Zark's page

I can’t really know anything for sure until I’ve read the playtest, but I don’t understand why they keep the iterative attacks. Why not just get rid of the full attack with all its 0/-5/-10 and just let martial classes (or any class) attack, move and attack? In fact most of my issues have with PF has already been fixed by 5e:

- more flow to the game,
- fighters, rogues and monk rock.
- anyone can be a trap expert. Disable device etc. is not a class feature so rogues shine because they are rogues, not because they can handle traps.
- Anyone can have any skill as a class skill. Just pick a background that gives you that skill.
- pointless feat chains are gone.
- weapon finesse is gone because dex to attack and damage is tied to the weapon
- the spellcasting system is intuitive and sorcerers are not punished
- full casters don’t need a crossbow. Instead they have at will
- cantrips that get more power as they level ep
- Bard is now a full faster (but they made it a debuff class which I dislike immensely).
- Weak foes/monsters are still viable at higher levels.
- Multi classing is far more simple.
- Archetypes only gives you more, you don’t lose anything.

There are still some issues like cleric being generic, Beast master ranger being weak, some classes not having short rest rechargeable powers, unbalance feats, etc, the 3:e/PF/5e initiative system creating problems, bonus action system flawed, but overall they fixed almost everything.

I doubt our gaming group will start plating PF again. Time will tell, but if PF stick to iterative attacks ( 0/-5/-10), an unintuitive spellcasting system and an unintuitive character creating process, etc, we won’t leave 5e. At the same time I hope PF is not making the mistake and trying to become a Paizo version of 5e. The new initiative system seems very interesting, so maybe there is hope.

Good luck Liz, you're great!

Hi James.
Have you seen the Godzilla Resurgence trailer?

The cuisine of the African American poor and is closely related to southern cuisine, especially that of the poor.

It's largely a fusion of West African, Southeastern Native American with a few additions and using native and "waste" like offal, ox tail, and root tops greens.

Barbecued pork ribs, fried chicken, ham hocks, blackeyed peas, corn (which I think most Europeans call maize), okra, tomatoes, corn bread, fried fish, hush puppies, grits (think polenta).

As for the chilidog... Yeah, I guess that's American. No idea where to get a good one in Miami. Heck, I don't know where to get a good one in my home town. You ever need to know where to get a cheesesteak or hoagie in Philly, that I can tell you. A chili dog in Miami? Ido probably go looking for a cuban sandwich first.

LOL. chilidog is not on top of my list this time, but I'm going to try one sooner or later.

The local microbrews that Odraude mentioned are a must however. As are a lot of the other stuff: Cuban food, Seefood and American food.

cuban sandwich, what is that?

American food is hamburgers and French fries. Amusing, since they're named for places in Europe. :P

Steakhouses are kind of an American cuisine thing too.

Soul food is pretty American, but difficult to get commercially. You really have to know someone and be invited to a family event if you want it done right.

Specifically a tradition in the American south, sweet tea. Iced tea that tastes like diabetes.

Finally, hotdogs with coleslaw, chili, and other trimmings. If you can eat it without making a mess, there's not enough toppings.

Have a fun time, and watch out for bath salts zombies.

Thanks for the information

Ever since I saw Dragnet With Dan Aykroyd I have longed to try a real hotdog chili and other trimmings. :) Must try it

What is Soul food?

may great things

Awesome post Odraude!

My wife being from Cuba obviously want to try the Cuban food and she also want to visit Little Havana. Is Little Havana the same as Hialeah? Is it dangerous going there or is it OK if we go to Little Havana/ Hialeah in the daytime?

We will try to check out as many different kind of food as possible but Cuban, American southern food/ American classics and seefood are stuff we must try. We both love Italian food but there some Italian restaurants in Stockholm.

My wife doesn’t like Asian food, but I do so I will make sure I visit Wynwood Kitchen anyway. At least so I can try their beer :)

Tap42 sounds very interesting. I love beer (I love wine too) How do we get there from Miami? Uber taxi? Is it necessary to book a table many days in advance?

My wife like to do some serious shopping. Anything from Cloths to sunblock and spices such as Cumin. (You can buy Cumin is Stockholm, but the quality isn’t that good). I there a good Mall/shopping center in Miami?

great stuff

Great post. A lot of useful info :)

We spent a week in Miami, but we were mainly lounging around the pool and spent most of our time on foot rather than seeing the sights. When we did touristy stuff we used taxis which I don't remember as being too pricey.

We stayed here. Which I remember as being quite nice, expensive and a little bit too funky for middle-aged people like us. (It even had paparazzi on the beach snapping pictures of people around the pool with telephoto lenses - never seen that before!)

We did a speedboat tour of the miami harbour which we all remember. Lots of pointing out celebrity homes, but also just a fun way to get a feel for the city's geography. We generally do that on day one or two of a new city and use it to decide what we're going to do in subsequent days.

I seem to remember lots of eating options in the art deco district (which is worth visiting). Nothing concrete to recommend though, food isn't a big deal to me.

Speedboat tours! Thanks for the tip. :) We definitely must try that.

