Thesing the Vampire

PMárk's page

43 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


But I don't want to be argumentative. I'd like to hear the devs stance on it, because curiosity and I still think making them more common would be totally justifiable and would suit better the overall outlook of several regions, than the current situation. Also, as I mentioned, I jsut like renaissance fantasy, like Pillars of Eternity, or WHFRPG. I like the feeling and I think a lot of settings are more closer to that period, because they want cool things like classic vampire hunters and swashbuckling duellists and pirates yet they frequently exclude gunpowder. so, we're getting "musketeeers" with the wide hats and rapiers, but without muskets and the msot stereotypical pirates with 17-18th century ships equipped with ballistae...

It just never felt right for me. :D So i thought the 10 year's pass would be a good opportunity to Golarion to step forward and just acknowledge it's renaissance elements to their fullest (while not abandoning the others, of course).

However, if the majority doesn't want it to change, for whatever reason, I guess it wont. It's strange for me, given that the gunslinger is a fairly popular class even.


Dαedαlus wrote:

Well, Golarion is roughly placed in the equivalent of the Late Middle Ages in terms of technological development, and has been for quite a while. Thousands of years, as it were, with only the first hints that it might move out of it in the future.

Looking at our world, one of the primary catalysts for the end of the medieval period was forced innovation- as the Black Plague wiped out a third of the civilized world, more or less, people suddenly had to figure out all sorts of new ways to accomplish the same task with fewer people, which in turn drove technological enhancement, and that, as much as anything, was what helped move the world out of the Medieval period. In Golarion, there hasn't been any real need to innovate technology, as without a massive catastrophe to force innovation, the status quo can be easily maintained.

In addition, it's important to remember that, for Golarion, it's Magic, not Science, that is the primary field of research. Alchemy is a legitimate pursuit, and so the intellectuals of the world, who in our history began making fundamental discoveries when their initial experiments didn't work, are instead bending the laws of nature themselves. Virtually any innovations that would come about would be for the magically inclined. Tremendously helpful breakthroughs are almost certainly being made regularly, but they don't add to the lives of the common folk.

Finally, Golarion is far, far more insular than Earth was at this time period. You have mammoth-riding barbarians who share a border with a place that has laser guns. Innovation does not travel very fast in Golarion, which makes sense, considering all the nasty ways you might die traveling from point A to point B. Just take a look at any random encounter table to see that. The world is very, very hostile, so there's less international cooperation needed to drive advancement. The one exception to this, of course, is the magically inclined, who can teleport wherever they feel like, which is why magic is so powerful.

So, all...

Those are common arguments against technological development in general, and frequently brought up regarding fantasy settings. I don't even say they are not true(ish), because they do make sense. Trouble is, a lot of settings tend to overlook MANY technological developments, that are beyond medieval (like the printing press, for example, but there are others), so clearly, innovations do spread, at least alng trade routes and among the more developed regions.

Also, Golarion is really a big kitchen sink. There are regions with dark ages tech level in general, or even below, right to stone age, in some places. At the same time, it has developed regions clearly on the renaissance level or even beyond.

The same reasons why firearms would be appreciated among the non-magic user population are roughly the same as it was in our real history, I believe. For teh average person, they are convenient. They don't rely on strength, need little training to use. The same could be same about crossbows, yeah, but a pistol takes up much smaller space, than a crossbow, as a personal weapon and still has quite good stopping power.


Claxon wrote:

Yeah, mechanically unless you get Gun Training of equivalent and the ability to ignore misfire somehow firearms are pretty much strictly worse than bows. And definitely much more expensive.

And outside of places where magic isn't available, there's going to be a lot less incentive to adopt them in the Golarion universe.

Ravenloft 3e remedied that, if I remember correctly, by making them martial weapons in the domains with higher technological level. But I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've read the books.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjoint wrote:
Officialy, Alkenstar is very protective about their technology, sometimes selling ready-to-use products, but never the technology to create them. They Think about how IRL China was protective about the technology to produce silk. It would take a lot more time before guns become widespread. And considering that the progress in Golarion seems to be slow in general (they stay thousdands of years in 'medieval' times) it may take even longer.

I think the "technology not advancing for thousand years" thing has more to do with repeated worldwide calamities and the fact that the writers themselves said they went overboard with dates.

About protecting the technology: I don't think it'd work with firearms. It's not a special metal that they need and people know about gunpowder. The mechanisms are not that hard. Sure, there'd be plenty of botched attempts, but I think 10 years is enough to at least have some gunsmiths in other, developed nations' cities around the Inner Sea. Folks wozld surely figure out how to make a barrel,that works, as they already do things far beyond that.

Adjoint wrote:
I also believe that most of the players are happy with current setting, so the writers aren't going to change that. They provided the rules for people who'd prefer more widespread guns, to use in home games, but they're not going to change the official setting.

The settign is already changing, so I don't see why they can't make firearms a bit more widespread and present. Not replacing bows and crossbows (as they didn't in history either, for a long time) and not suddenly making the setting into a 18th century resembling one with massive standing armies with muskets and artillery, but again, I could totally see them being more common.

Also, to be honest, I never get this animosity toward firearms in fantasy. Many popular fantasy worlds have them, it's just somehow D&D (and derivatives) that handled them as the redheaded step-child and even then, not even every D&D setting did that.

As for Golarion, the technological level in developed countries are already much higher than medieval (and much higher than in the Forgotten REalms, or Greyhawk, for example). The aesthetical presentation reflects that in the illustrations in the books, like clothes and buildings, as well as cultural trappings in the writeups. It just always felt strange that people are okay with all that, to have things in the setting way beyond the medieval era, but firearms are a barely tolerated thing for many.

