Good module, btw, I've modified less than I've ever modified (toned down the weather just a tad, basically)
When did you guys let people buy more expensive items (plate armor, etc.) in the first two modules? Both towns have a 500 gp limit. I was thinking about Lady Argentina sending a runner to at least let them order some masterwork plate, etc., before they go through the portal. Or is the low shop availability part of the game's theme?
Basically, anything in the opposite direction of the "everyone is great at everything" approach.
old school- yo
I'll follow the original instructions and not defend the alignment system, though I do like the alignment system (and even restrictions!)
Totally 100% agree on the natural armor thing. Natural armor seems to be based on level, not "how tough is your skin."
Armor class isn't really that important, so there's really no reason why armor has to match CR. You could have low AC stuff that is super powerful.
We tend to ignore encumbrance rules, keeping track of arrows rules, most material component rules. Lately we've been phoning in spellcraft/identify rules too. On, and we skip the -1 per five feet perception thing too, which does cause problems. I think we'll probably move into a houseruled -5 if kinda far, -10 if way far type rule.
I'm going to triple down on the argument that it being "for the greater good" is a rationalization.
I'm still in the "it's evil" camp, but the argument that it is not significantly different than numerous other "not evil" actions such as charm person is a good one.
I also disagree with the statement that lots of little evil does not add up. In fact, lots of little evil implies a deliberate decision to do evil over a long period of time, which I believe to be very much as significant as one evil act of the moment.
Cool character concept, either way. I also don't fault the paladin for disliking it. Sounds like everyone is roleplaying well, and either an alignment switch or lack-of-alignment switch could be defended. (Though I still vote evil!)
Huge, huge fan of the inquisitor.
Not overpowered, but you always have something to do- be it a roleplay event, combat or skill/stealth event. You are not stuck to code like a paladin, but you can still make yourself fairly intense and memorable.
Judgments are kind of a fun dynamic that give you a little bit of versatility too- especially when you combine them with a decent spell set and bane.
Shrug, ghosts in Skyrim are constantly thanking me for freeing them from their corrupted mortal flesh, and Skyrim ain't exactly sparkly.
I like my damnation mythos to have some culpability, but I suppose in a world with true resurrection there needs to be some very high levels of bad stuff happens to you. Still, if a guy was mind-washed into evil, he isn't really evil.
Being a good god herald does seem like a poor job duty, however. You are just immortal enough to not be exempt from the "no direct messing with mortals" rule, but not immortal enough to be able to handle the big dudes. It's like beating up someone's baby brother.
I wonder if a fantasy world could have some sort of distinction between free-willed corruption and involuntary corruption.
I feel kind of bad for the herald. There he was, doing his herald thing, but being a good herald in Pathfinder means that you have a huge target on your back, since it is an apparently acceptable way you can snub a god w/o breaking the rules. So he gets kidnapped and tortured and finally, after his heart gets ripped out, he turns evil.
Circumstances are pretty unforgiving in the Pathfinder world. His turning evil was not really his fault, but more the fault of extreme trauma and some magical dark ritual. Yet if he dies, he still gets the evil punishment. This is pretty common- there are all kinds of formerly-good Whispering Tyrant playthings that are doomed for eternity. This is not the same as a free-willed being opting to take evil actions due to his or her own interests.
Is that somehow a requirement of fantasy, or could you have a world where beings, upon death, are more or less absolved of evil actions that were not realistically their fault?
My inquisitor with a greataxe and enlarge person loves it.
A second attack would be at -7 (-5 + -2 due to furious focus) and we fight a lot of midlevel hitpoint guys I can just take out with one good vital strike (flanking and using bane helps too). I'm sure it is not optimal if I do the math, but it is working well enough for me as a skirmishing scout character.
It probably has something to do with our current GM's type of encounter selection too.
but don't you think that optimization can narrow the options of roleplaying?
If every single inquisitor has the exact same build and stat array (complete with a 7 dump stat)- that is pretty heavily restricting the variance of what type of inquisitor you will see.
You certainly can have two characters with identical builds roleplay differently, but there is a little bit of stat ignoring to it (behold! I am the personable 7 charisma character!)
I certainly agree with you that it is not a spectrum with roleplaying on one end and optimization on the other, but I disagree that they never, ever, overlap.
Posting again because I love this post. Bring on the gnome chefs and have fun.
