I was also wondering about the impact. Are conversations being held with American book printers? Numbers being runned on domestic publication and shopping vs. foreign? Or do you just shift to a lessor tariffed foreign manufacturer than China?
Thanks for the clarity, you all. I'm new to PF2E and have lot of other versions of very similar game systems floating around in the noggin [All versions of D&D (except 4th), and PF1 to name a few].
As the title states. Any hope of bringing your shipping and e-commerce into the misen era anytime c soon? Seeing an order listed as having shipped 11 days prior, it not having arrived, listed as untrackable is pretty sad. Furthermore, even if it was listed as trackable the tracking numbers and links don't allow for tracking.
Thanks guys. I think what I was seeing at my table was a Chiurgeon being played as if they were a bomber. I can see the Mutagen and Toxicologist not needing it as a class feature, but perhaps it's a good choice for the Chiurgeon. Nonetheless, I think I understand the design decision to place it as a class feat as opposed to a class ability. Again, thanks
I'm a PF1 vet, new to PF2e only coming on board with the Remastered. I'm also big on understanding the why's of game design. So help me understand. I understand that it's bad game design to present options as choices, when they aren't really choices, but universally there is a correct choice. This is called "illusion of choice" universally, and related to specific choices within the Pathfinder game design has been labeled a "feat tax" when relating to feats. Help me understand why Quick Bomber from a design perspective isn't a class ability and is behind a feat tax? It seems to me this feat is so essential in 1st-8th levels as an Alchemist that to play during those levels without it severely hinders options for the class in combat to the point of it's a must take.
I find it really hard to take seriously criticism of an AP volume's adventure from those who mostly just read adventures, especially those who rarely run a table. If I'm sitting down to read an AP in previous versions, the first volume is usually a pretty interesting read. I don't buy an AP for a very interesting read. I buy an AP for an interesting adventure to run as a GM. I don't need a bunch of word count spent on information that the players in my game will NEVER know or have a way of finding out. Half-Dead City is expertly put together. If people are running 4 PCs with 15 point build through it, they are in for a VERY tough AP volume. As it should be. The traditional 1980s classic Egyptian modules were known to have a reputation of keeping players on their toes at all times. There is not a wasted word in the first volume. There is no waste of space saying why the PCs are together for a thankful change. But there I go talking about actually RUNNING this as an adventure instead of whether I enjoyed reading it. Now based on a lot of people who comment here, apparently Paizo sells a LOT of APs based on what people read instead of what people actually run. I'm not buying an AP unless I will run it or I know someone else will. My party had a TPK in the last chapter of the book, because they forgot they were in an Egyptian themed AP apparently. Not a single player blamed the AP or the GM. Every last one of them knew at the end of the day, they screwed up just about every way imaginable. We "aw, shucks" it off and start again. I say that to say this, I haven't even read an entire paragraph of the second volume of the Second Volume of this AP. Why? Because I don't want to know what's coming three months ahead of time as the GM. I get too excited when I imagine how my players will react when they get there, that by the time they get there I'm over it already if I've had to wait more than a few weeks. So yes, I can see why those reading APs for their own enjoyment might not be a fan of Jim Grove's product. For those who buy APs for running real live players though adventures around a table, Grove's volume is exactly what I want.
I have been saying this for years. If you have hundreds of pages and millions of options and only 10-15% of those options are "optimal" or useful in most situations, then one player at a table who chooses to play optimal style creates an arms race of players. The reason everyone else has to go along is to keep from being irrelevant. And the end result is that 85-90 percent of rules content is useless. The "average" game table does not consist of gamers like many of the employees at Paizo like to present themselves...as players who make great characters for story and not math. Because as game designers they understand (or should) that game mechanics is just a bunch of numbers and math and the GM can wipe them out at any time. Creating the story is the fun part of RPGing. However, most players are concerned with showing off their intelligence or system mastery or showing off to their friends how uber a hulk they build, or just stealing the spotlight. So every time the rules team puts out some powerful rules option that is usually the "best" choice it pushes all the "not best choices" into the realm of obscurity. This is why balance in rules options are so important. Not just with every feat or spell, but the combinations of spells and feat and magic items. The correct combinations are much more dangerous to game imbalance than a single feat, item, spell usually are. This mentality has been present since 3.0 came about and it hasn't ended with Paizo. There is already starting to be an outcry from GMs who have the inability to say "No" to players in regards to published options that Paizo puts out, leading them to desire a reset with a new edition. I personally don't plan on buying another rule line supplement by Paizo. And by requiring me to do so with the Mythic Adventures guarantees I won't be buying Mytic Adventures either. And if the APs go the way of "we have to support our rule line," I'm not such a fanboy that I can't do without the APs either. Put a gun to my head and say buy the rule line or you won't be able to play the AP line, and I'll say I don't need the AP line either then. It's a cyle. And half the customers who bash me for this stance will feel foolish in a couple of years when they finally realize the rule line has gotten too out of control for them too and wonder how they got sucked in so far. It happened with fans of 3.0 and it happened with 3.5. And it is happening with Paizo.
