Heya, folks! If you don't know me, I'm Sean K Reynolds, designer on 2E D&D, 3E D&D, 3E Forgotten Realms, in-house developer/designer on Pathfinder and Golarion for six years, and now I'm a developer/designer at Monte Cook Games.
MCG is making a book full of advice about playing and running RPGs. It doesn't matter what system you're using, this book is not about game mechanics, it's about the people at the table (or online), ways to be a better player and better GM, and ways to make that awesome remember-it-years-later game experience happen more often.
I made a little vid about it, which you can find here. Make note of the different shirts I'm wearing!
No matter what RPG is your favorite, no matter whether you're a player or a GM, a newbie or a veteran, you'll learn from this book.
If you want to skip the video and get right to the Kickstarter (which only has two hours left), go here.
Thanks, and good gaming!
I'll be at PaizoCon this year!
I'm working on a silly little card game that I'll be kickstarting in July, and I'll be bringing the prototype to the con to playtest/demo it. Where? Wherever we can find some reasonable seating.
I haven't tried to put this on the event schedule, (1) because I wasn't sure if the game would be in a workable state by the time the con started, and (2) I'd like to keep my schedule at the con very casual.
So once we're closer to the actual con, I'll have figured out what days I'm attending and what times I'll be demoing the game. If you're available at those times, track me down and sit in on a game or two, I'd love to hear your feedback. :)
Yes! I actually joined a carpool about a month ago, which freed up a lot more of my personal time (cutting my commute by about 90 minutes each day). So things with Five Moons is rolling forward again. The playtest document is about 100 pages right now (and the core book is going to be 128 pages, so that's mostly done).
Thanks for asking! :)
Thanks, Marv. For ISG, I actually only wrote the god entries (which come from the various AP god articles I wrote), the heralds, the servitors, the magic items that appeared in the pre-PF Gods and Magic, and any spells from the AP god articles. So if you liked any of the other stuff in the book, credit goes to the other authors as well. :)
Freehold DM wrote:
Excuse me, friend. It may be a bit boorish, but I had no idea when I would make contact with you, and I was just speaking about you when I saw this thread.
You're not being boorish at all. :)
What conventions do you think you will be at in the future? I would very much love to buy you a drink and perhaps beg an indulgence.
I'll be at PaizoCon 2015 tomorrow (Sunday), and I'll probably be at GenCon 2015 for at least a couple of days.
True, I was getting bored with them... and it didn't help that 69 is a demon lord, 71 is a horseman of the apocalpyse, 77 is a demon lord, and 78 is a demon lord, all of which are very similar in their philosophy of "we accept worship from anyone, without any restrictions on what you can do with your power, so long as you are evil evil evil."
(Adam could tell I was getting tired of the repetition.)
But Brigh and Zyphus were definitely fun to write. :)
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Relevant story: When I started at TSR, Jeff Grubb and Roger Moore were both there, and they had both worked on 1E AD&D stuff. Most of the rest of the staff started in the 2E days, and I hadn't played much 2E, so I didn't know them. But when I met Jeff, I was agog and said, "Holy crap, you're Jeff Grubb!!!" And when I met Rogue, I was likewise agog and said, "Holy crap, you're Roger Moore!!!" Eventually I got over it, but for this then-24-year old, it was a pretty awesome day. :)
Anyway, looking forward to the voting results tomorrow. Good luck, everyone!!! :)
And that's why there's this:
Tactician (Ex): At 1st level, a cavalier receives a teamwork feat as a bonus feat. He must meet the prerequisites for this feat. As a standard action, the cavalier can grant this feat to all allies within 30 feet who can see and hear him. Allies retain the use of this bonus feat for 3 rounds plus 1 round for every two levels the cavalier possesses. Allies do not need to meet the prerequisites of these bonus feats. The cavalier can use this ability once per day at 1st level, plus one additional time per day at 5th level and for every 5 levels thereafter.
Hunter Tactics (Ex): At 3rd level, the hunter automatically grants her teamwork feats to her animal companion. The companion doesn't need to meet the prerequisites of these teamwork feats.
Solo Tactics (Ex): At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor's allies are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats. Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves. The allies' positioning and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus.
It's never explicitly called out in the rules, but teamwork feats are actually a stealthy way of giving more options specifically to the cavalier, hunter, and inquisitor classes, which are three classes that can automatically grant teamwork feats to allies or can operate as if their allies had the teamwork feat. If it's hard for other classes to get those feats, well, not everything can be equally easy for every class, and the main point is to make those feats easily accessible to the cavalier, hunter, and inquisitor by marking them as teamwork feats.
