Viriato's page

58 posts. 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
What about John Oliver?

Yeah, I think he kinda burned himself on that one for good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fourshadow wrote:
A whole lot of rhetoric about a title...priorities?! Such a thing is really of no consequence in the grand scheme of things. Why waste rhetoric (and product discussion) on such? Dead horse been beat enough, IMO.

We get it, you don't care and you're going to buy this product no matter what. More power to you. Some of us happen to have misgivings with the content and the way it's being marketed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Dandy Lion wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Fighters have enough nice things, I'm just frustrated by the fact that fighter design means any unusual martial option will be near enough fighter-exclusive because of the investment required to get them.

The one thing the fighter is good at should require an investment from other classes to play with it, as said classes already have "unusual options" of their own.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fourshadow wrote:
A lot of picking nits over the name and the contents of this book. I'm already sold. It cannot get here soon enough.

More power to you. Others may prefer to be a bit more thorough in evaluating whether a product deserves their money and will be useful to them.

Steve Geddes wrote:
My point is, we don't know the makeup of what's in the book, just ithat it's thematically tied to organisations in golarion. so how on earth can we say it has a misleading title?

You edited out the paragraph where I said that Paizo could be making a book about Golarion's monsters, say it also included "specialized training, powerful magical items, specialized magic, access to unusual gear or mounts" related to said monsters, and call it "Ultimate Adventurer". Because adventurers tend to fight monsters. And it'd still be a book about Golarion's monsters, with a misleading title.

RPG line books aren't thematically tied. That's kinda their thing. The 3rd edition PHB wasn't thematically tied just because it had sections on the Greyhawk gods or specific wizards' names in spells, for instance, because the rest of the content was setting-agnostic. It didn't become the Greyhawk Player's Handbook because of it. This, on the other hand, is a book specifically about Golarion's factions, with Golarion faction-themed options for character classes. And they presume to call it a neutral "Adventurer's Guide", a la the Complete line of 3rd edition fame, a title that does not in the least bit evoke setting-specific organizations... or organizations, period.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Rysky: One can hope.
@Skizzerz: That'd be even worse, what with a few uneven crumbs for a lot of classes, and would risk satisfying nobody while trying to please everybody. But I'll withhold my judgment until we get some previews.

And not to pile on too much, but yes, there is great cognitive dissonance between the book's title and what appears to be its contents. Even more so than the Advanced Class Guide (which should have been called Advanced Classes Guide).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any chances of martials - especially fighters - getting a book in the vein of Arcane Anthology? Something that would expand upon the absolutely fantastic Weapon Master's Handbook and Unchained's Stamina rules? Things like:

- More weapon and armor tricks
- More advanced weapon and armor training
- More alternatives for bravery (say, apply its bonus to a skill or touch AC)
- Stamina and combat tricks for feats that have yet to be covered (such as, strangely enough, those that come up in the WMH, which only explored Inner Sea feats in that regard)
- Weapon, armor or perhaps even magic item-specific stamina combat tricks
- More high-end feats like the PHBII's Weapon Supremacy
- Options that expand upon the use of Stamina, such as using it for saves or damage. Perhaps even associated with...
- Bonus-feat-replacing class features that aren't tied to archetypes

This thread isn't about the martial/caster disparity, or evening the field, but only about providing more options, which is never a bad thing. That being said, no spells, please. Ultimate Combat's 42(!) pages still rankle to this day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not too hung up on it being tied to Golarion, but rather on the fact that, at 192 pages, it cannot possibly contain enough material to justify a purchase from me.

Why? Because I only use the core classes and most of the base classes in my (non-Golarion) campaigns. And, at 39(?) classes, if they're going to cover all, most or a reasonable majority of them with archetypes, feats and options, and still manage to cram in organization flavor, archetypes and fluff text, it's going to amount to very little usable material for me in the end.

As an aside, I really wish Paizo would have kept things more separate, and publish additional material for hybrid, alternate and occult classes in their own splatbooks. With the current glut of classes, it feels like any option book that comes out will err on the shorter end of the stick, simply because there just isn't enough page count to cover options for a satisfying number of classes in satisfying fashion.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Classes shouldn't be about concepts, in my opinion, but about roles. Concepts are for archetypes and prestige classes. I know Paizo has to keep putting out product, but the sheer number of available classes is already redundant and getting increasingly specialized (conceptualized, if you will).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been loving Paizo's output in their bestiaries. Paraphrasing a bit from my Bestiary 5 review, my wishes for the sixth iteration are straightforward and twofold:

- Leave the SF to Starfinder or Players' Guide to Numeria. Pretty please with a Corentynian cherry on top?

- Avoid at all costs snake-bodied weasels with boar tusks, serpentine bulls, shark-headed sea serpents, wolf-headed sea serpents, chinchillas with bat wings on the tip of their tails and octopuses with three shark heads. Unless you have an absolutely amazing hook or a compelling campaign seed, please don't bother bother putting out such uninspired examples of match-a-monster.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Because the difference in math isn't worth the loss of the more intuitive, to most people, use of ten.

That's what I thought at first. Is it round privilege, or anti-oddism? ;)

Saethori wrote:
lots of sense

You, madam, just enlightened me, and definitely gave me food for thought. I don't have a problem in favoring slightly the PCs - especially considering they'll be rolling for pretty much everything - but it's definitely something to mull over. Much obliged.

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

One thing that might be a problem is do you roll Def Roll for every attack? Every attacker? Or just once a round?

I know that different groups have various love hate relationships with dice rolling but just adding extra rolls may not solve you problem of attention deficiency.

Thank you for the tips and your concern, but it's not nearly as bad as I might have made it sound. They don't suffer as much from ADHD as they do from frustration at not having any agency in determining the outcome of dice rolls that concern them.