I don't know if this occurred to the OP or not. But perhaps the GM is being required to ramp up the encounter design to challenge your PC, because as a player you are playing on a level different from every other player at your table? If that's the case, then I'd argue it's not the problem of the other players you are playing with and would advise a mirror as a prescriptive measure to find the relief you seek.
Rules for not breaking APs:
I see so many players come to the boards asking how to make APs harder when they have broken one of the rules above. Most of these issues would go away if the things above were adhered to. Allowing a PC Undine in Skulls AP, bad idea. It destroys so much of what makes the AP unique and challenging in parts. Allowing classes that have pets in any AP where you have more than 4 players is just making more work for yourself. Druid animal companions and Summoner pets might as well be a 5th part member, because they are just as strong as another PC. This AP for most portions are NOT set up to avoid the 15 min. adventuring day. In fact, half of the first half of the AP is designed with exactly one encounter per day expected. After lullying your players into the tempo, a wondering monster or two have they have shot their load of abilities and best spells is a way to change things up and temper that kind of playstyle. To sum up, most of the work in making sure your PCs don't break an AP comes during character creation and what GMs allow to be brought to the table. The work the GM must do to up encounters can then be dictated by how many players they allow to play in the game. And finally if things are still easy by way of adventure design with PCs that have super abilities that are short-lived, modifications can be made in how encounters are run and wandering monsters are added. Failing all of those things (character creation being the biggest) that leaves you with just adding more numbers to encounters.
It never came up in my game, but if it did, I would not have allowed them keep a ship captured on the high seas without the minimum crew to run both ships. That's kinda the point in having minimum crew requirements. And it also serves to teach the PCs a lesson about their actions having consequences. Be as evil pirates as you like, but you may well let your evilness cost you -- aka every toy-based cartoon made since 1985.
In my game, Ultimate Combat and Magic are NPC books unless I approve. No problem whatsoever. The entitlement effect is a major problem with D20 players. DMs only succumb when they need players. GURPS advised that you only need to stat up NPCs to the point where they will be used in an encounter and no more depth than that is needed. D20 GMs would do well to adopt such philosophy. Otherwise it's a DM v. Player scenario. GURPS releases you from that mentality. And it's made my Pathfinder games multiple times better for it. I'm not tied to "fairness." Fairness is a waste of time. I'm not competing with my players. I'm SUPPOSED to lose as the GM most of the time. The key is entertainment. If "fair" or "even" costs me more time to create or entertainment value, I have no problem with throwing it out the window...and doing so quickly.
Just because it's been published by Paizo, doesn't mean it's good for the game.The problem I have constantly ran into with this mindset, Paizo or otherwise, is "good" is a relative term. Hence my mindset of "If I don't like the over-all mindset and chemistry of a group, I leave because I'm the one with the problem, not them~" As do I. Understanding that game companies must publish more options for RPGs in order to make money, means that new options are continuously being offered. They know the mindset of their audience to sell the most product to make the most money. They are a business after all. And their goal is to stay in business. TSR did it. Wizards did it. Paizo is/will do it. Put so many options out there that all the GMs throw up their hands and say, "I can't put up with all these options anymore." So then they have a reason to create a NEW edition of the game. Wash/rinse/recycle. The reason Paizo exists is because people LOVED 3.x. But the people running the games yearned for a RESET. Paizo is getting there unless the people running the games grow a backbone and say enough is enough. But that's very hard to do when you are competing for players with the GM down the street will allow anything that's published. Paizo KNOWS this. They will NEVER say it. And they will probably deny it. But their business practices prove otherwise. And the reason GMs get over all the options is not only that they understand what is going on. Some don't. In a game like RPGs, it is nearly impossible to conceive of all the options that powergamers and system masters put together to break those people at the table's fun. I have four people at my table. The Role-player expressed concern that he didn't pick the best options because he wanted to play a character and we're all friends so he KNEW two people at the table were taking powerful options. He was concerned that his PC wouldn't be important in combat anymore and I'd have to pull punches to keep his PC alive. Because almost everyone at the table has been a GM, too. They know it's all an illusion. A good GM is an illusionist. A GM can kill a PC at ANY TIME. The trick is to make the players think YOU WANT to kill the PCs, but a GM never actually WANTS to do it. But if I've got a powergamer who picked all the right options and a gamer who KNEW he picked the wrong options as compared to an optomizer, then I DO have a problem. Because it makes the illusion that much harder. Cause math. I think I have the powergamers under control, but I also know that I have to keep a keen eye on them or else they will hurt the other two players' fun. THAT is why, just because everything that is published is not allowed in my games. The optomizers are going to have fun anyway, because they will approach the limited options as a challenge. As long as I can keep the power levels within the reach of my illusion without the math showing these intelligent players that I'm really performing a magic trick -- all the better.