I think it wouldn't change the setting significantly, to have them as a more common sight (in certain regions, like Cheliax, or Andoran, or Ustalav, not in, for example, the Land of The Mammoth Lords, or even Varisia), they'd perfectly fit for the aesthetics of those regions. I'd even go as far to say there are many concepts and things that just feel strange and out of place without them.

Again, I1m not saying I want every character carrying pistols and armies with guns and artillery (at least not as a norm, maybe the most advanced countries could have some artillery as an experiment int heir armies). But I'd definitely like to see firearms in hands of characters and npcs who aren't gunslingers and aren't from Alkenstar and overall, be them more present on pictures and all that. Just to show they are more common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi all! I wasn't sure if this is the right board for it, or the PF2 one, but I'd like to ask the developers about their stance on firearms on Golarion!

What I mean is: Firearms were present, but still quite "exotic" in 1e. However, 10 years have passed. It's plenty of time for artisans in other regions outside Alkenstar to get to know the new technology. Surely it won't be like every town guard carrying a musket, but did firearms become more ubiquitous, since the last setting guide came out?

Honestly, I'd rather like that, as a flavor aspect, since I always liked the "renaissance-fantasy" style games like WFRPG, or the old Confrontation wargame's setting (Aarklash), or some domains of Ravenloft had and most recently, the Pillars of Eternity games. I jsut really dig the aesthetical and flavor side and I think it makes quite a few staple things much more enjoyable, like swasbuckler/musketeer type characters, or pirate stuff in general. Also, I think Golarion always leaned to this direction, at least the central region with nations like Cheliax, Taldor, Andoran, or Ustalav, not to mention others, which are all quite advanced beyond the medieval-ish "strict" sword and sorcery, let alone dark ages aesthetics and technological level.

So what do you think and what the devs have to say about it? Would we see firearms becoming more normal and widespread on Golarion? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, I always liked the "busy-ness" of Reynolds' artworks, but these new ones are a bit too "streamlined and a bit too, I dunno, bright.


Well. In general, I like Wayne Reynolds' art, he added much to the overall feel of PF.

I understand where he came from, the whole "elves are not human, they are alien" thing and that he wanted to accentuate that with differing body proportions. I also always liked the longer ears and especially the eyes of PF's elves.

Said all that, I'm not a big fan of this. The face, on itself, is good and I like much of the equipment. However, I get the longer legs, the slimmer build and all that, but it's just too much for me. She's not even like an anime figure, or Alita in the movie, which would be celarly not human, but still attractive in an alien way (as it was mentioned above by others, elves are supposed to be attractive to humans). This piece shows her more like having the proportions of a small child, with a seriously underfed trunk (I mean, THAT slim of a waist???), with a too big head and an adult's legs.

I would like to see elves as clearly not-human, yes, but not as children. I preferred the old artwork, though there was several among the sketches shown in the video, which I liked a lot more than the final version, to be honest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yup, the tales sold me on Golarion, as a setting, really. The books were pretty enjoyable.

I hope, with 2e, they'll revitalize it.

Otherwise, well, there's not much in regards of rpg tie-in books these days. WotC doesn1t do any. PF Tales is on hiatus. WoD doesn1t have any either. Shadowrun, at least still has some.

I wish it'd change, novels were always what made me really interested in settings and games, with fleshing out the world and giving cool and relatable characters and stories. The PF Tales line is certainly among the better ones.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:

First Reactions:

  • Dislike Cavern Elf. I had a problem with how common Darkvision was among player races in PF1 and am not excited to see that return.
  • No Drow Heritage? I foresee some people being disappointed by this.
  • Reading between the lines "Cavern Elf" is Drow Heritage.

    I could easily see Drow feats being printed to give them their classic levitate/faerie fire stuff with "Cavern Elf ancestry" as a prerequisite.

    It's interesting that they didn't explicitly name "Cavern Elf" Drow, while calling Bleachling Gnomes by their name.

    I just think they express a sort of professional courtesy toward WotC, (since drow are one of their mascots and cashing cows) by avoiding them as much as they can, within reason. Especially, since they'va called the deep gnome "svirfneblin".

    Regardless, I agree, just call it drow heritage, for gods' sake. The world won't end. Actually, I'd be happy, if similar to the inclusion of goblins in the corebook, it'd mean we'll see drow exploring the surface more and more encounters with them and more opportunities to play them and not feeling totally out of the picture.

    Otherwise, yeah, this errata is definitely a step in the right direction!

    Did they said anything anywhere about human ethnicities being heritages, gaining feats of their own, or something like that?


    ErichAD wrote:

    I see the merit in both ways. But I think for the purpose of framing the breadth of the world, and distinguishing Golarion from generic D&D settings, it's going to be more valuable in the long run.

    And it further prompts a move away from "rarity" to regional and cultural restrictions which I think will be needed as the game moves forward.

    I'm agreeing with this. Actually, the fact that Golarion is (by and large) more "renaissance", than forced medieval-but-not-really is one of the things I much like about it. What could I say, I like settings like that (WHFRP, Ravenloft's various domains, Aarklash of the old Confrontation wargame, etc.).

    Honestly, I'd even like firearms being presented as more common, at least in the more central, more developed nations. PF1 assumed emerging guns, but surely, 10 years should be enough to get their hands on a bunch of pistols and muskets and reverse-engineer it.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    ErichAD wrote:

    I honestly don't know much about Golarion or even where to start. But I'm also on the more worthless end of their market since I don't go in for adventure paths, so that's hardly relevant. It sounds like a theme park for old sci-fi and fantasy comics. Ancient aliens land, vikings land, pirates land and so on and so forth. It all seems pretty culturally disconnected for a world with teleportation.

    Honestly, that was my first impression of the setting too. I said "well, this is even more of a kitchen sink, than FR, like, literally, they've dumped everything and its uncle into it...". And that's true. And it somehow works and 'in general' doesn't feel disconnected (at least for me). Maybe because the writers actually embraced the kitchen sink aspect of it and went nuts. It has its own appeal and also has its own distinct style.