Thanks everybody. I took GreyWolfLord’s advice and booked a Marriot’s Courtyard Cadillac Miami Beach/Oceanfront. A bit expensive but it is nice to live fancy when you one a vacation in a country you’ve never been to before. At the end of our vacation we actually going to stay two nights at another hotel located down town. It is very close to some friends to my wife. It’s simple (and a lot cheaper), but that’s fine since Marriot will provide us with the luxury we want.

Hi.
My and my wife is going to the US for the first time.
As it turned out we bought a plane ticket to Miami and we'll be staying there for a week.
So here are the questions.

1) Can you spend a week in Miami without renting a car? I got a driver’s license but haven’t driven a car in years.
2) Any hotels you can recommend or warn me of? We are both in our 50s, Wi-Fi is a must, but breakfast is not.
3) Hotels: What areas are good?
4) The sights: What should we definitely check out?

My wife is of Cuban descend and speak Spanish fluently. We most certainly want to check out Cuban food, but I really want to try American food. BTW, what is America food?
I love music. We both plan to do some shopping, we won’t spend too much time on the beach.

Merry Christmas James Jacobs
1) What do you wish for Christmas?
2) What movies do you look forward to in 2016?
3) Favorite movies this year so far?
Kind regards Zark

It looks like the new WotC archetypes are generally providing combat abilities and utility abilities at the same level for each class. Also, the use of "ribbons" for flavor is a neat mechanic.

Sorry, but what does "use of "ribbons" for flavor " mean? (my English is a bit limited).

Zark wrote:

TheRavyn wrote:

I don't have a lot of worry that the new archetypes will be over/under powered - all the archetypes are built off the same class framework. I worry more about all new classes.

I totally agree. Also in 5e balance isn’t as problematic/Important as in Pathfinder. The game isn’t as focused as PF on character creation/builds, leveling up and DPR. It’s more focused on storytelling

Whilst I agree that the tight archetype structure will likely mitigate the problem of new options being clearly superior to older options, I think the focus on character creation and/or DPR is far more a function of the player, rather than the system. My brother builds characters (in either system) entirely based on maximising their combat-effectiveness. I build characters which are generally poor in combat (in either system).

If you care about balance, 5E could easily suffer from clearly superior options just as PF could. Being simple just makes it easier to keep things on an equal power level - it doesn't mean the 'problem' can't happen. I've certainly heard lots of muttering about sharpshooter and greater weapon master (with their -5/+10 options) being "automatic" feats - the existence of differently powerful feats/options doesn't bother me, but there's nothing to stop it happening in a simple game. It's just easier to spot.

True, but my point was that 5e and PF are two different games.

PF encourages focus on character development from a mechanical POV and whereas a lot of the leveling up is automatic in 5e. 5e is more about playing the game, not developing the character mechanically.

in 5e lot of choices are made for you. Skills and attack bonus levels up automatically regardless of class. You don’t (need to) pick weapon finesse you just use weapons with the finesse property, etc. 5e even has feats as an optional rule and stats are hard caped. Also magical items are scares, at least if you go by the world the game in set in and built around, so using magic items to improve/mold your character isn’t a given option.

I don't have a lot of worry that the new archetypes will be over/under powered - all the archetypes are built off the same class framework. I worry more about all new classes.

I totally agree. Also in 5e balance isn’t as problematic/Important as in Pathfinder. The game isn’t as focused as PF on character creation/builds, leveling up and DPR. It’s more focused on storytelling and having fun.

So I see the Purple Dragon Knight and Swashbuckler on the cover, anyone want to guess what the other three are? Arcane Archer? Some sort of Elemental sorcerer archetype? No idea what the halfling might be?

Could be more subclasses that the five on the cover. At least I hope so.

These are the new class options I hope for: Sorcerer, Bard, Ranger and perhaps the Fighter too. I also wouldn’t mind new options for the Druid, but Sorcerer, Bard and Ranger are the ones that I hope get some more love.

I really want another Sorcerer origin. The Draconic Bloodline is a bit too much of a blaster for my taste and the Wild Magic is a bit to chaotic.

Since Bard is my favorite class I obviously want more options. I would like a mix between College of Lore and College of Valor, more versatile than College of Valor and more of a warrior than College of Lore.

Another Ranger archetype would be cool and much needed since the beastmaster is a bit underwhelming. A spell less Ranger (and a spell less Paladin) would be fun.
The Druid could need some love; perhaps a Druid with a pet or an urban Druid? An Urban Druid that is some sort of shifter class would be awesome.

I’m very excited about the Swashbuckler. I hope it’s a fighter or rogue archetype. I honestly think Battle master is the only fun fighter archetype, so I hope it’s a fighter with some social skills.

As for Subraces I hope for Human, Half-Elf and Half-Orcs subraces.

Both your links point to the same place, Zark.

Sorry.

Even if the Sage Advice Rules Roundup has a spoiler and a link to the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, your catch still a good since the content on the Sage Advice Rules Roundup change over time.

Now with the correct link :D
check out The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide that will be released this Fall!

