things would be great and establish a new status quo of mooks and monsters that don't get much use as the new face of the dangers of Golarion.
Personally I would pay for a core rulebook sized Bestiary 1. That way there's room for broad strokes across APL, room for PC races and NPCs. Especially if the monster creating rules have said in fewer words.
Also leaves room for the same monster across cr tiers. One thing I dislike about bestiaries is that some creatures I want to use for a plot but they're way too weak or strong.
Wouldn't it just be a matter of finding the equivalent stat block and adjusting numbers/loot? PF2 seems unlikely to contain creatures that haven't been done or at least approximated by PF1. Unless there's a wild difference in CR theres 6+ books worth of enemies you can just slot in. One of those has to be close enough to not have to do anything else.
So, 5e came out 2014. Pathfinder Unchained's product page was put out July 2014, probably deveoped long before that.
I don't think PF2 is trying to lift from 5e. The precedence for all the rule changes existed in Pathfinder between APG and Unchained. I'm willing to bet Starfinder was pitched somewhere around Iron Gods with mechanics grabbed from all this.
Conclusion: people be trippin'.
Aren't most of the changes straight from Pathfinder Unchained moreso than 5e? Not just that but in line with the shifts in design since before 5e came out?
Since they're trying to solve the same problems with 3.X as D&D I expected some things to be similar but it looks like they're still being crunch as heck and the decries of "they're turning it into 5e!" Is only over superficial stuff. Like Hero points vs Inspiration. Hero points were around since the APG but be certain that people will say it was stolen from 5e because apparently they have a monopoly on meta currency points.
I'm sure pets will be around but I do hope there's a separate"companion section instead of having to refer to the druid but with x exceptions each time. Having a universal chassis with class specific specifications would help down the line when it comes to weird companions and can be used to play out cohorts without breaking the game.