Akata

deinol's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 2,659 posts (3,003 including aliases). 10 reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Anguish wrote:

Mmmmm. On the one hand, I'd like to point out that the topic magnuskn is talking about is specifically rules-based. As in, how the specific rules interact with the story relative to the old specific rules. You can't be focused too much on the rules when you're talking about the rules.

...
In closing, yes, I agree that there's absolutely a gargantuan style difference in PF2 spells that have to change the feel of magic on Golarion, based on what we've been shown so far. Maybe James has seen something different. Dunno. But beyond incredibly dampened feel, I suspect he's very right that the spirit of most stories - not the literal word of them - could be told with PF2. Runelords in PF2? Well, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Doesn't matter than in the previous edition everyone was a beholder. << Sorry for the edition-crossing monster reference.

Yes, he's talking about rules. But he's saying you can't run the world and the stories with those rules. I say balderdash. I could run any AP in existence using 13th Age, Swords and Wizardry, 4th Edition D&D, Savage Worlds, Fate, Rolemaster, Warhammer FRP, Palladium Fantasy, Fantasy Age, GURPS, or just about any other fantasy RPG available. Some would take more work than others, but as long as characters can use magic, you can make it work.

As it is, what the PCs have access to in PF1 varies greatly based on the classes they choose. If your primary spellcasters are an oracle and a summoner your tools to solve problems are going to be very different than a bard and a cleric. The APs never assume the PCs have any particular solution to a problem, unless its in the form of a magic item they definitely receive along the way.

Anyway, as far as the playtest goes, my experience from the first playtest is they test out the limits of how far they can push changes, and they will scale back and be more conservative when it comes to the final product.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
I'm sorry, James, I really lack your optimism about the compatibility of the two editions in terms of worldbuilding and storytelling.

I think you are focused way too much into the rules details. I'd feel comfortable running Pathfinder APs under just about any version of D&D or other fantasy RPGs and the "worldbuilding and storytelling" would feel the same to me. I ran Kingmaker using DCC with zero prep converting monsters on the fly just fine. Maybe PC wizards were a bit weirder than they might be, but the overall story worked just great.

Of course, I'm more likely to convert to a medium to light weight rulesystem, so your mileage may very.

I must admit, I've been toying with dropping my AP subscription. But not because I don't think I'd enjoy the new adventures they will build, but because I already have a dozen APs I haven't played or run yet, and it'll be quite some time before I really use the ones I have. I'm mostly likely to switch to Starfinder for a while, just for the variety.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Going off that, favourite video game Kaiju (that’s not Godzilla)?
Huh. I don't know that I have one. There are plenty of examples of cool HUGE boss monsters that come to mind from games like Dark Souls but none of those are large enough to count as a kaiju.

Did you ever play Shadow of Colossus? Would you consider them Kaiju?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I'm gonna wait, like, another 85 days or so to even begin posting on this thread, and probably won't really start giving my opinion on what happened until we're staring down the barrel of the 2020 primary. :P
If you haven't already decided who you're voting for in 2024, you're behind the times.

Betts 2024!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Obama is going to be around for a long while, yet. I expect some of his most important, meaningful work will be done after he leaves office. The guy is going to have a hell of a legacy.

Carter is an example of how much an ex-president can accomplish. He's amazing. I wish he'd gotten four more years.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
One down, ??? to go;)

Don't worry, by the time all the existing secret projects are revealed, I'm certain he'll be working on new secret projects.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
The NPC wrote:

Mr. James Jacobs,

In your estimation would the epic feats, including the epic vestiges, for pact binders be acceptable options for a mythic binder to choose from for mythic feats and abilities?

Separate from the above question, since creating a capstone for each vestige is not something you or most GMs would want to do, would allowing one of the epic vestiges be the capstone be acceptable to you?

Dunno. I haven't thought much about epic feats or vestiges or binders at all in the past 10 years or so. If you want to build a mythic binder using the mythic rules, I would suggest building new options from scratch; use the epic rules stuff as inspiration if you want, though.