Sage Advice Rules Roundup has been updated with Sage Advice Compendium (version 1.1)

Also check out The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide that will be released this Fall

Here are just a few of the features you’ll find in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide:
•Immersive Adventuring: This campaign sourcebook provides players and Dungeon Masters material for creating vibrant fantasy stories along the Sword Coast.
•New Character Options: The book offers new subclass options, such as the Purple Dragon Knight and the Swashbuckler, for many of the classes presented in the Player’s Handbook, as well as new subraces and backgrounds specific to the Forgotten Realms.
•Adventure in the Forgotten Realms: Discover the current state of the Forgotten Realms and its deities after the Spellplague and the second Sundering. You’ll also get updated maps of this area of the Realms.
•Compatible with Rage of Demons storyline: Make characters for use with the Out of the Abyss adventure and fight back the influence of the demon lords in the Underdark below the Sword Coast.
•Insider Information: Learn the background behind locations, such as Luskan and Gracklstugh, featured in the upcoming digital RPG, Sword Coast Legends, from n-Space.

With new character backgrounds and class options, players will love the storytelling possibilities of playing a noble of Waterdeep, an elf bladesinger, or one of the other new options, while Dungeon Masters will relish a book full of mysterious locations and story hooks to keep players adventuring on the Sword Coast for years to come.

Look for the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide to be available on November 3.

Cool stuff

Great backstory Brandon!

I'm finding using the Life cleric's Channel Divinity: Preserve Life kind of annoying. It only heals up to half your maximum, so PCs need to be very hurt to benefit from it.

[...]

Yes, we find that a bit annoying, but it's not a big problem.

The issues we come across so far are just minor ones.

The Paladin in our group finds it troublesome that all his self buffs rely on concentration and yet the paladin is not proficient in con saves. I too agree that this is a bit strange.
Also, unlike the (maneuver) fighter in our group, must Paladins features don’t replenish after a short rest.

We dropped flanking because we didn’t like the rules. Mainly for three reasons: It created too much metagaming; it was too powerful; and it stopped the flow of the game.

I think we also have nerfed some of the selfhealing. Something we all found made the game more gritty and fun.

I personally love the advantage/disadvantage rules, but some of us find it a bit annoying that one source of disadvantage counters many sources of advantage. At first I found that unbalanced, but now I start think that it is a good thing.

I’m not sure the game needs 6 saving throws, but does make sense, and also I think it may prevent people from power dumping stats.

I play an Evocation wizard I think the his powers are a bit unbalanced. The Sculpt Spells is a bit too good and takes the tension out of the game, so with the permission from the rest of the group and GM, I have nefed it. Basically they get advantage on their saves and improved evasion that can be used in any armor.

The Potent Cantrip is a bit boring since there are no evocation spells you can apply it to.

I’m also a bit disappointed that you can’t trade out your cantrips, but to be fair that is more to do with me not understanding the rules. In the new errata they clarified that cantrips are not in the spellbook.

Link to Sage Advice Rules Roundup with the following PDFs

- Sage Advice Compendium (version 1.0)

- D&D Spell Lists (version 1.0)

- Player’s Handbook Errata (version 1.1)

The spell list is very neat :)

Zark wrote:

I actually think we need a FAQ, but unlike most posters here I think the answer posted by the Design team is an excellent answer that should be posted as a FAQ answer.

Honestly, whatever happened to “this is your game”? No, is also an answer and when you say no a lot of people freak out. You really should sit down and contemplate on why. I think – to some part - it is the same reason why some of us has switch to 5e. PF is too complicated/bloated and “this is your game” no longer rings true.
The answer from the PTD is an good ruling. Why not stand your ground and make it an official ruling?

At the same time I really don’t understand why you won’t give in and give people what they want when it comes to stuff like the fixing the rogue etc. PF unchained is a sad example of this. It’s a fix but not really a fix. Slashing Grace and the warpriest are other examples.

If “this is your game” should be taken seriously, making this PDT answer an official ruling could be a step in the right direction. Next step could be PF 1.5 or even 2.0.

This misses the mark in such a big way.

Nothing about having clear rules prevents it from being "your game". You are free to houserule anything you like at any time.

But knowing what the rule was MEANT TO DO is NEVER a bad thing.

If you then want to use the rules as written, you can do that.

If you don't want to use the rule at all, you can do that.

If you want to change the rule, you can do that too.

Not knowing how a rule works makes it LESS your game if you're in the first category. If in your game you want to use the rules as they appear in the book...you can't, because it's unclear.

Either way it doesn't change the second two categories. It's still their game whether the rule is clarified or not.

I see we don’t agree and that is fine, although it’s a bit unclear if you think everything in my post “misses the mark in such a big way”.

You have received an official answer from the PDT that could easily be posted on the FAQ. Later on Stephen Radney-MacFarland has explained their stance on the matter:
“There are rules for take 10, but the last thing we are going to do is try to cover every instance on when you can take 10 or not. The game is far too complex […]”

They are giving the power to the GM and at the same time saying they can’t create list that covers every corner case. Would I mind a short list of examples? Perhaps not, but it would only spawn new questions. Also, I think this answer sends out an important signal when the PDT hand over more power to the GMs.

You’ve been around long enough to remember Sean K Reynold’s answer to this question when he still was a member of the PDT. He was even involved in the process of creating the 3E rules for skill checks.

ciretose wrote:

If Sean is saying that part of Take 10 is knowing exactly how far that distance is, Sean writes the rules and that is the rule.

I never said PCs automatically can eye-measure distances without error. But if you're a jumper, or an adventurer who lives his life in increments of 5 feet, you're going to develop a good sense for eye-measuring distances.