Just because it's been published by Paizo, doesn't mean it's good for the game.
Necro-thread-hate is silly. Search still works on old threads. Some people use search. Some topics just aren't discussed a lot. Hate on starting a new topic about the same thing instead of reviving a necro thread seems more appropriate. Because otherwise you are having to look in two or more different threads for the same little-discussed topic.
Quatar, Your question is an alignment question disguised as something else. My campaign rules for my players when I GM'd this game was no Lawful alignments prohibition. I didn't want alignments fighting against the AP. So that was the decision I made in MY game. In short, the Lawful end of the Lawful/Chaos axis of alignment I considered a much bigger problem for the AP to run smoothly than anything on the Good/Evil axis of alignment. By banning Lawful alignments I made my job a lot easier. That's not to say a Lawful character couldn't thrive here, but a I knew by banning them my players would end up enjoying the AP much better. To answer your specific questions, in my opinion:
It's a shame some of these GM reference threads get way off base and into campaign logs. Makes it difficult to find GM reference material. Once you go down the path of allowing a group to create a "fleet" I can imagine that it would be difficult to go back. This is one aspect of the RotFS that DMs need to keep a close eye on. For other GMs that might experience this, first I'll into how to stop it from happening. 1) Adhere strictly to the Crew recruitment rules. Allow crew recruitment rolls once per port of call and once per ship captured. Influxes of slaves (if players choose that option) suffer supply vs. demand price fluctuations. 2) If players stay in ports all the time instead of pirating to increase crew members, crew members may abandon the ship. Get restless. Get into trouble. In other words, attrition. 3) Ships require crew. Assume the crew compliment allows for a day of travel and not around the clock travel unless they double the crew of a ship. Bad things can happen on a ship in the ocean when no one is prepared. Like attrition, for example. 4) Every port of call should have you paying 1 point of plunder. That reduces plunder, which reduces benefits. If you do get to the point where they keep a ship instead of selling it for plunder, which means you've probably let crew get out of hand, charge them a plunder per operating ship. 5) Discuss with your players that right now, the AP is about a group of upstart pirates. If they want to be accepted among the Free Captains. they are going to have to get plunder and especially infamy. More plunder means easier infamy. More crew and ships means more upkeep, which means less plunder, which means less infamy. 6) Keep dangling the goals in front of them through either Player/GM discussions or through NPCs. Gain infamy. Break the rock. Get accepted as "real" pirates aka Free Captains. Now for solutions, and these solutions are based on the fact that a fleet shouldn't even be crossing their minds at this point.. To solve the issue you are having, you have to counter-balance the situation by perhaps being a bit more cruel. 1) Chexlian Man-o-Wars. There is one stated up in this adventure. Have it find them in the open seas. The captain of the vessel and other officers are not even stated up in this module. Make it cost them ships, to set the stage back to where it should be at this point. There is always a bigger fish in the sea solution I. 2) There is always a bigger fish in the sea solution II. Use the ghost ship to eliminate a ship the PCs have little presence on. 3) Mutiny. Either the PCs are split to keep this at bay, but the entire crew could probably overpower a single PC. Or they are all on one ship, and the crews could easily mutiny against another. This especially makes sense as a correction if you've been a bit lax on the crew recruitment rules. And it can set up a future plot hook. The PCs have their Harrigan and now the PCs are also someone else's Harrigan. 4) Wandering encounter with massive sea creature. Unleash the Kraken. 5) Raise the DC for infamy checks. It's one thing to impress a group in a port when you overcome a foe with one ship. It's very non-impressive to overtake a solo ship with a fleet. 6) Talk to your players as a GM and explain that there will be time for fleet action later. This section of the AP just isn't about that. In my experience the best solution in both of these situations were the crew recruitment rules, dropping some hints, and having player that understood them, and occasionally just talking to them as adults. So I never really had much problem with these things as I've run RotFS. And frankly, after a point, the players got bored rather quickly of raiding ships and wanted to get on with the story.