    The novels also helped a lot to give it its identity, for me.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    thflame wrote:
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    Marc Radle wrote:
    That may be, but plenty of folks play Pathfinder but don’t use Golarion as thier campaign setting, so that should not be relevant. Plus, the Pathfinder rule set is not the same as the Golarion setting, so Golarion-specific rules really should not be baked into the core Pathfinder rules in any case

    I believe one of the major changes for Pathfinder 2nd edition is that the core rules are no longer setting neutral. So things like "Clerics of philosophies" are right out. If you want to run a game in a setting which is not the default one, you will need to change some things.

    But since the bestiary will almost surely have rules for building all sorts of nasty things using PC rules (for major antagonists who happen to be a specific type of thing), it'll be easy to lift those for PC rules without giving explicit PC support.

    If Golarion Lore is a requirement for this system, then that's something that needs to change.

    I'm fine with using your lore to give examples and design your APs, but it should not be automatically assumed that you are using Golarion lore when you play PF2.

    Yep, That' my take on it too. I actually like Golarion, but I want PF2 to be able to support other settings, like PF1 did, right out the gate.

    Also, if goblins are okay as a core ancestry, Drow are sure as hell okay as a supplement one. They might be an an elven heritage, whatever, but they are just as valid.

    I always seen it as Paizo mostly ignoring drow, sans the Second Darkness AP, where they are strictly villains (which was okay, being oldschool, going back to the roots, yadda-yadda, but they even said there that there's room for non-evil Drow). Drow as a player race isn't really a thing on Golarion, at least that is the feel I got from their presentation. I always thought that to be too extreme and one-sided. Still, the Advanced Race Guide is extremely usefull if I want to play FR, for example, since it reflects the fluff a lot better, IMO than anyothing WotC did.

    Also, this ignoring could be personal preferences among the writers/developers, or could be that Drow are essentially a D&D poster-childs and they have the professional courtesy of not "stealing" them. their mascots are goblins.

    Still, I think drow should be among the first ancestries outside the core, simply just because people love them (and I suspect, despite Paizo's tendency to avoid them, tons of people still plaed them, yes, even in games settled on Golarion), myself included. Actually, I prefer Golarion in almost every instance over FR, but the portrayal of the Drow is one of the few examples.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Fuzzypaws wrote:


    [list]

  • People really like the sketch art style!
  • Honestly, I'm glad to read that! Black and white artworks are woefully underrated in today's rpg books, that's my firm oppinion. Everyone goes for the shiny full-color, even if it's looking bland and not that spectcular. Good black and white, pencil-sketch-style and such have a certain character, which I really like and it'd be good to see it more!


    thflame wrote:
    PMárk wrote:

    1. Magic in those games is still stronger than anything else. In WoD, everyone treats mages as the most OP, given time for preparation. Shadowrun fans are whining about "magicrun". CoC is, well, CoC.

    You have played Pathfinder, right? A wizard, given "time for preparation" is easily the most powerful class in the game.

    Might be shocking for you, but yes.

    thflame wrote:

    The issue comes from creating a balanced system. I have heard that magic needs to be costly/dangerous, rare, or trivially weak if you don't want it to completely run your setting.

    "Rare" doesn't work well in a TTRPG, because the best way to make magic "rare" is to ban PCs from using it. You COULD let one of your PCs be one of the few casters in the world, but everyone else is going to play second fiddle to them, unless the WHOLE party is casters.

    People don't seem to like magic being trivially weak or costly/dangerous because everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too.

    I personally love the idea that magic is powerful, but that it is dangerous to cast. Pathfinder lore implies that this is the case, yet we have zero mechanics to represent this.

    You're missing my point. Countless games tried that "powerfull, but dangerous" route and in those, magic still trumps everything. Magic is just more flexible than mundane tools. Even with the toning down of spellcasting, like D&D 5e did and PF2 aims for, even with penalizing mecahnics like CoC, even with risk-management mechanics, like Mage and SR, magic is stronger.

    You make everyone "magical", or you penalize magic to the point of being unfun to play, or nerf it to not feeling awesome. Otherwise it'll trump mundane, just on the basis of being infinitely more versatile and the allowance for non-linear, non-conservative problem solving.

    As for magic being dangerous in PF (aka, on Golarion), I never took it as magic itself being dangerous in the sense of being inherently corrupting, or health-wrecking, It's just dangerous, because power corrupts and all the trafficking with otherworldly creatures and such.


    To the OP: well, you just described, or re-invented every system other rpgs use, which, in fact, make magic a double-edged sword. Mage, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, Symbaroum... The list goes on.

    there are two problematic points here:

    1. Magic in those games is still stronger than anything else. In WoD, everyone treats mages as the most OP, given time for preparation. Shadowrun fans are whining about "magicrun". CoC is, well, CoC.

    Thing is, you just can't make magic not-awesome, if you don't severely restrict it to be downright unfun to play. Magic is just a lot more flexible problem-solving tool in the hands of creative players, than anything mundane characters can do. Or you take the 4e way and make everything working along the same rules and I'm not a fan of that.

    You can mitigate how strong magic is, with those double-edge mechanics, or things like esonance, but magic will always be more flexible and thus, stronger, in overall problem solving.

    2. Those games are pointedly dark and gritty. D&D and PF are not necessarily. There's an expectation of awesomeness in a high fantasy game and playing magic-users and the abundance of magic in general is a part of that. I think you have more problems with the genre than with the rules themselves.

    Edit: just to be clear, I love those games, with all my heart, I just play different games with different goals and assumptions.


    PMárk wrote:
    Tridus wrote:
    neaven wrote:
    The trouble there is that there will just be cries of "minmaxing" and "powergaming" when people take disadvantages to get advantages. Even if the system is done well, there's a certain very vocal segment of any playerbase who won't be able to stand the idea of weaknesses providing any benefit whatsoever.