The issue we've been discussing is whether or not you can Take 10 on a jump, not whether or not a character can exactly know a distance without measuring it. As Ashiel suggested, grab a rope or a 10-foot-pole and measure it if you really need to know the exact distance.

If the player asks "how far is it?," and the GM says "about 10 feet," and the player uses Take 10 because he knows his Take 10 result gets him 11 feet, that's fine.

And if the gap was actually 12 feet and he fails to clear the gap, that's within the margin for error of eyeballing it, and that's fair.

And if the gap was actually 15 feet, the GM is being a jerk for estimating it at 10 feet; if the player knew it was closer to 15 feet, he'd know that was beyond his Take 10 result and would have to decide if he wanted to chance a roll on it.

In any case, he's still allowed to use the Take 10 rule on his jump, which is what we've been talking about. It doesn't matter if the chasm is one inch wide, 5 feet, 10 feet, 50 feet, or a million miles... if the player wants to use Take 10 on the jump, he can, even if he doesn't know that means he'll fail to span the gap, and even if he does know he'll fail to span the gap. Maybe he's trying to get into range of his wizard ally on the other side of the gap who's ready to cast feather fall on him as soon as he's in range. Maybe he's hoping to land on some spikes at the bottom of the chasm so he can have a dramatic death scene. It doesn't matter... he can use the Take 10 rule, whether rolling a 10 would save him or kill him, and whether he knows how far the distance is.

There has been an answer around from one of the PDT members since October 2012 and some people still go on about it. The answer from SKR should be enough for any GM. (In my experience, most people that scream for FAQ answers, when they already have been given a direct answer from a Dev, are players.)

Some questions are easy to answer with a yes or know, some are almost impossible, and some answers seem to create even more confusion. I guess take 10 is one of those questions where the PDT fear a FAQ will generate even more questions and confusion. Again, I’m not saying a small list has to be a bad idea, but the PDT has given us an answer and sent out a signal and it is: It’s up to the GM.

As for Paizo not giving people what they want? I still claim they don’t. So many people are still waiting for a vanilla rogue and vanilla monk that doesn’t suck; a full BAB holy warrior of any alignment; a generic dex to attack and damage feat that cuts it; killing iterative attacks or making martial classes more flexible; not forcing full casters to use crossbows when they run out of spells, etc. So no, I don’t think I miss the mark in such a big way. I don’t think Paizo lives up to “this is your game”.

I like a PF 2.0 where they have made the game more intuitive, flexible and easier to understand. A PF 2.0 where playing the game and having fun is more important that spending hours creating a new character or arguing with Devs over rulings. This is why this ruling appeals to me.

DM_Blake wrote:

So, to translate into simpler terms: No FAQ required because Rule Zero...

This is quite unacceptable. We bought the rulebook, and keep buying supplemental rulebooks, because we want rules. Or at least guidelines telling us when it's a good idea to apply a rule and when it's not a good idea.

Saying "Oh, here's a fun rule but your GM is expected deny your use of it whenever he whimsically feels it would be more dramatic" is worse than having no rule at all. If we wanted that game, we could all just sit around playing "make-believe".

Why even sell a rulebook at all? The CRB could have been one page long and would have said "Everything is whatever the GM wants; you're all subject to his whims, fancies, and interpretations. Deal with it." End of rulebook.

"Design" is the middle word of "Pathfinder Design Team" but this non-answer is also non-design.

Very disappointed.

I understand you are disappointed, but quite frankly the rest of what you say is hyperbole.

There are rules for take 10, but the last thing we are going to do is try to cover every instance on when you can take 10 or not. The game is far too complex and has a narrative structure where we must trust our GMs to make the best decision possible during play. And we do trust our GMs as well as the players to make arguments as to why they should be allowed to take 10 at a certain instance. Creating a long list of yes and no for all the situations of the game would end up being nothing more than advice anyway.

That is at least why I supported the answer how it stands. No FAQ needed.

Good gaming!

I actually think we need a FAQ, but unlike most posters here I think the answer posted by the Design team is an excellent answer that should be posted as a FAQ answer.

The answer from the PTD is an good ruling. Why not stand your ground and make it an official ruling?

At the same time I really don’t understand why you won’t give in and give people what they want when it comes to stuff like the fixing the rogue etc. PF unchained is a sad example of this. It’s a fix but not really a fix. Slashing Grace and the warpriest are other examples.

If “this is your game” should be taken seriously, making this PDT answer an official ruling could be a step in the right direction. Next step could be PF 1.5 or even 2.0.

Jeff Merola wrote:

I did have a further question. Does swapping away from Strength or Dexterity remove ACP? On the one hand, ACP says it applies to Strength and Dexterity skills. On the other, each of those skills also specifically says that ACP applies to them, and I'm not sure if that's to be treated just as a generic reminder, or not.

Probably both, so all those skills have ACP since they say they do, and if you make a mental skill physical then it'll have it too.

This ruling makes Versatile performance a nice ability.

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Thanks to everyone in this thread for discussing the previous proposal. Thanks to you and your ideas, we have come up with a FAQ entry on weird words that speeds up gameplay compared to the original with several advantages over the previous proposal!

FAQ wrote:

Bard: The sound striker’s weird words ability is confusing. Does it work more than once on the same target? And does it require 30 rolls to adjudicate?