If I were creating a capstone for a custom-built Pathfinder compatible binder character, I'd just create the capstone for the vestige in question. No need to create all of them when you only need one.

I highly recommend anyone interested in binders for Pathfinder check out the Pact Magic Books. I got the original d20 versions when one of my players was a binder in my 1-20 campaign that started as 3.5 level 1, moved to Pathfinder Beta, and finished as Pathfinder level 20.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Damon Griffin wrote:
Didn't James say this is something he's been wanting to do for over a decade? Surely that rules out Anniversary Editions of any of the old APs. Why would he have said to himself c. 2006, "Wow, it was great getting that AP out the door. I'm really looking forward to rewriting it in 10 years!"

He said that about one of the secret projects, but it's looking like he's got several projects in the works. And odds are, one of them will be a 10th anniversary project.

He certainly won't be working on something in the main AP line, although I'm sure he'll still have some input there.

Whatever the next campaign setting hardcover will be is certainly a good guess too.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Simeon wrote:
deinol wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:

Eventually we will do a great big Absalom book along these simpler district divisions, and give this place the attention it deserves.

64 pages ain't enough.

How about 640 pages?

That ain't Absalom.

I know. I was implying they should make a Ptolus-sized Absalom book.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

From another thread:

Erik Mona wrote:

Eventually we will do a great big Absalom book along these simpler district divisions, and give this place the attention it deserves.

64 pages ain't enough.

So my top three guesses are:

10th Anniversary Edition AP (Crimson Throne seems most likely)

Absalom Hardcover

Unspeakable Future

PS: Every time I see this thread I sing "Secret Project" in my head.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:

Eventually we will do a great big Absalom book along these simpler district divisions, and give this place the attention it deserves.

64 pages ain't enough.

How about 640 pages?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Wrath of the Righteous is pretty laser focused, each book flows pretty well from one to the next.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
I could see awesome adventure paths set in all 12 of those locations.

I bet I know James's secret project!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Instead of theoretical situations, I'm going to talk about an actual campaign from a published Adventure Path.

Of course, I just finished Wrath of the Righteous, which is mythic. Mythic magnifies the disparity so it's easier to see earlier, and it actually helps let martials do a lot more. But it let's wizards do even more.

Wrath of the Righteous:

Book 4 would be a slog without easy access to teleportation, flight, and planeshift. It's a sandbox on another plane, but nobody should want to slowly march through demon infested lands with a non-magic party.

Book 5 is more planar madness, with lots of trapped prisoners who once again need things like disintegrate, planeshift, and greater teleport just to function.

By book 6 it was clear the rest of the party was simply a colorful escort for the Sorceress who was the only one who could accomplish the final sealing of the world wound. We only fought encounters because she held back once we realized that maximized augmented mythic meteorswarm will kill anything dead. Anything. Sure, she could only do that a few times a day. But more than enough times to defeat all of the bosses leading up to the final stage. Without passwall, teleport, flight, dimensional lock, comprehend languages, and other spells, the final task is impossible.

So a party without a caster would need to be pretending to be casters using magic items and Use Magic Device. Or be escorts to an NPC wizard who, once again, does all the important tasks.

Edit: The game expects wizards and clerics at higher levels. The most use a fighter has is as bodyguard for the first few squishy levels until the casters are high enough level to do everything.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I always run games in the same setting too. It's called Planescape. And it has room not only for every published campaign setting, but multiple game systems as well.

When my 1-20 Pathfinder game ended, the characters ascended. They are now gods being worshiped in my Kingmaker campaign.

Of course, I've moved states since then, so it is unlikely new players will be as interested in those gods as my old group, who these days I only get to game with once or twice a month via Roll20.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
And I don't see why published campaign settings should for some reason get more respect or reverence than long established home settings.