This thread wound up being a good read, and it is also unintentionally hilarious.
It feels kind of like someone bringing up a family divorce over Thanksgiving. You can practically sense people tensing up and waiting to pounce if they believe a line is crossed.
Since we are focusing on the good- a deal maker for me is that I really, really like Paizo's customer service. I had a question about the first AP I purchased and the guy who wrote the darn thing answered it within 30 minutes. I can't compare to every other customer services, but I can say that I've been pleased enough with what I've received that I'm inclined to stick around.
immortality via dying and going to heaven is actually not true in the Pathfinder world. You become a petitioner and some of the risks of mortality are gone, but there is always the chance of some evil adventuring party or daemonic invasion or whatever.
Even if only .001 percent of good petitioners chillin in the happy afterlives are killed each year, they are still effectively mortal over time. Sticking with the system immortality is overrated.
AD: I agree that the MMO comparison has been frequently used as a negative, but I don't think it needs to be. But if that comparison has been corrupted, then so be it. Point being, 4.0's attempt to draw a new audience while keeping the gaming system's core audience loyal had mixed results, to say the least. An actual market/business review of what went well and what backfired would be an interesting read.
Sebastian: My discussion is no more or less "edition skirmishish" than every other aspect of this thread.
I don't see the assertion that it appears they were trying to reach a broader video game market to be at all a bad thing. In fact, it would be a very logical decision on their part.
I have no way of proving this assertion to be true. It was an opinion I formed after reviewing the game, based on the creation of things like elite monsters and minions, rechargeable powers, healing surges, set classes (and a focus on balancing those classes with matching mechanics) and so forth. It (the similarity between 4.0 and MMOs) IS a commonly expressed opinion held by people who fall on all points of the 3.X/4.0 spectrum (including those who love 4.0).
I disagree that such an assertion would even require evidence of a deliberate attempt (ex: a quote from publisher specifically saying to make the game more MMO friendly) but creativity does not take place in a void. Any new game system is going to consider what works and what does not work in previous game systems, so it is very likely (and, in fact, even probable) had some MMO concepts in their heads while creating the game.
Again, I'm not presenting this as an accusation. In fact, I would consider introducing a pen and paper game with elements that MMO players would find familiar to be a very reasonable design move on someone attempting to broaden their customer base.
I do think there is significant evidence to say that the style of 4.0 certainly feels (to most people) to be MMO inspired, without there being evidence as to whether that was a deliberate or simply a subconscious intent.
The introduction of 4.0 WOULD actually be an interesting topic for a paper about product marketing.
You have a niche hobby (gaming) and you want to expand that niche hobby by simplifying and introducing elements that might appeal to people associated with a broader (but associated) niche hobby (video gaming).
I'd love to sometime read a clinical, objective analysis of 4.0 related to balancing efforts to preserve your core customers while reaching out to new customers, and what variables are involved. (For example, you could argue that gaming customers are comparatively loyal/stubborn about certain elements).
ahh thanks, had a group dispute that there was a difference between identifying something and knowing details about it.
It's not related to monster lore, but I could almost see a wizard not really knowing what X monster is by sight, but once you tell him it is X monster he could tell you all sorts of stuff about it.
Is the monster lore bonus included in the actual act of identifying a creature, or just in identifying the creature's strengths and weaknesses once you know what it is?
For example, a bearded devil pops up. Does an inquisitor get a monster lore bonus to a knowledge planes roll to actually figure out it is a bearded devil, or does he/she only get the bonus if the party knows it is a bearded devil and is trying to figure out that it is immune to fire, etc.?
First books of Kingmaker and Wrath probably ARE bad examples. Both of those modules have specific plot/mechanical motivations for making the first few levels easy.
I was not aware of Wrath being 20 point buy- thought it was still 15.
Serpent's Skull, Carrion Crown and the everything is cold APs are all not especially kind to low level guys.
First go after the casters does not prove they are overpowered, it proves that you use cavalry to take out artillery.
I'm assuming the baggage mules thing was a joke and not a horrible attempt of logic. Four people (and no baggage mules) are attempting to kill you. You logically go after the one who is best at killing you (or crowd-controlling you) and easiest to kill.
The actual fair counter to this argument is that a mirror-imaged, stoneskinned arcane caster is not the easiest of the group to kill.