Change the text of weird words to the following “At 6th level the bard can start a performance that is always a standard action to speak up to one word per 4 bard levels laden with sonic energy. Each word deals 4d6 points of sonic damage as a ranged touch attack with a range of 30 feet. The bard adds his charisma modifier on damage rolls with weird words. Multiple words that strike the same target stack into a single powerful attack, applying energy resistance and bonuses on damage rolls only once. The bard can target all words at the same or different targets, but he unleashes all words simultaneously. Each word costs 1 round of bardic performance.” This change will be reflected in future errata.

I like this, it is very Bardy without being Scorching Ray. A few things I do notice.

1. It is not a ray meaning that it is NOT a ranged weapon and things like Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot and Inspire Courage will not apply to the attack roll.

2. The trade off for #1 gives us the awesome bonus of applying energy resistance 1 time on multiple words. #HappyDance So the Sonic Resist mobs still take it in the teeth.

3. I've never been so happy in my life :) Arcane Healer/Sound Striker here I come!

Sure Inspire Courage apply. It is still an attack roll.

Thanks to everyone in this thread for discussing the previous proposal. Thanks to you and your ideas, we have come up with a FAQ entry on weird words that speeds up gameplay compared to the original with several advantages over the previous proposal!

FAQ wrote:

Bard: The sound striker’s weird words ability is confusing. Does it work more than once on the same target? And does it require 30 rolls to adjudicate?

Change the text of weird words to the following “At 6th level the bard can start a performance that is always a standard action to speak up to one word per 4 bard levels laden with sonic energy. Each word deals 4d6 points of sonic damage as a ranged touch attack with a range of 30 feet. The bard adds his charisma modifier on damage rolls with weird words. Multiple words that strike the same target stack into a single powerful attack, applying energy resistance and bonuses on damage rolls only once. The bard can target all words at the same or different targets, but he unleashes all words simultaneously. Each word costs 1 round of bardic performance.” This change will be reflected in future errata.

Word!

Congratulations Crystal! :D

Zark wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

How long after Pathfinder was released did it take to get a stable of non-English versions on the shelf? 5e is six months old or so, if it was in that time frame, I think it would fair to bring up their lack of foreign language editions. Otherwise, not so much.

Tracking down the exact answer would take a bit, but I know that we had announced French and German even before we released the English version and I believe both of those languages had their versions of the Core Rulebook out quickly. We released in August 2009, and I'm pretty sure French was out before year end, and German was pretty close to French.

(Also, I've learned that Lisa has already revealed that Chinese and Hebrew translations are in progress, and there are still others to be announced.)

I’m really surprised and a bit sad that Paizo is ignoring the Spanish speaking public. ...

A couple things:

As Erik has already mentioned, we do have a Spanish publishing partner. The bit you quoted wasn't a complete list of our translation partners—the first paragraph of mine that you quoted was answering houstonderek's question, so I listed only the ones that released Core Rulebooks within six months of the English release. And the second paragraph you quoted was me updating the list that I'd given out earlier in the thread, which, for easy reference, is this:

Out now:
•French (Black Book Editions)
•German (Ulisses Spiele)
•Italian (Giochi Uniti)
•Portuguese (Devir)
•Spanish (Devir)
Coming Soon:
•Chinese
•Hebrew
•TBA (and this isn't just a "someday there will hopefully be more" thing, it's a "contracts are currently in process" thing).

Also, it's important to note that the absence of any given language on the list does not mean that Paizo is ignoring that language. We are not in the business of publishing and selling in other languages; instead, we are looking to partner with experienced local publishers who already know how to sell and...

I'm really happy to see so much of the Pathfinder books available in Spanish and more being release in Spanish this year.

Sorry for derailing this thread.

Thanks for the info and please try to highlight that products are available in other languages, and where those can be found.

Zark wrote:

Erik Mona wrote:

Zark wrote:

I’m really surprised and a bit sad that Paizo is ignoring the Spanish speaking public.
There are a LOT of Spanish speaking countries out there and a lot of Spanish speaking people in the US. Surely there must be a marked for a Spanish translation.

We have a Spanish-language license with Devir, and the Core Rulebook is available right here on paizo.com.

Very Nice! Any plans of release of the APG in Spanish?

According to the translator:

en 2015 saldrán (por este orden) el Bestiario 2, la Guía del jugador avanzada, Magia definitiva y Combate definitivo, uno en cada trimestre.

[2015 will (in this order) the Bestiary 2 Advanced Player's Guide, UM and UC, one in each quarter.]

Great!!

Zark wrote:

I’m really surprised and a bit sad that Paizo is ignoring the Spanish speaking public.
There are a LOT of Spanish speaking countries out there and a lot of Spanish speaking people in the US. Surely there must be a marked for a Spanish translation.

We have a Spanish-language license with Devir, and the Core Rulebook is available right here on paizo.com.

Very Nice! Any plans of release of the APG in Spanish?