They shouldn't. I'd rather have the rule of fun trump obscure lore, whether it be in a book or locked in the GM's head.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Zaister wrote:
I wouldn't hold my breath for any modules in that extremely high-level range. Conventional wisdom is that lower-level module sell better than high-level ones, and I imagine demand for extra-high-level is rather low, making the modules you want probably not very commercially viable.

Sadly, it's not just conventional wisdom but also hard sales numbers. I always make a point of getting high level content, because I've run games to level 20 and know how sparse things get. But for every campaign that makes it to 20, there are 20 campaign that only make it to level 5.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I'd like to go ahead and cancel my RPG subscription, but keep my others. So yes to APs, Campaign Setting, Modules, and Card Game, just cancel the hardcover RPG core rules line.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
knightnday wrote:

Alternately, you can join in the conversation on the varied caster/martial threads and look to see what changes are being introduced. Sure, they don't have that little PAIZO sticker on them, but many of them work. Or you can look into the myriad of 3PP that address the problem.

The disparity isn't unique to Pathfinder's system and has been spotted since I was a wee little gamer nearly forty years ago and up to this day. Changing systems isn't always the answer. Sometimes you can fix the system you are in; maybe just in homebrew, maybe the designers fix the system in a way you like. But tossing the whole thing out isn't necessary.

I have paid attention to the martial/caster threads. I get tired of reading the same thing over and over. I've also offered my suggestions on how to homebrew things. I ran a Pathfinder campaign from 1-20, and incorporated things from the Complete Book of Experimental Might (which is really a great book and apparently a steal right now) to help martials out. I'd look at adapting classes from Iron Heroes to help things out.

But I'm tired of fighting the system, so my next campaign is going to be Iron Heroes using the Fantasy Age rules. It's a lot less work to adapt in the things my players are interested in playing than to make a giant homebrew document for Pathfinder. If that doesn't satisfy I'll try something out.

I'll keep an eye on Pathfinder developments, and could come back if my prediction is wrong and there are major changes in PF2. Meanwhile, I'll still subscribe to the APs and the campaign setting line.

Edit: I will also note my last campaign was Kingmaker using Dungeon Crawl Classics. While it was fun, the caster/martial disparity is even bigger and becomes more prominent earlier. The variable results from casting checks is awesome, but there's little reason to play anything besides a cleric, wizard, or elf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
knightnday wrote:
Now, there are third party products that have come out that I'm all over. I think that qualifies as something new in the last 15 years. But just because the newest shiny comes out doesn't mean everyone has to jump on board. Your mileage may vary. Play what you like, but don't assume other people are <insert negative here> because they didn't change games with you.

I didn't say liking Pathfinder was bad. That's not what I'm arguing about at all.

There's three major answers to the "Does Pathfinder need a 2.0" question.

Option 1: No, you like Pathfinder just fine the way it is.

Option 2: Yes, it needs a revised Core that brings it more in line with the errata and expanded material now out.

Option 3: Yes, it needs to fix fundemental flaws inherent in the base system, such as the martial caster disparity.

I'm arguing that if you are in camp 1 or 2, you will be fine. The majority of the Pathfinder fans don't want major changes, and Paizo is unlikely to release a radically different Pathfinder 2.0.

If on the other hand you want Option 3, you are going to need to look for a different game system. And there are already several that might meet your needs.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
knightnday wrote:
deinol wrote:
I do find it odd how few people in this thread are RPG subscribers.
Which has nothing to do with this? Whether or not you choose to support your friendly local game store, buy things online cheaper, or directly from Paizo has little to do with how you feel about the game or how strongly.

True, but when I see a subscriber tag I know they are all in. If I don't, I have no idea how much they spend on Paizo products.

Quote:
Quote:
This is why Pathfinder will never substantially change. It's core fanbase is the never change anything group.

Or .. the core fan base didn't care for what was being offered at the time and chose to stay with what they liked.