    Yes, this is an unfortunate reality. 3.5 had a flaw list in UA and most of them were so minor or irrelevant to a character that if they were allowed, it was common to take a couple that caused no real problem and then get a couple free feats out of the deal. Straight up min/maxing.

    Whenever I run a game, obviously anyone can take any negative they want. If they want a mechanical benefit for doing so, they have to sell me that it's going to be a real mechanical detriment to them. That means none of the published ones, but I've seen some really creative custom ones. If you want to do it for just RP flavor, then fill your boots.

    One weird thing I do find right now is the lack of negatives in general, though. Like, is it even possible by RAW to have a Human in PF 2e with less than 10 in any stat? That's clearly no longer "average", it's the floor. Other races have specified penalties, but that's pretty limiting.

    The idea that a Human PC isn't bad at anything does kind of shine through in 2e more than previous editions. While a PC can deliberately work around it, the game's mechanics really push away from that as a goal.

    I get that, but there's a lot of min-maxing in the game already. Would it hurt so much?

    Otherwise, yes, in those games (WoD, or Shadowrun, for example), you could abuse the system, picking flaws you'd rarely play out, or are insignificant and then take the best merits with the extra points, or extra powers, etc. I definitely see the problem. But is it more broken, than broken feat combos? Also, I don't think it can't be remedied with a a good system. Maybe it's not a 1 negative for 1 positive feat situation. Maybe it's something...

    I'm not a fan of FATE and games like it, narrative games are simply not my cup of tea, for various reasons (hint: not because of a liking for powergaming, or playing just tactical combat). Regardless, I like the hero point idea, I'm okay with hero points (or edge in SR, or WP in woD). Still, there should be a metric of how "severe" the flaw is, snce it will cause problems and imbalances, if one character gains a lot more hero points, just because her flaw comes up more frequently.

    Regardless, owning your flaws and doing heroic deeds, in spite of them and hampered by them is... well, heroic, so hero points feel appropriate.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Tridus wrote:
    neaven wrote:
    The trouble there is that there will just be cries of "minmaxing" and "powergaming" when people take disadvantages to get advantages. Even if the system is done well, there's a certain very vocal segment of any playerbase who won't be able to stand the idea of weaknesses providing any benefit whatsoever.

    Yes, this is an unfortunate reality. 3.5 had a flaw list in UA and most of them were so minor or irrelevant to a character that if they were allowed, it was common to take a couple that caused no real problem and then get a couple free feats out of the deal. Straight up min/maxing.

    Whenever I run a game, obviously anyone can take any negative they want. If they want a mechanical benefit for doing so, they have to sell me that it's going to be a real mechanical detriment to them. That means none of the published ones, but I've seen some really creative custom ones. If you want to do it for just RP flavor, then fill your boots.

    One weird thing I do find right now is the lack of negatives in general, though. Like, is it even possible by RAW to have a Human in PF 2e with less than 10 in any stat? That's clearly no longer "average", it's the floor. Other races have specified penalties, but that's pretty limiting.

    The idea that a Human PC isn't bad at anything does kind of shine through in 2e more than previous editions. While a PC can deliberately work around it, the game's mechanics really push away from that as a goal.

    I get that, but there's a lot of min-maxing in the game already. Would it hurt so much?

    Otherwise, yes, in those games (WoD, or Shadowrun, for example), you could abuse the system, picking flaws you'd rarely play out, or are insignificant and then take the best merits with the extra points, or extra powers, etc. I definitely see the problem. But is it more broken, than broken feat combos? Also, I don't think it can't be remedied with a a good system. Maybe it's not a 1 negative for 1 positive feat situation. Maybe it's something like minor negatives, which are more like inconveniences, or stuff coming up rarely, but you only get a small xp boost for them, or you get a feat for two of them, or something. Then you'd have major negatives, which are feat-for-feat, but will definitely come up and hamper the character. Oh and there should be an upper limit of how much you can get from either.

    I don't know, I just say I enjoy that aspect of those other games and miss it in D&D and it's relatives, if they are not present. I'm not th kind of guy who picks "severe phobia of pink unicorns" to get "immune to blood bond" in return, but I like to take one or two flaws, if it fleshes out the character concept more. I just like my character's concept being reflected mechanically and not just being window-dressing, that's part of why I play crunchy games, like PF, or Shadowrun and got bored by D&D 5e very quickly.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    LuniasM wrote:
    magnuskn wrote:
    You'll get a lot of flak for this post from the people who usually disagree with the premise. I agree with the basic premise in the way that PF2E papers over character weaknesses with its universal level bonus system. That makes it very hard to pretend your character has those weaknesses. Which goes to the point the Sideromancer is making, you actually need to self-pretend much harder that your character is physically weak, who nonetheless is so good at magic that he can contribute to a party of adventurers. Somewhere along the way to level 20 that paradigm disappears, due to the way attribute distribution works in PF2E.
    Pretending you have a weakness (ie "can't swim" or "is bad at directions") is as simple as saying you auto-fail on those rolls or writing a lower number on your sheet. The Voluntary Flaws sidebar on Page 19 already calls out this option for ability scores, so extrapolating to skills or other features isn't a stretch.

    Lots of games use advantages/disadvantages, merits/flaws, positive/negative qualities systems for decades. Would it be out of the question here? Negative feats, you could pick, which give you some other benefit in return? Extra xp, extra other feat, something like that?

    After playing a lot of those games, I actually miss opportunities like that, for reflecting negative character quealities in mechanics in a codified way. Having old characters, characters with disfigurements, characters who grew up in a dessert and can't swim, etc.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Threeshades said everything I'd have wanted to.