I agree that Combat Expertise's Int 13 prerequisite is pretty harsh, and that having Combat Expertise as a prerequisite is also pretty harsh. But you really shouldn't complain about being "double charged" for a teamwork feat, as teamwork feats are primarily intended for the three classes that can bypass or override the "doubled" cost of the feat (i.e., requiring someone else in your group to have the feat for you to be able to use it).
Folks, I put together a long advice PDF about monster design, you can get it here, if you think my advice is worth anything. Hopefully you'll find it useful whether you're writing for RPG Superstar, for Adam, for a third-party publisher, or for your own campaign. :)
And now... I sleep. :)
Be that as it may, it's still certainly possible for said players to feel as though the option has become bad or undesirable, leading to frustration and causing said players to wonder why the design team chose to balance that option accordingly.
Oh, I'm not defending the warpriest design at all. I had very little to do with it, much of what I did was a temporary fix to get it ready for the playtest, and probably much of my temporary text was replaced after the playtest, or even after I left Paizo. I honestly haven't even read the final version of the class because I was more interested in the final versions of the four classes I did write (which basically didn't change at all). I have given zero though to evaluating the final version of the warpriest.
My point is, there is a difference between stating a complaint, and blowing something out of proportion.
"I feel that this is yet another thing that makes the warpriest a weak class" is a complaint.
"The devs hate the warpriest and it's clear they always have" is blowing something out of proportion.
Me? I'm not a dev any more. And I'm clearly so dumb that I'll spend my own free time refuting false statements about a class I didn't work on. I also have a long history (during- and post-Paizo) of trying to explain to people that how they say something is just as important as what they're saying, because the Paizo staff are people, and they have a choice about what threads they reply to, or if they reply to any at all.
I get that you're unhappy with the class. I have no horse in this race—I didn't write the class, I don't work for Paizo anymore, and I don't know you... but I'm still trying to help you, so maybe you should believe me when I say that the devs don't hate the warpriest?
Anyway, the point is: the devs don't hate any of the classes. If they did, we would have left them out of the book and included other material instead. Suggesting otherwise is just... silly.
Indeed, unfortunately that sort of kills my character for our home game =/ since I was a reach WP. Unfortunately the design/devs hate the WP. It's been pretty clear since play tests so this is of no shock to me.
I think you need to take a step back and look again at what you're saying.
Because what you're saying is,
And I say that as a designer who had very little to do with the warpriest design (as I had finished the playtest drafts of my four classes, Jason had me round out some of the warpriest domain-like abilities for the playtest so he could finish up the other two classes he was working on). I certainly don't hate the warpriest. I don't even dislike it. And I certainly didn't go out of my way to try to make it bad or undesirable for players.
So it's silly to say "the devs hate this."
But what if I have no idea what is bothering someone? If the GM says we open a door to a room where a vampire sits by the fire, with a viper on his shoulders and a dark wolf with red eyes and a glass of blood in his hand, and then someone shows me an X-card, how the hell am I supposed to know what is troubling that person? Is it the blood? The fire? The viper? The wolf? A combination of these? Should the GM throw the whole scene out?
From the X-Card rules:If you aren't sure what was X-Carded, call for a break and talk with the person in private.
(And why would someone allergic to peanuts care if someone else eats peanut butter? Does the smell of peanuts cause some sort of allergic reaction? Honest question here. I never met anyone who is allergic to peanuts... Or at least, the subject never came up)
Although they've recently determined that this specific risk has been exaggerated, peanut allergies can be serious enough (especially in children) that airborne particles (such as on your breath) or secondary skin exposure (like you get peanut oil on your hand, then you touch the battlemap, and the allergic person touches the battlemap) can trigger a dangerous allergic reaction.
As it turns out, if your group
then you have the option to leave the game. Because in a social game where the point is to get together and have fun, you're supposed to be accommodating to others' needs.
If someone at the table is allergic to peanuts, you don't bring a peanut butter sandwitch and say, "if you have a problem with this, deal with it, or justify to me why it's a problem." They don't have to explain, "if you eat peanuts, you'll kill me," it should be enough to say, "please don't eat that around me."
If someone at the table has asthma, you don't smoke at the table and say, "if you have a problem with this, deal with it, or justify to me why it's a problem." They don't have to explain, "if you smoke around me, I'll have an asthma attack," it should be enough to say, "please don't smoke around me."