If nothing in the past 15 years has come out that they have liked, it is unlikely that anything new will entice them to look for fundamental changes now.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:

Never change anything and leave certain core things the same are completely different animals.

False Dichotomy.

You see them as different animals, but on the spectrum of things they are pretty close together compared to "fix fundamental flaws in the system".

The boards can't even decide if there is a problem with fighters/rogues/monks, but having just wrapped Wrath of the Righteous with a Fighter, I can say my character, while potent compared to low level mortals, was basically just a spectator while the sorcerer practically solo'd the last two books.

I do find it odd how few people in this thread are RPG subscribers.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
deinol wrote:
Anyway, my advice for wanting a new edition, is go try another game. Fantasy Age, 13th Age, and D&D 5 all try different things and are worth looking at. Or if you want to go further afield Earthdawn 4E is looking pretty good. Paizo is going to keep publishing Pathfinder 1 for a long, long time.

This suggestion is kind of poisoned though. At the moment, what binds me most to Paizo as a customer is that I like their system, their setting and their adventures good enough to use them excessively for my own games.

Now I could change the system (I really like 13th Age, for example) while still using their setting and their adventures. There may come a time though (and probably soon will) when I start playing in my (new) homebrewed setting using my own adventures. If I don't use Pathfinder rules at this point of time, that means that they'll basically lose me as a customer. Being a single person, that may not mean much, but as I like to give my money to them, I think I should probably tell them how to avoid this beforehand. What they do with this information, is up to them, of course.

I'm not here for the system. I'm tired of the d20 system, and Pathfinder didn't do enough to fix the fundamental flaws. I'm here for the adventure paths.

My advice was to people who didn't want Pathfinder 2.0 to be just a mildly revised and consolidated edition. If you are truly looking for a game that will make fundamental changes, you need to look elsewhere. Paizo's primary customer base makes it unlikely to do any major changes.

If you want a Pathfinder 2.0 that is more like Pathfinder Unchained, then stick with it. Paizo will continue to serve your needs.

I for one still manage to keep giving them money. I'm planning on running Iron Gods using Fantasy Age soon, so I just ordered all the Iron Gods extras I didn't previously own (pawns and item cards). At this point my core RPG subscription is just inertia, I haven't been particularly interested in a new rulebook since Mythic.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
J-Bone wrote:
One of the saddest RPG things for me was when I heard FFG got the Star Wars license when I so wanted it to go to Paizo. When I imagine what might have been I still groan.

We already have two version of Star Wars d20, I really don't know what Pathfinder would add to the mix. And it's easy enough to add any useful Pathfinder innovations back in.

Myself, I much prefer the FFG system.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Joana wrote:

According to Lisa, the mechanics of 4e had as much to do with it as the license.

Auntie Lisa's Story Hour wrote:

Jason's mission was to learn as much as he could about 4th Edition, play it as much as he could, and report back with his findings. From that, we would ultimately make a decision that could make or break us. The tension was agonizing. I could barely sleep at night as my mind wrestled with the options. If we made the wrong decision, it could very well mean the end of Paizo.

When Jason returned from D&D Experience, he laid out all the information that he had gleaned. From the moment that 4th Edition had been announced, we had trepidations about many of the changes we were hearing about. Jason's report confirmed our fears—4th Edition didn't look like the system we wanted to make products for. Whether a license for 4E was forthcoming or not, we were going to create our own game system based on the 3.5 SRD: The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.

Yes, but the lack of license information at that stage made them much more likely to strike out on their own. The unknown license meant they had to make a decision early. I'm just saying rules weren't the only factor.

Anyway, my advice for wanting a new edition, is go try another game. Fantasy Age, 13th Age, and D&D 5 all try different things and are worth looking at. Or if you want to go further afield Earthdawn 4E is looking pretty good. Paizo is going to keep publishing Pathfinder 1 for a long, long time.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:

If Paizo thought AP's were just narratives to people without mechanics mattering, then PFRPG wouldn't exist because they'd have just moved to 4e with Pathfinder. PFRPG's whole origin was "WotC has changed the mechanical nature of the game, so now our adventures aren't compatible anymore mechanically.... lets keep making adventure paths in a way that doesn't invalidate the old ones rather than using the different mechanics."

