emky's page

50 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is something I know I'm going to house rule* if (and a big if!) I adopt PF2e: backgrounds. They won't exist. I'll just say "pick 2 bumps, a skill, a lore, and a skill feat". Backgrounds shouldn't have mechanical effect on a character. They should be 100% fluff. (Which is one of the huge strikes against Bigname 5e as well.

I'm concerned about the ability scores being so tightly integrated with race and class. Does it limit roleplaying character viability/straightjacket choices? Is a high charisma fighter/leader still doable? Or a strong-enough Sorcerer who fights at closer ranges?

*Along side of "alchemist and goblin are absolutely not core races; they're extraordinarily setting-specific".


And the community ones greatly pale compared to the official ones: poor font and color choices, odd spacing, and great inconsistency from one to the next. And it's also a matter of Paizo not providing sufficient required support for their products the last couple of years (driving me to avoid PACG 2e and PFRPG 2e) until they clean things up. These things should've been on the website the day they hit stores, if not before. And, even if one is generous, not reached the backlog they are at today.


They don't all have their character sheets available to play them, even though I have the cards from the sets...


Ysalmari21 wrote:
Loving the new set, just completed the final adventure of Dragon's Demand! Thank you for putting out the PDF of the core rulebook, can we expect card lists and character sheets as we'll like previous sets had?

We don't even have these for all the previous products. GRUMBLE!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So these will be retail after? Or... I only want the pawns, since I'm not interested in pf2e or 5e


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The game should have a fair chance of success (well above 50%) for players who DON'T maximally optimize and teams that DON'T have perfect cohesion. Let players enjoy playing the game with a team composition of their choice (just like in RPGs, where any good GM will make sure of it!).

Mega-success for optimization-heavy players/teams is its own reward. And you can always intentionally hamper yourselves. I'm glad someone brought up Mansions of Madness. The base game, core box, of the first edition of that game was fun. Everything thereafter was awful because it was all balanced around the forum-posting super-optimizers.

As for those invoking Pandemic: that's a very different beast. That's a pure abstract game, devoid of any theater-of-the-mind/light-RPable-moments with quick setup/teardown and rapid play. The game itself almost just puzzle as much as a game [which lend itself HEAVILY to table-jockeying...].

PACG is, and should remain, very different. Playing through ROTR (twice), S&S, and Wrath [eugh], I can say I almost never felt like there was ever an "optimal choice" except very late in scenarios when the villain location was known and it was down to just closing and killing. And even then it was a good exercise in balancing out team aids. [Which is another thing: apparently people seem to think PACG 1e was all but devoid of team aids except piling on blessings, which is a feeling I never experienced...]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
redeux wrote:
...

It sounds like you want the game WAY too hard. (And yeah, your comparing to Pandemic isn't a very good comparison. Quite a contemptible game, for exactly everything you describe.) Another Wrath of the Righteous would probably kill PACG for good. It's ALWAYS possible for groups that want to make the game harder to do so, but it's not rational to expect groups that expect an actual fun difficulty to make the game easier for themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Finally, a few more not-all-bad changes for 2nd edition. My only concern is I hope the monster difficulties are lowered enough to compensate, because a character can only handle a couple losses against banes before the scenario is a wipe. I'm hoping they're pushing more away from Wrath than not.

(And no, heroic points don't count. They're permanent consumables. A string of bad luck and not only have you used your feats up, you're still dead and starting over.)

ANYWAY, could we PLEASE get the character sheets/checklists for the remaining class decks for 1e so I can get to playing? I won't be buying 2e for a while [waiting to read the full rule book, see some full scenarios out there] -- but it will NEVER happen if I don't get the 1e character sheets from you to play what I've already bought ages ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
you can send your soft covers to a bindery

And how few of us have softcovers? They've been OOP and unavailable for ages. The making of a hardcover compilation should have been *automatic* with each AP, and then they could have had the same treatment as the pocket guides, or set up with a POD service (like the other-game 2e books are!)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tinalles wrote:

A really modular approach would be to remove the stat blocks from the main text of the adventure entirely and issue separate bestiaries for each supported system.

I really miss "boxed sets" from older things that did this. Better than a hardcover, give me a boxed set that's the ADVENTURES all together (even done up in the 6 separate bits), but have a separate bestiary -- including *all* stat blocks, not page turning back and forth, and all maps (all!) in a separate booklet too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This isn't a surprise, since PF2e is much closer to other5e than it is to PF1e. It's a flat system. I mean, feats are basically gone, and skills are gutted to make room for "skill feats" to do everything so it looked like feats were still in the game. The customization's all gone, your character's decided at first level by class and that's it. No organic growth or interesting builds. (I know, there's all the class specific feats -- but that severely narrows the system. I'm using for-argument hyperbole, but not much.)