Fast forward to 2015? A respected company tries to crowdfund translations of Shadowrun and Earthdawn, fails miserably, nobody needs a Polish translation any more. English proficiency is rising at rates which will soon overtake the Nordics. TAKE THAT, SWEDES!

off topic/

You wish. I meet polish at work almost every day, and most of them don’t know any English or their English is so poor a 10 year old in Sweden could out do them. ;P

Seriously, a vastly improved English proficiency in Poland sounds great. I actually plan to visit Poland within a couple of years, possibly next year.

houstonderek wrote:

How long after Pathfinder was released did it take to get a stable of non-English versions on the shelf? 5e is six months old or so, if it was in that time frame, I think it would fair to bring up their lack of foreign language editions. Otherwise, not so much.

Tracking down the exact answer would take a bit, but I know that we had announced French and German even before we released the English version and I believe both of those languages had their versions of the Core Rulebook out quickly. We released in August 2009, and I'm pretty sure French was out before year end, and German was pretty close to French.

(Also, I've learned that Lisa has already revealed that Chinese and Hebrew translations are in progress, and there are still others to be announced.)

I’m really surprised and a bit sad that Paizo is ignoring the Spanish speaking public.

There seem to be the misconception among in the US (and in some parts of Europe) that those that speak Spanish are illiterate. This is simply not true. Especially not among the target group that Paizo would be interested in.

Also, wouldn’t it be cool if Paizo could support gaming in certain none democratic countries?

BTW, a Beginner Box part 2 would really help those not so fluent in English and I also think it would generally spread the interest in Pathfinder.

@Keichiku: Keep gaming alive in Cuba!! Have you checked out the Beginner Box? I suggest you check it out (if you can). Can you buy dice in Cuba?

Ganryu wrote:

Any plans for a swedish translation?

To the best of my knowledge, we have not been approached by a professional Swedish publisher, but we'd certainly be open to talking to one!

Ganryu wrote:

Any plans for a swedish translation?

To the best of my knowledge, we have not been approached by a professional Swedish publisher, but we'd certainly be open to talking to one!

Probably a bad business decision since most of us understand English

…. As pointed out by Gorbacz in his own kind of peculiar manner ;)

Great art!

It is sad or even frustrating when some people call me and others names. We are labeld "power gamers or optimizers" just because we find finds feat bloat and other kind of bloat problematic.

It’s also frustrating that me and others are pointed pout as stupid or whiners just because we think that bloat is something real in PF and that we are automatically wrong just because this is brought up once in a while.

I’m not saying I’m right and others are wrong. I’m simply saying I and many with me are have a problem with PF and were PF is heading. It doesn’t really help me or others when people essentially say that we can p*ss of if we don’t like the game.

Assuming that people complaining about balance issues or weak feats or bloat are power gamers/optimizers are not only rude but it is actually untrue. We are a gaming group that played for about 10 years and we consists of mainly casual players and most are not optimizers. In fact I would go as far and say that the only one in our group that have a good grasp of the rules and builds something even remotely close to optimized characters is me, and I usually play bard or other support characters. The problem with weak/false options is far greater if you have an organic attitude of building your character, something my friends have. When you build “fun” characters and pick feats or stats that match the vision of what you think could be a cool option that is when the problem often starts.

When you create an elven ranger archer and can’t pick precise shot until level 2 you realise that there is something seriously wrong with 3.x and PF. Me, I usually try to plan ahead and try to build balanced characters, but my friends have a more intuitive and organic approach and I often experience they get punished for it.
Bloat, weak feats, etc. isn’t usually a problem if you are an optimizer it’s in fact those that are not that suffers. At least at our table.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

chbgraphicarts wrote:

In the 5 years that Paizo's been publishing Pathfinder, there are only 15 big books, with 32 classes (38 once AO comes out), and 86 prestige classes.

Woah, 86 prestige classes?

I get 10 from core.
and 8 from APG. What am I missing?

Also, I only counted 31 base classes
11 core
6 apg
1 UM
3 UC
10 ACG

You forgot the Antipaladin.

"The antipaladin is an alternate class. Making use of and altering numerous facets of the paladin core class, this villainous warrior can't truly be considered a new character class by its own right."

It´s not a base class, but an alternate for paladin.

The ninja is also an alternate class. Just as alternate classes are new classes so are archetypes. So the numbers are far higher than what has been stated.

To me the main problem isn’t the number of classes that Paizo produces; it’s the fact that PF was supposed to fix 3.5, but it obvious it didn’t.

New classes and new abilities create new weird synergies that in the end make the game problematic. I feel that some of the core problem are just addressed by add-ons or by patches and when it is obvious it can’t be fixed using patches then Paizo moves of to create a new class that is another option to X o Y, or perhaps it is the other way around; Paizo is so busy to create new stuff they don’t have the time to fix the old. My guess it is a bit of both.

But to problem runs deeper than just looking at classes, something the stealth play test showed. I’m not saying the Devs needs to give us a Pathfinder 2, but I think the Devs need to look at the core book(s) and fix what needs to be fixed. I also think denying that there is no problem with stuff and then years later admitting there are problems isn’t a way to go. With unchained coming out I fear this is just another optional patch that can possibly create more frustration than it solves and the problem will mainly be that it A) is only a patch so the real problem is still out there, b) it is only optional so those that see this as a salvation, but don’t get to use it will still be frustrated C) there is no chance that Paizo will support both options, the core options and Unchanied, D) more rules bloat will create more weird synergies that needs to be dealt with my Paizo and by GMs.

I don’t know, The Devs and the community may not want to admit it but I fear we need a PF 1.5.