If paizo management agreed your arguments, PFRPG wouldn't exist.

That's only a small part of Pathfinder's origin. A key reason Paizo decided to do their own thing was that when 4E was announced, Wizards didn't reveal what 3pp license would be available. After a few months of waiting to find out whether it would be a viable license, Paizo decided it couldn't wait the year or more it would take for Wizards to reveal their 4e licensing strategy. If 4E had been released OGL and announced that early, we might be living in a completely different world.

Instead, Paizo was forced to go their own way, and chose backwards compatibility as one of their goals. But don't mistake that as the primary reason for Pathfinder's existence.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Magik wrote:
deinol wrote:

That's not how any other pre-requisite works, so why would this be different?

If it was meant to be taken only at first tier, it would explicitly say.

Well, this is mythic, so it is different. :) The prerequisite could be rewritten as simply "Mythic tier" to clarify it.

I've read at least 3 conversations and 1 mythic guidance document that misinterpreted this feat. Simply changing the first sentence to: "Select another mythic path other than your current path." would go a long way.

Yes, but it is different in precisely the ways described in the Mythic Feats section, none of which says anything about changing how prerequisites work. Does anyone only allow Fighter's to take Weapon Specialization as their 4th level feat?

Quote:
deinol wrote:
It doesn't say you gain the 10th tier ability, so you don't gain it.
Sure, it doesn't say it, but it starts to imply that it was intended to be by calling the feat Dual Path and giving you the initial feature. It isn't a stretch to think that the 10th tier feature was accidentally not mentioned. Or, to look at it a different way, if the initial feature wasn't mentioned then it would be implied that you get both, because you now fully have both paths.

I don't think it implies that nearly as strongly as you think. The capstone abilities are quite strong, and better than most feats would grant. As opposed to the initial path abilities, where an extra can be acquired for as a path ability choice (or through the feat that gives another path ability).


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Magik wrote:
“Surge (Su)” doesn’t specifically state that this modifies a natural 1 on the die roll. If your intent was to allow this to avoid critical failures, then this should be stated.

I don't think that is the intent. They would be explicit if it was. Force of Will let's you re-roll 1s, which seem a much more appropriate tier to be able to bypass critical failure.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Magik wrote:
The Base Mythic Ability "Force of Will" has the text "At 7th tier...", but in the chart, it appears at 6th tier.

General consensus is that the chart is correct, because otherwise you wouldn't gain anything at 6th level.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Magik wrote:

The text in Dual Path is controversial. The statement “Select a mythic path other than the path you selected at your moment of ascension.” is used to identify the path that you selected when you ascended, but many players read this as you can only take the Dual Path feat at the moment of ascension.

The Prerequisite also isn’t clear. Anyone that ascends has the 1st mythic tier, so anyone mythic qualifies; however, some believe that this references the only time at which you can take this feat.

That's not how any other pre-requisite works, so why would this be different?

If it was meant to be taken only at first tier, it would explicitly say.

Quote:
As written, there is nothing stopping a player from taking this feat again to get a 3rd path or more.

You are only allowed to take a feat more than once if the feat explicitly allows that. So you can only take the feat once. Like most other feats.

Quote:

Additionally, it looks like the 10th level feature in the newly selected path isn’t gained, so you may want to spell that out whichever way you intended it.

There are questions on what tier the feature and abilities of the new path function at. Since there is nothing stating anywhere that you need to keep track of another tier for the new path, I assume that they function at the only tier you have.

It doesn't say you gain the 10th tier ability, so you don't gain it.

Your tier based abilities work with your tier.