If someone at the table is a rape survivor, you don't make rape jokes or make rape an element of the campaign, and say "if you have a problem with this, deal with it, or justify to me why it's a problem." They don't have to explain, "I was raped, and you treating it so casually is making me have a panic attack," it should be enough to say, "please don't bring up that subject." They don't have to tell you why. You don't deserve an explanation. You don't need an explanation. It should be enough that if you're in a social situation and someone asks you not to do something, you don't do it.
Because we're supposed to treat each other decently. Show some courtesy.
You already know to not crap your pants at the game table.
And if you aren't enough of a decent human being to do that, maybe you could "roleplay" a version of yourself who is just like you, except who is a decent human being.
I feel like this voting system is trying to judge exactly how much I hate certain items. For every "eh" item I get to vote on, I'm voting on at least a dozen terrible ones.
Remember that you're helping decide the Top 32, and even if there are only 320 entries this year (and there have been far more than that in previous competitions), that means that 90% of what you're looking at isn't Top 32 material.
It wasn't my square, or my ruling. It's how Jason thought it should work, in the text that he wrote for the Core Rulebook. When this question came up in the FAQ queue, I pointed out the problem to Jason (heck, it was a diagram on the marker board on my office wall for months), he acknowledged it wasn't clear over two years ago, but nothing got done about it until now.
Please stop attributing to me every ruling or answer you (generic "you") don't like. (Which, mind you, is one of the reasons why I stopped being the point man for FAQs for about five months. And during that interregnum, there were only a handful of new FAQs posted, because nobody else made FAQs a priority like I did. And then I was ordered to be the point man for FAQs again, despite me not wanting to, and despite being told "you get into too many arguments on the boards.")
Okay, as long as you understand that your anecdotal experience is merely an impression based on your overall memory of hundreds of dice rolls of various dice, not statistical data that can be analyzed. So far... no actual evidence that the positioning of the numbers has any effect on the die's probability.
(Note that if 20-opposite-1 on a d20 is the "balanced" way to distribute the numbers, the die should actually be more likely to roll a 20 than a 1, because the 20-face has more material carved out of it than the 1-face does, which means the 1-face is heavier, which means the 1-face should tend to end up on the bottom of the die, which means the 20-face should end up on top more.)
(Note that this also means that variations in the font used on a die, such as serif or sanserif, should have an impact on its probability as well.)
(As would whether or not you mark the bottom of a 6 or a 9 with a dot or an underline.)
(As would heavily-decorated dice like these ones.)
(As would whether the numbers were inked, painted, or colored in with a crayon, all of which would have different weight contributions to the die.)
(And note that I don't think any of these things really play a significant part in the bias of a die.)
(And I'm a guy who wrote a program in the 1980s to use the chi-square method to test whether or not a die is biased...)
(In other words, I think you have bigger things to worry about than questions like, "does the relative positioning of the faces on my dice mean I'm rolling lower overall?" Your character's hair color has about as much impact on your dice rolls. :p)
Any have any actual stats on whether or not the arrangement of the tiny, shallow numbers (not pips) on modern polyhedral plastic dice have any significant impact on the randomness of the die? Or is that just a precedent decided by on person at a dice company 40 years ago?
(Story: Mom makes a pot roast. Her kid asks her why she cuts a tiny bit off one end of it before she puts it in the pot. Mom says she learned that from her mother. Mom goes to grandma and asks her about it, grandma says she learned that from HER mother. They call up great-grandma and ask her about it, and she says, "oh, the pot I had was too small to fit the entire roast, so I'd cut a little bit off the end to make it fit.")
Animal creature type entry in the Bestiary:
It's not restricted to "had to be an animal from present or past Earth."
Just so you know:
1) Parade armor first appeared in the Golarion-setting book Adventurer's Armory.
So the "item's description doesn't match what's in the art" argument doesn't apply.
I've been posting a lot of stuff on the Five Moons RPG blog over the past couple of weeks, including:
* a different way of handling critical hits
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Technically that is an in-world artist's interpretation of the cosmology, so it's not 100% accurate. However, it is essentially a flat "world" of water and islands floating on a "sea" of ether, and what's beyond that is ambiguous. :)
I'll be doing a long "here's what's up with the setting" blog post in the new few days. So far it's only been seen by myself, my wife Jodi, main artist Gerald Lee, and a handful of authors I want writing about this setting. Let's just say it takes all of the mechanical ideas I've been blogging about (not-Earth physics, shapers, questions of race and what it is to be human, and so on) and tying them together.