    It's okay to have some sexy-looking characters. Even girls. Even on the cover.
    It's okay for Seoni, as a character to choose to look sexy, or just to wanting to show her tattoos. Countless people choose that every day. It's not like she's an empty-headed bambi the party keeps around just for the ammount of skin showed, quite the opposite, she's smart and cool-headed and highly competent.
    Magic makes most of the environmental stuff irrelevant for her.
    She's also aesthetically pleasing, which isn1t a bad thing.

    So, I'll say, go Seoni! :D

    Seriously, the girl is my favorite iconic since the comics and her looks are not the primary parts of that by far. They are a part of it, sure, but most importatnly I just like her personality.

    Though, honestly, because I value realism, I'd like to see pictures about her struggling with her outfit in particularly bad environments (maybe it was done somewhere in the comics, or in a book, I dunno) to show that yeah, she knows it's impractical but doesn't care.


    What I'd like to be in the game, regarding critical hits, is in some form keeping the differentation between the weapons. That was something in the 3e engine I always liked and missed from D&D 5e very much. It just makes sense.


    Now, I wanted to say that I like this active shield use concept very much. It already incentivized me to make a sword&board character, something I always found quite boring to play. Active shield use and the new action economy already gives a lot of interesting tactical choices, so it1s absolutely a thumbs up! I also like the reaction/DR stuff, it's realistic.

    However, I gave it some thought and I believe, from a realistic standpoint (and based on my European martial arts experience), bigger shileds should provide some passive bonus, simply on the merit of covering that much of your body, even if you don't do anything with them. I'm talking about Roman scutum and Norman lenticular shields, maybe even viking shileds, or Renaissance Italian rotella. Basically medium and large shields. I think the best would be those providing some passive bonus, but considerably more, if used actively.

    Small shileds however, such as bucklers should not, IMO. IRL you basically always use those actively, not so differently than a parrying dagger. The advantage of those could be the considerably smaller weight and very low/no armor check penalties (if that is still a thing in some form, which I think should be) in comparison to the big bros.

    Just my 2cents. ;)


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Most of what I read this far is reassuring. This could be the best version of a D&D-esque game for me, at least I hope so.

    Two things I wanted to add:

    1. in the FAQ, about the changes in the iconics' gear, I hope it doesn't mean that classes will became more restricting, aka, fighters will be only sword and shield, or ranger only dual-wielding, or those things overwhelmingly baked into their abilities. I loved how those things were flexible and how the iconics went against thise clichés. Naturally, this could be done with the archetypes, but still.

    2. Magic items. I'm okay with making magic items more unique and making them less mandatory, but I want to keep the ability of PCs making them with adequate crafting rules and even buying them. The 5e way of making them GM fiat isn't in line with how I picture high-magic settings like FR, or Golarion. If magic is, not exactly everyday, but common enough and half the classes using it, it doesn1t make sense to me to be like that. I want my wizards to be able to make scrolls.


    Vidmaster7 wrote:


    Where would you put White wolf Storyteller system 1 1/2?

    For me, pretty much. It's easy to understand and pick up, everything works along the same lines, but it has a fairly long list of attributes and skills, fairly elaborated combat and overall simulation (but not nearly as elaborated as Shadowrun, for example), lots of powers and ancillatory systems.

    It's complex, but in the sense of having a lot of options and depth. In the sense of just understanding it, ease of play, creating character, etc. it's pretty much medium-crunch. With some variation between the games in the WoDverse, for example, Vampire is pretty straigthforward, but Werewolf is surprisingly crunchy, with all the forms, ranks, spirit rules, etc.


    Matthew Downie wrote:

    My complexity rating system is:

    (1) Rules-light.
    I'll invent a rules-light RPG here as an example:
    To create the game setting, take turns making statements about the game setting. Everyone must agree with everyone else's statements.
    Each character has four stats: Heart, Head, Fist and Grace. Roll a dice for each one, or make up numbers.
    When you attempt a task, roll a dice for each point of the most relevant stat. For example, if you shoot at someone and have a Grace of 3, roll 3d6. Each one that gets a 4+ is a 'success'. The more successes, the better!
    There are no other rules.

    I'd just like to say, that I don't think the average staple dicepool mechanic (roll X number of dice - where "x" is the level of aptitude - compare it to target number, count successes)is a part of being rules-light. Shadowrun uses the same and it's anything, but.

    I think the other things are more important, like the cutting back of attributes to a very few abstract ones, describing the character with keywords (that usually give some flat bonus, like advantage, or reroll, etc.), rather than numerical levels of excellence in different areas. Drastically simplified simulation rules, especially combat.

    The collaborative narrative thing is, IMO, separate, but often goes hand-in-hand with those.

    Otherwise, more-or-less agree with your assesment.


    Bill Dunn wrote:
    swoosh wrote:

    The debate about complexity has ramped up but it's certainly not THAT new.

    What I find interesting though is the way the bar has shifted. D&D/PF for the longest time was often considered toward the middle or even on the easy end of tabletops in terms of one's ability to pick up and play.

    But in the last couple years this sentiment that it's unapproachably complex has suddenly started to take hold instead.

    I think D&D managed to skate by on the idea of being of middling complexity mainly because it was D&D. It had a legacy of being only moderately complex, a reputation that declined as more options were added to the game.

    PF has also added more options over the years, with many of those options being surprisingly fiddly - something core PF was drifting toward compared to D&D with things like rage powers, bard rounds of music, paladin mercies, and so on - but later additions like the alchemist, summoner, and much of the ACG offerings pushed even harder.
    There are a lot of moving parts to PF characters and a lot of options. I think it's definitely one of the more complex RPGs out there, based on my experiences.

    And that is also true. The downside of having things is, well, that you have to handle those things.

    I might add, this is also why I like it. The 5e approach, that if you aren't playing a spellcaster, you're basically done with you character at level 3 is just a bit too constrained to me and I also like interesting mechanics in classes.