As far as I can see, it works fine as written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

Yes the article does seem to conflate Paizo with Frog God Games but my thought was more along the lines of:

Ravenloft 5E and Boarderland Provinces are both new(ish) free-floating settings, rather than ready-to-run APs (or super modules) set in an existing campaign setting.

Except Ravenloft 5E is an adventure, not a new setting. And its a rehash of an existing, already long popular setting. It will get no more than two books and no ongoing support.

FGG supports a niche, and I'm sure they will do well for their standards. But they aren't likely to get their book on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.

It's hardly comparable, and I doubt anyone will be surprised by the results.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
James Sutter wrote:
I would LOVE to do a Distant Worlds adventure path, and it's really nice to hear this kind of enthusiasm for it. Please keep banging the drum, as we all look to the boards when making these sorts of decisions. :D

Bang Bang Bang

I'm in for some world hopping.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I was a KS backer, so my copy isn't coming through Paizo. I also live in Washington, so my shipping time from the Kobold mines and Paizo is pretty fast.

Edit: I probably won't have time for more than a cursory look until the weekend. I'll see about posting a review on Monday.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

My copy arrived yesterday, looks lovely!


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Rob McCreary wrote:
Paladinosaur wrote:
Can we expect so see these iconic villains making appearances outside the Hell's Vengeance AP?
It's possible, but we have no long-term plans for using them outside of Hell's Vengeance at this point.

Pathfinder Card Game! It always needs more cool character cards, and the art is already commissioned.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

It should be remembered that early drafts of the Pathfinder Beta had more drastic changes, but reaction to feedback pushed the game to be more conservative.

I don't think any 2nd edition will be innovative enough to be worth doing, because they will still be shackled to fundamental flaws of 3.5. If you want something radically different, try 13th Age or Fantasy Age or some other game with the freedom to be different. If you want something slightly more refined, just wait for them to continue tweaking things via Unchained style books.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Nicholas Pettinato wrote:

I'm puzzled as to why the piecemeal armor for "Lamellar (Steel) Torso Piece" is a +1, while the Horn version is a +2? That would mean..

Lamellar (Steel) Piecemeal: +1 (Torso) +1 (Legs) +1 (Arms) = +3
Lamellar (Steel) Full Suit: +6

So... where does the other +3 come from? That seems like an incredibly hefty loss of protection. It's obviously minus a helmet (let's say +1), but feels like the Steel Torso piece should at least be as strong as Horn armor (+2).

Is there an explanation?

I think it was an error on their part, not something intentional.

For my games I would just have change the numbers to add up to +6, but if you want something official I would suggest starting a new post, and asking for an FAQ so they can put it on the errata list.

Considering the piecemeal armor rules are an optional variant, not even allowed in PFS, it's already pretty much unofficial if you use them anyway. Just use common sense.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
There is far less TTRPG competition in the Paizo era than the AD&D era. Less game systems, less TTRPG companies,etc.

Wait, what? There are more actively supported game systems than ever. Plus just about anything worth mentioning from the 80s is still alive and kicking. The barrier to entry for publishing, not to mention Kickstarter, means there are far more RPGs being released every year that I want to play than I can ever manage to make time for.

Sure, not that many are pumping out a dozen hardcovers a year, but we're in a golden age of role-playing games. Once you look past the D&D clones, there's a ton of cool stuff going on.

Edit: Here's a list of all the RPG systems that were played at GenCon 2015. I don't think that many existed during the life of AD&D.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
necromental wrote:
Doing a kickstarter for a new or reorganized core book would possibly be a good idea, to test the waters.
I would be a bit annoyed by a successful company doing a kickstarter for a project that they have the ability to back regardless of its success. If you want to do something to gauge public interest, do a poll of customers have purchased your product.