TOZ wrote:

Zark wrote:

BTW, Don’t kid yourself; we all have agendas

FINALLY, someone understands exactly what I am saying!

I think this post in concealing your true intentions.

No one knows TOS´s true intentions, but the post did bring some fresh air into this thread.

Zark wrote:

Necro this thread.

I think people have a reason to be worried, especially if you take all archetypes into consideration, but mostly when you look at the quality of the new classes and why they have been released.

I don’t mind new classes, nor do I mind Paizo doing Psionics, but the ACG is problematic and so are the Ninja, Gunslinger and Summoner. The number of the Archetypes is also a kind of bloat.

The quality is declining and some of the new classes are just there to fix the old classes. The Ninja, Investigator and Slayer are there to fix the rogue and Swashbuckler is a dex fighter fix. Brawler is a monk fix, etc.

I also think lack of support for new classes or mechanics introduced is problematic, and by new classes I also mean archetypes.

Bloat is happening and you should be concerned.

Why should I be concerned because of number? If there is too much, simply trim the undesirable options.

Quality is certainly a problem but that's a matter of poor design, not bloat.

Hell, I welcome "Replacement Classes" for ones that suck. I feel like I could safely ban Rogue at my table if I wanted to now and not feel like I was shutting down anybody's character concept. That's a good thing.

I agree the numbers isn't the problem. As for Replacement Classes I don't mind them, I'll even be using some of them, but I just see them as symptom of a problem that hasn’t been addressed because the Devs haven’t been willing to admit (until now) that there is a problem.

Anyway, I’m happy we got the slayer even though I think it needs more talents. Lack of talents is another proof that is Paizo not supporting the new classes enough. I seem to remeber SKR saying he had Feat as an option to slayer's advanced talants.

I think class bloat is a myth propagated by people with agendas.

Kind of funny you brought that up considering Paizo now has admitted that the rogue and monk have a problem and that the summoner needs a nerf.

BTW, Don’t kid yourself; we all have agendas, that includes people using quotes by Devs to bash or/and ridicule other posters.

Fun fact: the OP of this thread was recently seen rocking an Arcanist, which is something he should totally not be doing if he was to take his own concerns seriously.

Good for him. In fact when I DM (if I DM pathfinder) the Arcanist, with some very minor nerfs, will be the default full arcane caster in our gaming group. I will also let people play a slightly buffed version of the Slayer.

Fun fact 2: ACG is almost sold out, so I guess that until the sales of player-oriented hardcovers pummel, the care box for this thread will remain quite empty.

I’m not sure what you point is besides being Gorbacz

Vote with your wallets! Stop buying Paizo books! Burn the ones you have! Print out the PDFs, and burn them too! Youtube it! Make sure you tell your community! Be a real capitalist!

I do Vote with my wallet. We have started playing 5e and I got my book this week. When this campaign is done will will change DM. A friend that is a fresh DM will give it a try and he will be using pathfinder. After that it is my turn and I will either use Pathfinder with a lot of houserules or use Sean K Reynolds’ Five Moons RPG , if it is out by then. A game I have helped Kinkstarting.

Necro this thread.

I think people have a reason to be worried, especially if you take all archetypes into consideration, but mostly when you look at the quality of the new classes and why they have been released.

I don’t mind new classes, nor do I mind Paizo doing Psionics, but the ACG is problematic and so are the Ninja, Gunslinger and Summoner. The number of the Archetypes is also a kind of bloat.

The quality is declining and some of the new classes are just there to fix the old classes. The Ninja, Investigator and Slayer are there to fix the rogue and Swashbuckler is a dex fighter fix. Brawler is a monk fix, etc.

I also think lack of support for new classes or mechanics introduced is problematic, and by new classes I also mean archetypes.

Bloat is happening and you should be concerned.

I think people have a reason to be worried, especially if you take all archetypes into consideration, but mostly when you look at the quality of the new classes and why they have been released.

I don’t mind new classes, nor do I mind Paizo doing Psionics, but the ACG is problematic and so are the Ninja, Gunslinger and Summoner. The number of the Archetypes is also a kind of bloat.
The quality is declining and some of the new classes are just there to fix the old classes. The Ninja, Investigator and Slayer are there to fix the rogue and Swashbuckler is a dex fighter fix. Brawler is a monk fix, etc.

I also think lack of support for new classes or mechanics introduced is problematic, and by new classes I also mean archetypes.

Bloat is happening and you should be concerned.

Kthulhu wrote:

Asphere wrote:

Javin Swifthand wrote:

To be honest

if a system works

and all the group enjoy it why change it????

There are different levels of enjoyment. They may enjoy something else even more.

There's also system burnout. If your group plays Pathfinder, always and only ever Pathfinder, it's sometimes a nice change of pace to play something different, whether it be Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer 40K, FATE, Swords & Wizardry, or BESM.

After 14 years I am definitely burned out on 3x, any version.

+4

edit:
We, 3 players and one GM, had our first 5e game this evening and while not perfect I’ll doubt we will spend more time with PF than with 5e. We had the best gaming experience in years.

Fighter was more fun than PF, Wizard was more funny and cleric was not bad. In fact my friend played a Cleric with Life domain and he was very pleased. Even rogues seems fun.