    Skeld wrote:
    swoosh wrote:

    The debate about complexity has ramped up but it's certainly not THAT new.

    What I find interesting though is the way the bar has shifted. D&D/PF for the longest time was often considered toward the middle or even on the easy end of tabletops in terms of one's ability to pick up and play.

    But in the last couple years this sentiment that it's unapproachably complex has suddenly started to take hold instead.

    Maybe 5e recalibrated players' definition of "complex."

    -Skeld

    I think it started earlier. Specifically, with WoD.

    Now I like WoD, as I mentioned above, but it was, I think the first game that brought into a hobby a large swath of story and narrative-focused people, who didn't like much combat. It was a part of its success, a large part, it had an appeal to people games like D&D hadn't. Moreso, the writers always emphasized the "golden rule" and "story first". The game also has/had a fairly light ruleset, easy to pick and "not getting in the way of storytelling".

    Now, again, I like the middle ground WoD encompasses. However, the whole thing birthed a new generation of gamers and thus, developers, who thought along those lines and asked "how far can we push this approach, how much could we re-define tabletop rpgs?"

    And lo and behold, that was the born of the rules-light, truly narrative movement, which, after a while, gained traction and changed the perception of how " crunch-heavy" specific games are, to the point, where even WoD itself is considered rules-heavy in the eyes of some peple.

    But that's how people in the rpg crowd are looking at this, I think.

    Outside of that, other things also happened, like the internet, and shortened attention spans and computer games and MMO-s, so it's really a combination of a lot of things, but I think on the side of the tabletop culture, this whole perception shift about the heavyness of specific games wriggled out from under WoD's trenchcoat and gone a bit out of hand.

    D&D 5e, I think, came to this from another point of view. They realized, that they could sell the most books to the casual crowd and new gamers and nowadays those are demanding easy access and instant experience. In the meantime, 5e could appeal to the rules-light crowd too, but I think that's more of a side effect.

    Otherwise, I think it's really interesting, that after 5e, the other really successful games are all medium-to-heavy crunch (judged on the contemporary thinking). PF, Shadowrun, CoC, Warhammer, SW. FATE, for example is, for some reason, nowhere near that.

    That's my working theory, at least for now.


    DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

    As far as I'm concerned they're already making it, the Kingmaker CRPG.

    I hope it's successful enough that we get annual sequels based on other Adventure Paths :D

    Yeah, something like what was done with BG/IWD and the recent Shadowrun games.

    It'd be like the good 'ol days again! :D

    I really hope it'll get to that.


    Can'tFindthePath wrote:
    PMárk wrote:
    the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
    Moonclanger wrote:


    Its weakness is its complexity. Even when running a published adventure, as a GM I often spend more time preparing for a game than my group spends playing it. This is because there are so many different rules a GM needs to know in order to run the game smoothly.

    For what it's worth, I regard that complexity as one of Pathfinder's core strengths. I've played a bit of 5e, and while it is definitely easier to pick up, the principal reason running it is not to my taste is that IME it feels like E6 stretched over 20 levels; it feels like it would quickly become boring for me personally to DM precisely because there is not that range of things to look up, and I have similar feelings about the OP's suggestions overall.

    I would love to see a 3.5-derived variant that made the last quarter or so of the level range (and ideally on into epic) more fun and playable, but I am unconvinced that drastic simplification is the way to go, and for so long as there is a sizable (or at least vocal) contingent of players who both regard C/MD as a major problem and object to martial characters being powered up in ways they deem unrealistic/too anime-like, that seems fairly intractable.

    I just want to say, I totally agree with that. I don't like how "complexity" became a curse in the last... Decade?

    Everyone (ok, tha majority of RPG developers)want "more streamlined" and "easy to pick" games and that's fine and cool. To a point. After a point, it's just dumbing down and losing depth, plain and simple.

    I get that everyone has little time nowadays and I get that more complex games are harder to pick up for newbies but... come on, we started with these games back in the days too. There's seriously something wrong with the people now, who are saying WoD, for example is rules-heavy...

    You don't exactly need a doctorate to understand the more complex games, it's just a bit longer learning curve and in the

    ...

    I get what you1re saying and I essentially agree. That's why I'm saying I wouldn't mind a PF 2e, or Revised, with some clearing up of superfluous rules and infinite fiddly modifiers, trap class options and all that. Regardless, I'd want to keep the bigger depth of simulation and he depth of character management.

    And yes, 5e is shallow. It's a good beginner game, or a good game, if you like that style, but for me, it's shallow and don't get me starting on the setting treatment. :/

    For what it's worth, while i can appreciate complexity and options and simulation, PF and 3.5e is the ceiling of what I'm willing to play in that regard. Shadowrun is a step lower, but close second. I like these games, I can, as I said, apreciate the complexity, but yes, they can be a serious headache.

    Conversely, 5e is the bottom of what I'm willing to play. I'm really not into true rules-light narrative games, not my taste.

    I like games most, which are in the middle somewhere. WoD, 7th Sea 1e and such.


    PossibleCabbage wrote:

    For me, the Black Isle and Infinity engine era of CRPGs is my absolute favorite era in video games, so the fact that Chris Avellone is working on the Kingmaker game is pretty exciting.

    So give me that dense convoluted plot with tons of characters and lots of reading, please.

    Yep, that.

    I'm glad that, after a while, developers realized that there is a serious demand for games like those "oldschool" ones. It means I'll get more good games to play in the future. I never was a fan of TPS/FPS rpgs, though the Witcher series is cool. Regardless, give me a beautifuly drawn 2d isometric, team-based rpg, with interesting story and fleshed-out NPCs, preferably on a developed rpg setting and with a familiar rules-system and I'll be happy for a time. :)

    So yeah, Kingmaker looks good! :D


    the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
    Moonclanger wrote:


    Its weakness is its complexity. Even when running a published adventure, as a GM I often spend more time preparing for a game than my group spends playing it. This is because there are so many different rules a GM needs to know in order to run the game smoothly.