Ditto. It's one thing to do a Kickstarter for an experimental product, but it seems like a cheap trick in to use it to launch a 2nd edition. Paizo can afford to make a new core book if they decide they want to. They don't need a KS to test the waters. They know it'll sell reasonably well whenever they decide to do it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Crystal Frasier wrote:
That depends on which version of Ms. Marvel you mean: Carol Danvers or Kamala Khan? Also, Jenn Walters or Lyra of the Sisterhood? I think the order goes Lyra -> Carol -> Jenn -> Kamala

This made me a little sad, because Kamala is pretty awesome. But everyone on that list is awesome, so I don't know how I'd order them.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
But yeah... being able to get my voice in at the outline stage BEFORE we hire an author for a book not only helps that author write what we need for Golarion but helps spread my vision of Golarion among our in-house staff better. We hired up a lot of folks over the last several years, and as a result, not all of them have the benefit of being with Golarion from the start and there's a lot more to know about what makes the setting what it is that never sees print.

Do you have some kind of internal continuity bible that helps get new staffers up to speed?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Garrett Guillotte wrote:
deinol wrote:
Shadow Demon wrote:
Also, you can't copy the entire SRD as a published work either because this would be in violation of its copyright.
As long as you include the OGL you can reprint the entirety of the open content in the SRD, and the SRD is supposed to only contain open content.

I wanted to point out that the SRD 5.0 does contain protected content. Quite a bit, in fact.

This protected Product Identity content is declared in the SRD 5.0's OGL notice, and the claims are pretty broad, including content previously declared as Open Game Content in the 3.5 SRD. I've been converting the SRD to more accessible formats, removing or replacing the protected content in the process. Stuff I've removed includes named NPCs and locations, several spells mentioned in class features and stat blocks that are not open content. I've also declared the 3.5 SRD in this project's OGL notice to recognize the proper names of locations and items that it declared as Open Game Content.

Note that even Paizo's PRD also lets some product identity slip on occasion. There are still protected deity names on the official PRD. Their presence on the PRD does not automatically make them open content.

If you're using a reference document, it's your responsibility, not the publisher's, to make sure the content you use is actually Open Game Content and not protected as product identity. The only way to do so is to find the original source and read its Product Identity declaration.

I didn't realize how terrible their SRD was, but you are right. There are mentions of beholders in the deck of illusions and the aberrations description. I had assumed they did a better job of making a system reference document.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Cole Deschain wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
A "box set" is a term for a much more complex and expensive item, though - one which involves multiple books, maps, and other accoutrements. I've never bought one myself, unless you count a couple late-2e equivalents of the Beginner Box.

Having bought a couple in my time (good lord,I've gotten old!), I'm always surprised that they aren't better sellers/profit engines.

A good box set is a treasure trove for the buyer- L5R'sSecond City box set four or five years ago is the most recent specimen I've encountered, and it was worth every single penny.

A boxed set is a great buy for a consumer. That's why they don't make money. It costs a lot to produce and package. Especially when you are collating multiple non-book items into the box, posters, tokens, etc.

It's far more economical from a production standpoint to only produce one thing, since typically you use different printers for books, boxes, posters, counters, etc.

The Pawns work because it's just one type of product in the box, it just happens to need a box to hold it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
deinol wrote:
My point was variant core rules did exist.

Yeah but I never denied that. Norman Osborn, whom I quoted, talked about a Paizo-like competition, and before WotC decided to go 4E the way they did, there was none.

Fair. But from my perspective, the only difference between Pathfinder and Arcana Evolved is how well it sold. Even Paizo didn't expect to be this successful when they started on Pathfinder Beta. But any of the variants could have become "a Paizo-like competitor" had the fans rallied around it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Shadow Demon wrote:
deinol wrote:
Shadow Demon wrote:
Also, you can't copy the entire SRD as a published work either because this would be in violation of its copyright.

As long as you include the OGL you can reprint the entirety of the open content in the SRD, and the SRD is supposed to only contain open content.