I played a Wizard with Criminal background and have found a great mix of caster with some rogue flavour.

Backed.
I love it!

I made a relevant post about the topic of crossbows vs. bows vs. Earth "realism" today.

I just noticed this and now I starting no read all the other blogs. It feels like I have died and gone to heaven. I just feel like I’ve come home.

I really don't mind weapons not being equal, but if we go that route we should get rid of the simple vs martial categories. That however means we have to list every weapon someone is proficient with instead of saying "take this category". Of course we can also move crossbows and slings over to the martial category, but people like wizards(insert other caster as needed_ who may never have used a martial weapon can now use one. You can deny them proficiency, but at low levels they need something to do. Those 4 spells a day won't last forever. So the solution is to make some weapons "not good".

Is there another solution?

Yes. A weapon could have martial and simple expertise. Those who are barely trained like a commoner or wizard take one move action to fire the crossbow, but someone with martial expertise get to use the weapon as if they already had rapid reload.

PS: This might be the best 30 second idea I have ever had. I might even try the martial vs simple expertise in a home game.

Awesome. Stealing this for the next time I GM

I kind or perfer low levels to mid levels (level 2 or 3 to 8 or 10) but from what I understand lot of people think the sweetspot is around level 7. Although I always assumed the “sweet spot” meant level 6 to 8 or level 10, but 12 makes sense. All full casters have 6 level spells, full BAB classes have their 3 attacks and you get your 3 ability point. I personally think the game begins to break apart around level 12, but I’m well aware that is just an opinion.

The things you suggest is just what I and my friends have been waiting for. A simpler game where characters are less dependent upon their gear to survive and succeed.

The “Elevate martial characters to have parity with spellcasters, but still maintain fun and distinct flavor for each class” also sound very nice. In fact everything you list sounds great.

Is this Kickstarter only for North America or can we in Europe join in as well?

Awww, thanks. :)

(Did you know I'm kickstarting my own RPG later this month? ;))

WONDERFUL!!!

UM: I do remember the problem with antagonise and Cold ice strike. Both were flawed but we're errata quickly.

I wonder about this. Is anyone keeping count relative to other books? I wonder if error on the cover (which admittedly is embarrassing) is biasing things.

According to Deadmanwalking the numbers of errors in this book is extraordinary high and he is usally right, especially when it comes to hard facts.

p. 53: Under Rogue Talent:

unwitting allyUC, or weapon training. Any talent effects
based on rogue level use the slayer’s class level. A slayer
can select this talent multiple times. If the rogue talent
has a prerequisite (such as the major magic rogue talent
requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer must fulfill
the prerequisite before taking that rogue talent. This
talent can be selected multiple times; each time, it grants
the slayer a new rogue talent.

My bold.

unwitting allyUC, or weapon training. Any talent effects
based on rogue level use the slayer’s class level. If the
rogue talent has a prerequisite (such as the major magic
rogue talent requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer
must fulfill the prerequisite before taking that rogue
talent. This talent can be selected multiple times; each
time, it grants the slayer a new rogue talent.

The cut down on words count saves a whole line.

p. 55: Under Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents:
Question have been raised why so few options are available.
According to Sean K Reynolds “Feat” was one of the choices he had in the Slayer document he sent over to editing.

Edit:
Question Should "Feat" be one of the advanced talents for the Slaye?

If the text on p 53 is edited correctly there is space to add feat to the list.

Also:
p. 55:

Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents: A slayer can select
any of the following advanced ninja or rogue talents
in place of an advanced slayer talent: deadly sneakAPG,
evasionUC, hunter’s surpriseAPG, knock-out blowAPG, master
of disguiseAPG, opportunist, and stealthy sniperAPG. A slayer
can select this talent multiple times

My bold. Why add the advanced ninja or rogue talents twice?

Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents: A slayer can select
any of the following talents in place of an advanced slayer
talent: deadly sneakAPG,evasionUC, hunter’s surpriseAPG,
knock-out blowAPG, master of disguiseAPG, opportunist, and
stealthy sniperAPG. A slayer can select this talent multiple
times.

You could also add:

; each time, it grants the slayer a new talent.

stuff

Thanks Sean!

Stuff

I think this is just simply a matter of bad editing. They simply printed some part of the text twice.

unwitting allyUC, or weapon training. Any talent effects
based on rogue level use the slayer’s class level. A slayer
can select this talent multiple times. If the rogue talent
has a prerequisite (such as the major magic rogue talent
requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer must fulfill
the prerequisite before taking that rogue talent. This
talent can be selected multiple times; each time, it grants
the slayer a new rogue talent.

My guess is that they meant this.

unwitting allyUC, or weapon training. Any talent effects
based on rogue level use the slayer’s class level. If the
rogue talent has a prerequisite (such as the major magic
rogue talent requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer
must fulfill the prerequisite before taking that rogue
talent. This talent can be selected multiple times; each
time, it grants the slayer a new rogue talent.

The cut down on words saves a whole line. If they had edited the text correctly they could have kept Sean’s suggestion to also include a feat as an option for a rogue talent or an advanced rogue talent. I actually suspect someone made a mistake and the intention wasn’t to remove “feat” as an option. Rogues actually get “feat” as one of the advanced rogue talents and the lack of advanced Slayer talents seem to indicate that they made a mistake.