This is a kind of relative question, but in your opinion, which wretched hive of scum and villainy on Golarion is the most wretched, scummy and villainous? So what you're saying is Obi-Wan's not just a liar. He's a compulsive liar?
Does anyone ever see someone play a Kitsune with any class combo other than a sorcerer, oracle, bard or rogue? I'd doubt it happens often. And if it is exceptionally rare to play that race and some other class than the four I mentioned, then I have to argue if the player is really interested in playing the race or are they interested in the ability score modifiers the race provides? You just are not going to convince me it's about the flavor of the race unless they only pick to race to enhance their class choice -- especially in a point buy character creation model. I would say that all the other race options present the same situation. There are plenty of other ways to optimize the game. If the game made all races have a +2 ability modifier of your choice, period, I bet you'd see a lot less desire to play the expanded races.
A GM not allowing the strongest three animal companions in his game is completely reasonable. When those three animal companions can outshine or nearly match a fighter throughout the game and the player still has his druid actions to control, they are simply unbalanced. Let him walk.
Just hoping this ends up being what I thought Legacy of Fire would be. Traditional, Desert of Desolation-style epic.
It happens as frequently as the story requires it.e.g "Rule of Cool," as I mentioned in my first post. I'm trying to get a handle on what the baseline is before I change it to fit the needs of the story. True. But you also put your question in the context of world-building. And from that perspective I'm also saying that I think you are looking for an answer to a problem of your own creation that I don't think exists -- in the context of world-building. If the world only exists to tell the story of the stars, the PCs. There may only be 4 active shadows on the world at a given time...and they are in the Lost Halls of Darkness. There's only three wrights in the world right now, although there are stories of others that have risen and been defeated, there are only three right now and they are in the deceased Necromancer Dorian Germooth. For which the PCs will face when they are level 4.
It happens as frequently as the story requires it.
Mummy's Mask
Source: google books
Then again, lizard-men and humans worked on V: The Series.
I blame Cosmo for making it impossible to search the messageboards for things concerning Cosmo that are do not relate to this thread.
Rum Ration. There has been a lot of talk about the rum ration and the option of serving the newbies grog. Well a pirate is more likely to drink bumbo than grog and it was usually a mix of sugar, water and rum. Not that pirates didn't get drunk often, sometimes enough for the ship to be easy prey but the single ration was unlikely to cause con damage to someone with a CON of +2 or better being at least 1/3 water. This should cut the equivalent drinks down to 5 for a ration. Now playing heave would still obviously be an issue with the usual affects. I am going to rule for my game that if they only drink their ration if they make their fort save they don't take any damage and are only fatigued. If they fail then they take the damage. Changing the rum damage to 1 Con seems to take care of the problem in its entirity, while still achieving the desire effect. The desired story effect: A docile crew who doesn't cause trouble at night and stays in line. Mechanical means to desired effect: Fatigued plus 1 Con damage means that early to bed and early to rise gets rid of fatigue and 24 hours later the 1 Con damage is healed. Of course my group found solutions to their rum "problem" within about two nights unless they wanted to drink the rum for its beneficial nature. Funny thing is one night they "tricked" an NPC into drinking the PC's rum ration, thereby boosting his Cha score and making him more difficult to influence. They failed diplomacy and he turned hostile because of the improved Cha score modifying the DC.
I only discovered the Pawn line about a week ago and already have the B1 and S&S sets. (B/c I'm running S&S and B1 was just about as cheap as buying bases. I'll be buying these for any AP I run in the future. My only wish is that, as least for S&S it included more of the NPCs. I would have paid much more for not having to scrounge for mini's to represent. So my wish list item, is when you do an AP set make it Beastiary size and up the price. It will be worth it.
The GM does not have to play by the rules. So, yes, all the baddies just hit better. You can spend all your time with all the reasons why this baddie hits better than the other one, but there's no point to it. After doing D&D for 20+ years, I read GURPS advice for GMs. The rules are in place to put the players on equal footing, not for a GM. So yes, you can spend 20 hours a week coming up with a backstory about the guy who drank a magic potion, this other guy is on drugs, this other guy has a greater stat block, the other guy has two feats other than the useless ones in his statblock. Or.... You can just say it is, cause you are the GM. The GM can ALWAYS crush the players at any time. The MAGIC of GMing is to make it look like you can't and to not.
My apologies if I offended you. I'll stick to the points. I think there is a lot of power creep in Paizo's products, especially in the last 18 months. And I think there are ways that if a DM doesn't like it, they can easily keep it out of their games.