It's smart, business sense, for them to release this AND ONLY THIS! for 5e so that it can get some people over to the better (but still not great) product.

I'll get in for 1e, but I don't plan to adopt 2e until a long while down the road when it's been hacked and fixed. But at least the PF2e rollout is being handled better than the PACG2e rollout, where they're not even calling it a new edition even though it totally is.


Better to sit at a spot and let the clock run out than to risk character (and feat) losses. I get the argument on card feats, sure. But it still doesn't make it not being bad game design to tie a small ephemeral bonus and a permanent character bonus to the same mechanic.

It feels like this was done because they realized they oopsied on limiting characters being able to help each other as much as they used to.


Frencois wrote:
emky wrote:
Legit question. Who would EVER spend points that give permanent upgrades on a reroll?

Same guys who spend xp in the RPG to cast funny spells rather than trying to get a level.

That's very different. XP in an RPG is continuous (rather than discrete), and, more importantly, has a GM to make sure things keep together well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Legit question. Who would EVER spend points that give permanent upgrades on a reroll?!?

Conflating "permanent bonuses" and "consumed to reroll" into one mechanic is insane! That's just poor game design! Who's replacing all the wonderful elegance and amazing play of PACG 1e with this parade of bad stuff for 2e?


Yewstance wrote:
emky wrote:
Vic, should we give up on ever getting the rest of the 1st edition character sheets and deck lists?
I would hesitantly suggest that the Core Set's release might be exactly what triggers those characters sheets finally being released, as opposed to shelved.

I'm sorry, but I'm sitting on this giant pile of boxes I *HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO PLAY* (or even open to make sure they're complete!) because necessary product support never happened, in well over a year. That's not exactly the way to encourage folks to stick with your stuff, is it? It's actually exacerbating my distaste for PACG 2e [that might not even be there if they'd done things right in the first place]. You have it backwards.

And I don't want just "updated for 2nd edition" ones. I just want what's there now. (Fine if they do both, but just 2nd edition changes isn't right.)


Vic Wertz wrote:
Shnik wrote:
How does that fit with the previously-mentioned design policy that cards with differing powers should be uniquely named?
That policy is no more; it has ceased to be. It is an ex-policy.

I hadn't noticed that. Another point to "2nd edition".

Vic, should we give up on ever getting the rest of the 1st edition character sheets and deck lists?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So with the big rules change of 1-per-across-the-whole-table, how does that actually help cooperation? It hurts cooperation, which is what the crux of this article was about: changes to increase cooperation. In particular, it screams that is's going to exacerbate the "table jockey" issue. I'll play it, see how it goes... it'll probably be fine in my two-players-playing-three-each games, but it will probably go quite poorly in my 5-people-each-playing-one games.

Also, a shame to see a step backwards in card storage. The separated plastic insert areas made it a breeze to find the cards you need and keep everything upright/going. Big boxes like this will make it more painful to access during play. Hope there are a lot fewer "summon"s!


Great art there for the gnome.


So not all the promos for PACG 1st edition ever made it to the site to buy directly. Are you doing things better to make it so we'll actually be able to get everything with PACG 2nd edition? It's really irksome not being able to get a complete set of the game.

(And there's still the issue of the character sheets and deck lists still missing from all of the last wave of releases that I still haven't been able to play with because of that. So, sadly, I won't be able to get to any of the new stuff any time soon...)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
enlightened0ne wrote:
What worries me is that there’s nowhere to hide if you’re near death and need some turns to recuperate. I used to just move to a closed location to avoid most effects from other characters. Is there a way to do that now, or does everyone need to stop exploring while one person heals up?

Especially toward the end of the game and there's a nasty location, or if you're a character with powers to help at other locations.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Mostly good stuff here (despite the ugly cards).

Thoughts as I read:

* I wish you'd just be honest and call it 2nd edition. This is ABSOLUTELY a new edition. there's almost no semblance of the original game. It might have some (challenging) backwards compatibility, but that doesn't mean it's not a new edition. I think you'll annoy people more if they get this expecting it not to be a new edition and seeing what it is now.

* Pawns: good!

* Traits/favored/proficiency: good!

* Recovery pile: OK, so a lot of spell combos are gone, shame. (Poor Radillo.)