    For what it's worth, I regard that complexity as one of Pathfinder's core strengths. I've played a bit of 5e, and while it is definitely easier to pick up, the principal reason running it is not to my taste is that IME it feels like E6 stretched over 20 levels; it feels like it would quickly become boring for me personally to DM precisely because there is not that range of things to look up, and I have similar feelings about the OP's suggestions overall.

    I would love to see a 3.5-derived variant that made the last quarter or so of the level range (and ideally on into epic) more fun and playable, but I am unconvinced that drastic simplification is the way to go, and for so long as there is a sizable (or at least vocal) contingent of players who both regard C/MD as a major problem and object to martial characters being powered up in ways they deem unrealistic/too anime-like, that seems fairly intractable.

    I just want to say, I totally agree with that. I don't like how "complexity" became a curse in the last... Decade?

    Everyone (ok, tha majority of RPG developers)want "more streamlined" and "easy to pick" games and that's fine and cool. To a point. After a point, it's just dumbing down and losing depth, plain and simple.

    I get that everyone has little time nowadays and I get that more complex games are harder to pick up for newbies but... come on, we started with these games back in the days too. There's seriously something wrong with the people now, who are saying WoD, for example is rules-heavy...

    You don't exactly need a doctorate to understand the more complex games, it's just a bit longer learning curve and in the meantime, it's rewarding, if you don't like handwawing, or want your character concepts reflecting in the rules to the minutae and if you want meaningful character customization. Also if you want more interesting critters and npcs. Also if you like more in-depth simulation, etc.

    However, I think there should be a middle road between PF and 5e, because yes, PF is sometimes just too much to remember, albeit, i'd still have something and not using it, than not having it.


    I wouldn't mind a PF 2e, or Revised. The game could use some clearing up and simplification.

    However, I don't want too much simplification. There's 5e for that. I'd rather continue to have a game with much more in-depth simulation aspects and actual character-building options beyond 3rd level.

    If they can keep a balance, then, I'm not against a new edition, or half-edition, or any kind of update. But i want PF to remain the game it is, in it's core, the torchbearer of the 3e legacy.

    I also don't want to lose how Paizo's supporting their setting, unlike WotC.


    Hi folks!

    It came up on another place, so I thought it's better to ask here, because I don1t have the time now to check a lot of books.

    So as the title says is it? I'm fairly sure there are non-evil undead and characters in novels and Pharasma isn't evil either. I'm not even sure about all the haunts out there. I'm vaguely remembering some good necromancer archetype, but that could be 3.5, or something else, I'm not sure.

    So what's the state of necromancy/negative energy plane/necromancers/undead on Golarion? Are they objectively evil things?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    You mean reptilian-drow from the Hollow Earth?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Hmm, will do, thanks!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Leingod wrote:
    PMárk wrote:
    Tacticslion wrote:

    ... so are you suggesting that you'd want to play D&D - drow and dinosaurs?

    ... I'llletmyselfout

    Weeell, I actually like the idea, but no, I was just curious which Pathfinder stories (APs, modules, tales, etc.) featured either of them, aside from the mentioned obvious ones, since they seem to be rather unused in Pathfinder. I mean, for example drow were featured in multiple supplements, but I can't recall stories, which they took even a mildly important place (or at all), aside from Second Darkness and I wondered whether it's cause is because the drow department is one of WotC-s cash-cows, so the Paizo folks lave that to them, out of courtesy and camaraderie, or just Paizo isn't interested in them that much, or doesn't want to feature them much, because of not wanting to turn drow into anything but a boogeymen.

    Dinosaurs are just cool and I was just curious about the same, ie. which stories featured them?

    Edit: I just realized your pun... Sorry, it's late over there. Well done sir, well done. :)

    Well, they don't appear much because they've already written the drow as almost exclusive to the Darklands. Unless an adventure is set in the Darklands, they're pretty much out of the running by default. And even in the Darklands, they have to compete with duergar and urdefhans and all the other antagonistic races down there, many of whom are very interesting in their own right and don't have as much of the baggage of WotC coloring your expectations.

    Besides, keeping their appearances relatively fewer means less temptation to turn every other drow into Drizzt.

    Thanks. So it's more-or-less as I thought. I could totally understand them not wanting to step on WotC's toes with abundantly using drow, or just not liking them, or not wanting to really picture them as anything other than Darklands critters. It's a totally legit approach and reasons, I'm just a bit sad, because I like them and their story in Golarion is quite nice.

    Honestly, drow are one of the very few points, where I'm preferring FR to Golarion, simply because of their expansion from the original lore and becoming a "player race", thus, more versatiloe and intersting to me and also because I prefer the spider-y aesthetics, because it's very cool and sleek. PF drow always seemed a bit strange with the adorned-by-leering-demon-faces-and-somewhat-bulky armor and weapons. But anyway, I like their story in PF pretty much, so I'd be rather happy to see them more. Oh well, that's life.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tacticslion wrote:

    ... so are you suggesting that you'd want to play D&D - drow and dinosaurs?

    ... I'llletmyselfout

    Weeell, I actually like the idea, but no, I was just curious which Pathfinder stories (APs, modules, tales, etc.) featured either of them, aside from the mentioned obvious ones, since they seem to be rather unused in Pathfinder. I mean, for example drow were featured in multiple supplements, but I can't recall stories, which they took even a mildly important place (or at all), aside from Second Darkness and I wondered whether it's cause is because the drow department is one of WotC-s cash-cows, so the Paizo folks lave that to them, out of courtesy and camaraderie, or just Paizo isn't interested in them that much, or doesn't want to feature them much, because of not wanting to turn drow into anything but a boogeymen.

    Dinosaurs are just cool and I was just curious about the same, ie. which stories featured them?