Power Creep in published Paizo products has reached a severe level, IMO. It did that with the Ultimate books. Not counting Organzied Play, Power Creep only enters games where one of two things occur: 1) There are many games in town and players prefer to play video-game style braggerts who's only point in playing the game is to build something that steals the spotlight from their friends thereby requirng a GM to give in to keep players or; 2) A GM who doesn't ban books, classes, feats and COMBINATIONS of abilities that on their own aren't bad until combined with something else that makes them especially powerful. In my opinion, a GM who says "I'll allow anything Paizo publishes in my games" is a poor GM. And frankly, not one that I would enjoy playing with very much. My method to avoid Power Creep:
Any classed NPC should be experienced enough to be wary of a group of adversaries accompanied by animals (with the exception of horses). I know my PCs are. Why shouldn't others who have "experienced" the world? That said, the Gmay be taregeting your familier too much. But another option, the GM may have a grander story option planned.
Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. As ability score damage heals at a rate of 1 point per day, a drug that causes 1 point of ability score damage remains in a character's system for 1 day, though some might cause greater damage and thus remain active for longer. Anytime a character takes a drug he must make a saving throw, noted in the drug's description, to resist becoming addicted. If a character makes the save, he is not addicted and the effects of the drug persist as normal. If he fails the save, he contracts the noted form of addiction (see below). Should a character take multiple doses of the same drug in a short period of time addiction becomes more difficult to resist. The DC of a drug's saving throw increases by +2 every time a character takes a another dose of that drug while still suffering from ability damage caused by a previous dose. Keep track of how high this DC rises, even for characters already addicted to a drug, as it determines the DC necessary to overcome the disease. The primary problem here is that a day is defined under ACTIONS in the Heal skill as 8 hours (which is shorter than any day I've ever heard of). And a day is suggested to be more akin to 24 hours in the Drug rules. But let's go back to basics:
So if I understand this correctly....
I know that people who have been playing this game for decades as I have, probably as I have rewarded damage recovery (hp and later editions ability point damage) after 8 hours of rest. But given the rules as written for long-term care, ability damage, and drug (plus addition rules not included here) seem to suggest that at least ability damage must be recovered on a 24 hour schedule instead of an 8 hour schedule.
The problem with rolling stats, especially six-siders, is that not all dice are created equal. Besides gaming dice, most gamers have extra d-6s, probably coming from numerous board games. Many d-6s that accompany board games are dimpled. Dimpled die are by definition loaded towards 5 and 6s because the dimples on MOST d-6s are the same size dimples. Therefore there is more weight on the 1's and 2's opposite the 5 and 6s. A real roll will be weighted to land on 5's and 6's more, resulting in higher rolls. I've had many players in my games who used this method years ago when I was a teen until I figured it out.
Throughout most editions of the game, the divine and arcane scrolls are not interchangeable between classes. The historical flavor of this is that arcane scrolls are complex math formulas and the divine scrolls are prayers that one with faith can manifest. There is nothing in the Pathfinder rules that seems to contradict this historical nature of the game and certainly could more easily be argued that this tradition stands rather than has been changed.
I think the rules are pretty clear on this. Combat doesn't happen without initiative. Even surprise rounds. RD's hears something and want to throw a Fireball. Then those aware of the encounter is underway roll init. In this case, it would be RD and the diviner. Yes, the diviner could go first before the Fireball is launched. RD's PC's high perception actually MAKES the diviner better at getting the low down. Now the Diviner may not know a target or even a general direction, but the Diviner knows he's in a surprise round of combat and can act. It's not punishing the god-like perception score by allowing the Diviner to go first in the surprise round if the Diviner wins init. It would be punishing the Diviner, not to.
I'll never have a need for 20+ level material. The game's math seems to break down between 15-20th level anyway. Some material to assist the game system's flaw 15-20 might be of some use, however. I'll never buy a 20+ level epic book for pathfinder.
I always roll for stats because it's more authentic. My method is to roll one hundred complete sets of stats and pick the one that fits my concept. This avoids the cookie-cutter aspect of point buys used by lesser roleplayers.Hey... watch it or the next game will be a 15 Point buy! ;) 15 point buy? Hmph. I must be the worst DM E-V-E-R. My poor players are forced to use a 12 point buy. *Gasp* *Shock* *Horror* How ever will they survive?
Optomizer: A term that power gamers and min-maxers created to make them feel better about themselves. I'm sure when it too gets a negative connotation that a new term will be invented. Such is the PC way. |