* Freely/global one-of-each-type: So you've made the difficulty of things a heck of a lot easier to make up for this, right? No more teamwork stuff of bow-from-another-location, only one assisting spell from anyone, etc? And to think a lot of the top complaints [not that I agreed with them] about the game was that it didn't have enough teamwork/cooperation.

* Closing: WHAT?! Why no "permanently closed" bonuses? That was some of most fun parts of the game! That's A LOT of loss for a trivial potential gain on cleanup, which I don't count as a gain anyway. I'm not going to stop play to sort cards during play like that.

* Danger: nice.

* Proxy: I do not like this at all. I understand I'm in the minority here, but I prefer just to read the card as it comes out. But, more importantly, these particular cards will wear A LOT during shuffling. Are there going to be a dozen copies of each in the box so we can't just easily tell which card in the stack is the henchman proxy?

* Duplicates: There's really no duplicates of any higher level cards? So if two people really do want the same spell or weapon, they're damned? I know what you were going for here, and I appreciate it, but some cards -- "staples" -- absolutely should have a couple copies instead of just one. This is even more true of monsters. I don't want the same chance of encountering a should-be-rare powerful (but still possible) monster as I do a more common foe. You're losing ability to set the theme and feel of scenarios with this, too.

* Mob of Undead: This and everything else is making me feel that the new edition is more "Wrath of the Righteous" difficulty. Clarify?

* Immunities/etc: Good.

* Markers: Is it so hard to include multiple copies of the card to reduce all the cross referencing?

* New coat of paint: No, please, stop trying to present it this way. It's a new edition, not just a new coat of paint.

And on an even more important note: I'm still waiting for the character sheets and decklists for all the stuff that's already out that I haven't been able to play with for well over a year now...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Will the video be transcribed for proper consumption? Video's a very inefficient way to communicate, especially down the road.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Goblins shouldn't be core. Goblins shouldn't be core. (I don't like core alchemist either, but I can far more easily accept that.)

I hope you guys are balancing PF2e with the assumption that people will be banning goblin as a playable race at their tables!


I haven't seen much talk on this...

How does everyone feel about core box + adventure?

I don't think I'm a fan.

Cards from the core box will get worn more than adventure cards [once more than one adventure is out]. But that's minor. Of higher importance is it will likely make the game less flavorful. I liked how the Adventure Path boxes had ALL cards. It made the product both easier to get into for folks, but ALSO (and more importantly), each adventure could maximize flavor. For instance, I couldn't imagine that "book" theme that Wrath did succeeding very well if you're always stuck with the same core box cards. It was nice how all boons and all monsters were carefully selected for the adventure path. This feels like a step backwards in that respect.

(I am definitely looking forward to the book-based adventures with more room, rather than having to fit those on cards.)

EDIT: Core box says 1-4 players. Curse box says 1-6 players. What's up with that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

These cards are so ugly. I have difficulty seeing them played. The old layout was so clean and functional. These are hideous. And no, it's not just "change is bad". They're objectively wasteful and that swirly background is irritating. :(

As to complexity, all this extra vocabulary, alongside all the dropped clauses, makes the game **more** complex. Hopefully it doesn't suffer, but it's likely it will. It was nice that the cards were verbose and explicit in the past.

Reading the other details here, you failed at not making it a new edition. It's entirely a new edition. I've seen new editions with FEWER changes than this. You're just not calling it a new edition for whatever reason. The dropping of Basic/Elite is a HUGE change, and probably not for the better. (Careful adventuring to cleanup old cards -- intentionally tossing those you don't want or carefully keeping those you want around was a good part of the game.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Link on illustration goes to a different one's larger version.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Presenting them as cards (as opposed to a list of options in the rulebook) does indeed give us the ability to create more thematic wildcards for specific storylines.

Doesn't that conflict with the whole reason that the adventure and scenario cards were moved into a being a booklet instead of on cards?


That card face is grotesque. Honestly disgusting. I couldn't imagine trying to play with that. I'm not having any success thinking of any other games with as bad a looking card as that. And, no, this isn't just familiarity. (Though there's a good reason the vast majority of games stick to the topline-art-traits-bottomtext template. And remember not to assume a direction for hand fanning. It varies between people, with left- and right-handedness, and preference) I'm not averse to a new design, but I sure hope this isn't it.

All this and you're still trying NOT to call it a new edition? The compatibility looks like it approaches zero. "Guard", "Reload", yadda. A whole lot of new vocabulary here.

Not to be all negative: Difficulty adjustment seems good. I like varying location sizes. Just don't make a mistake of tying any rewards to difficulty knobs. Difficulty is a play group's choice and should remain simply that. I hope some scenario setups say "build a large tavern, a small citadel...".