    Edit: I just realized your pun... Sorry, it's late over there. Well done sir, well done. :)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I really-really hope they'll work it out. The fiction line added sooo much depth to the setting and gave us some really memorable characters, it was really what sucked me in for the setting. Also, it was quite bad already, to lose the D&D novel line but at least Paizo carried the torch in this regard too and with good books. It'd be terrible to lose them too. :(


    Hello everyone! I'd like to ask the community about the two kind of critters in the title. Namely which Adventure Path, or Module features them as important elements?

    Do we have drow characters, machinations, or anything drow-related, outside Second Darkness? Or is the whole Drow stuff is too much of a Drizzt (and hence WotC) related shenanigan that the good Paizo staff leaves it to them?

    Also, do we have APs or modules with lots of dinos? I guess they were featured in Serpent's Skull, given the general location and theme of that AP, but I didn't read it yet. Anything else?


    Dave Gross wrote:
    Marco Massoudi wrote:

    @Dave Gross:

    Can we expect a new Tale from you in 2017?

    Your novels are my favorite ones, not only from Pathfinder, but from all of them.
    The only ones i have read more often (6 times each), are the "War of the Spider Queen" ones.
    Prince of Wolves 5 times, i read it every year or so.

    There's none in the works, but I appreciate your kind words. I hope some of those books stand up to re-reading.

    Dear Mr. Gross! I hope the above will change in the not-so-distant future! The Count and Radovan are among my all-time favorite fantasy characters and your books really got me hooked in Golarion and I feel there is much to their story still!

    Since it looks Erin M. Evans's Brimstone Angels series is truly ending, it'd be really sad to lose another great set of characters from an likewise great author. I understand that sometimes it's best to take a rest than churning out a mediocre book, just please don't abandon the guys (that's also adressed to Paizo in general)!

    In the meantime, I'm reading Bloodbound now and it's also very good so far, I'm already hoping it'd get sequeled!


    On the Other Hand wrote:
    Well that is kind of silly, like saying you hate all Vampire Literature because you didn't like how Edward Cullen was a moody teenager and yet still a vampire.

    Avtually, I alwasy liked Jarlaxle, and some other (Pharaun and others from the war oft the spider queen for example), lets say, not-so-much-evil-closer-to-neutral drows than Drizzt (although, I like Dizzt, just he not that interesting in the x+ book. But He was at the beginning!).

    Priestesses are stright-forward evil to a "I simply want to kick them in the face" extend.


    Like your ideas, especially the integration of the mists (thoght I wouldn't use them in every random encounter).

    I start to think about: what if the connection with Ravenloft actually one of the reasons the country be the way it is? Maybe, "thanks" to some... something the connection with Ustalav is far more permanent and crossable, than with other prime materials? I see potential in the Tar-Baphon/Azalin thing and the whispering cult, and the old cults and even such things as the menhirs near Lepidstadt and the strangenesses around the founder of the Order of the Palatine Eye. Maybe, thanks to that connection, the "lurkers in the dark" somehow gravitate toward the country, or have a slightly greater power here.

    I need to dig in more to the vistani-scarnzi theme...


    Yup, I liked Rule of Fear too. That and the CC's journal entries together give a good picture.

    On the Ravenloft thing: I continously read myself through the material and come to the consequence, that Ravenloft is the absolute, full-blown-out gothic mayhem. And it's low fantasy and a whole world in itself. I love it and it's pleasure to read it only for the feeling! At some point I want to GM-ing/playing here. I actually thinking about making some connections betveen Ustalav and Ravenloft. You know, bastardhall, mists, old ones, a gate to Azalin's castle at the bottom of Gallowspire sort of thing.

    Thanael, thanks for the link, it contains a lot of excelent material! The pf adaptation is pretty good.

    Anyway, Ustalav's beauty is that it is a piece of a larger world and do it in a way that makes sense. And It has more fantasy elements naturally. I don't think it's a diluted version of Ravenloft, the two are in the same genre, but in different tone and both are cool.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    What a great topic!

    I'm a hungarian guy, lover of gothic horror and overall, aesthetics, so I was adored, when I firstly saw the campaign setting's Ustalav entry. I never played Ravenloft, though working on to read the (at least most relevant) material. But I read the Rule of Fear, prince of wolves and planning to GMing the CC to my friends.

    Personally my personal tought is that Ustalav is a more realistic, more integrated into the wolrd, liveable, yet grimmy setting in comparison to Ravenloft, which is very-very cool, but ultimately is a deathtrap (although I read the other's comments about the changes in later editions).

    Wes's posts are just great, adds very much to the feeling of the country and I wish there will be more directy Ustalav-oriented, more fluffy-less crunchy expansions in the future. The concept, in my opinion is one of the best attempts to integrate a gothic horror setting into a high fantasy world. Personally, I really-really like the idea of an ocassional orc raiding party's conversaton on the top of a hill at the sunset in Ustalav's border

    Chief: but, wise shaman, there is a village in the valley with only peasants and a bunch of weak human soldiers! Would be a child's play!
    Shaman: No.
    Chief: But their ruler is long gone! See? His castle above is totaly abandoned!!!!
    Shaman: I sayed No.
    Chief: But the boyz are hungry! We had a long march behind us!

    And the sun goes down, chilly fog starts to emerge from the woods and howls heared from the direction of the abandoned castle.

    Chief: ... I go and open up another can of dried reendeer.
    Shaman: Smart boy.

    One note to the "superstitons" thread: I always imagined that as Robert Jordan wrote it in the first few books of Wheel of Time. The people konws that magic exists, but most of them never seen a true magic-user and spells, at least nothing greater than cantrips. Those, who doesn't live in close tto the borders most likely never met an orc (ggod for them). However, for citizens of great cities, magic at some extent is a part of life and those who live near the borders, or more remote places, monsters are a real threat.