You'd have to reformat things a little, since you can't use the same trade dress (fonts, borders, etc), but you can indeed reprint the entire SRD. People did it for 3rd edition, and Pathfinder is basically built on that fact.

Yes, I actually meant to state "You can't copy the entire SRD as a published work for sale either because this would be in violation of its copyright."

You can copy the entire text of the SRD and sell it, the OGL is a license to do just that. You would have to add a small amount to the OGL declarations, and you'd need to reformat it. But the content is absolutely sell-able.

So no, you can't sell an EXACT copy, but you can try to sell a very close copy. Whether or not anyone would be interested is another matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Shadow Demon wrote:
Also, you can't copy the entire SRD as a published work either because this would be in violation of its copyright.

As long as you include the OGL you can reprint the entirety of the open content in the SRD, and the SRD is supposed to only contain open content.

You'd have to reformat things a little, since you can't use the same trade dress (fonts, borders, etc), but you can indeed reprint the entire SRD. People did it for 3rd edition, and Pathfinder is basically built on that fact.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Tru20, Iron Heros, and evolved Arcana had a relatively tiny readerships, most of which (near as I can tell), continued to purchases official DnD at about the same rate.

A serious competitor only emerged when WotC seriously upset a very significant portion of their readership.

My point was variant core rules did exist. Yes, it took Wizards abandoning and Paizo being in a position with enough existing readership to launch an alternative that would actually become a viable competitor, but people we making variants before wizards made their own 3.5 variant. People will probably start making 5th edition variants soon as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
EltonJ wrote:

What's good for us is that they made an SRD. What is bad is that people will think of running with it in bad directions. The DM's Guild is probably the best way they can think of to slow it down a little.

With Pathfinder, the genie is already out of the bottle. With the DungeonMasters' Guild WotC can -- hopefully -- keep it in. And no, not all of 3rd Edition 3rd party was bad (the World of Warcraft RPG and Advanced d20 Magic were good). But it was hard to pick the pearls from the swine (Mongoose Publishing, I'm looking at you).

Even working with a Pathfinder 3P Publisher, your work doesn't win a lot of friends. Some of my friends will only buy Paizo made material.

I don't think there is any reason to think that the DM's Guild material will produce quality material at a higher percentage than d20/Pathfinder 3pp. Uploading a product is an automated process, Wizards will only take things down if they are offensive/adult material, not because your homebrew half-vampire race is terrible.

In fact, since DM's Guild only gives you access to FR material but a lower sales percent, most quality 3PP for 5e will release OGL material directly on drivethrough for a higher percentage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
Norman Osborne wrote:
Frankly, as open as the tag-team of the OGL and SRD made v3.5, a competing system that used some variant of 3.5 was a certainty.

Well, the fact is, there wasn't. Noone was even trying to compete with WotC at that time, because a) noone would have stood a chance and b) why even try it when most of the (core) rules were already to be found at the SRD site?

And even Paizo didn't create Pathfinder to challenge WotC's spot as the RPG industries' #1 (at least it wasn't the primary goal; don't know if Lisa and Vic foresaw what would happen as a consequence of how WotC handled 4E) but to support their own products which an existing line of Rule Books.

So while Pathfinder RPG only was possible because of the OGL, It didn't come into existence before 3.5 support was officialy stopped by WotC.

Actually, there were. Nobody who expected to rival D&D, but long before Pathfinder there was True20, Arcana Evolved, and Iron Heroes. Those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head.

They had goals beyond just "revise and continue 3.5", but they were variants based on 3.X that competed in the same niche.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
I think one of the reasons I hate the bloat argument so much is because that's what basically destroyed the Forgotten Realms (though I know some people claiming that everything after the grey box already had done a fine job with that; obviously I don't agree).

Ed Greenwood's license to TSR (now Wizards) is what bloated Forgotten Realms. If a year goes by that an original FR product is not released (novel or supplement), the setting reverts back to Greenwood. So to keep their setting, they must bloat it.

1 to 50 of 2,659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>