And on a tangent: you guys STILL haven't posted character sheets/checklists for all the last batch of Character decks. Products I bought, that I cannot play due to lack of product support. I'm certainly out for any continuation with the line out of a matter of principle seeing how product support has been.


Still waiting. I really am irritated that I can't play because they seem to be refusing to update the printable character sheets. (I'm sure as hell not marking up my cards.)


Jason Bulmahn wrote:


That is very odd. We will look into the survey logic to see if there is a problem floating in there... otherwise we will have to kick this up to surveymonkey to fix. Can you tell us specifically where this happened and what occurred?

This happened a ton, all over. It seems to me to be server load issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

After fighting with the surveys for quite some time to get in there, I finally managed to get it to collect my data: do NOT include alchemist, absolutely positively 500x do not include goblin, and I do not like backgrounds. Backgrounds should be story, not mechanical. Never combine them. (If I wanted that funless pull-by-the-ear I'd consider D&D 5e...)


I'm very happy that this Paizo partner has kept their product free of detrimental items, like microtransactions and DRM, and has it releasing on GOG. I hope this sets a good pattern for any future video game collaborations -- respect the customers!

I Kickstarted this and am looking forward to playing it!

(*nudge* Could you put some pressure on Obsidian/Asmodee to fix up Pathfinder Adventures for a consumer-friendly release on GOG as well?)


28 people marked this as a favorite.

Better fixes than resonance:

For the "low level items" problem, fix what they're mimicking. Mainly, the healing problem. Which, at the same time, solves the "poor cleric can't do anything else" problem.

For the "Christmas tree problem" (which many don't see as a problem), don't make magic items that are just bonuses. Make all magic items DO something. There's no such thing as a +1, or a stat bump. Anything that is, for instance, in the "automatic bonus progression" from Unchained simply doesn't exist. Even more extreme would be "nothing passive at all", but that's probably not necessary.


You said "don't go down the rabbit hole..." but I did. I do not like seeing "proxy" over there. I seriously hope you're not doing the organized play scenario "proxy" images for things like henchmen. It seriously hampers the game play, having to reference back and forth like that. Give me cards to shuffle in with what you're encountering on the card itself. "Proxy" was only acceptable in the organized play because the cards created for that scenario were unavailable as actual physical cards.

Integrating "proxy" rules like that into the game will be a VERY bad thing.

That said, I love and appreciate the move to the scenario book. I hope there's room for the "all chapter long" reminder text on each scenario's page, since there's no reminder card for it, and it absolutely will be forgotten if it's not printed with each scenario.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Naarg wrote:
without requiring the player to constantly refer to a glossary.

Came here for that, too. Apocrypha may never actually hit my table because of that (and its huge mechanical-flavor disconnect, a problem PACG before it didn't have).

Someone else mentioned foiling some cards: please, no. Foiled cards don't shuffle well, wear differently, and, most importantly, can't be read except for the person holding it.

Quote:
For a cooperative card game, the game is often not interactive enough. When you want to help your friend, the game generally tells you that you can't unless you have a card that does so. It's a co-op game, so it should feel more cooperative.

I really don't see how this could be said. The game is a constant back and forth between characters/players to determine who's going to do what and help each other. I've seen very few co-op games more interactive than PACG.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This seals the deal for me: PF2 is not for me, for much the same reason I don't like 5e. Background/character fluff like this should not have a bearing on the mechanics of a character. To restrict background to specific lists, and to make it so your character's backstory has to be a certain set to make a complete character is not proper for a roleplaying game to me.

I'm out if this is to remain.


Will Alchemy be easily stripped out and ignored for those of us who don't like it in our FRPGs? Or is it so integrated to the game that you're missing too much/balance if you drop it? (Really: Alchemy and Goblins should be in splatbooks, not the core book. They are a niche conceit, and not core "fantasy tends to have this!" material.) I'm going to feel doubly bad that so much of the core rulebook with PF2 will be content that I won't be using AND that the game's likely to be worse-balanced for doing so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of alchemy in my fantasy, and it's disappointing that something so niche as alchemist is being made core when there were plenty of other classes to choose from instead.

It's the same thing (to a lesser degree, though) as goblin being made core. Things that should be relegated to splat books are core, so if you're "banning" them from your game for thematic reasons, you're losing parts of the tightly balanced system and large parts of the core book. And, since they're core, they'll be more supported in all the future splatbooks as well, rather than kept where they should be -- more niche.


While it's great to see this sale -- when's the next set of promos coming to the store? The Rise and S&S promos were put up in a giant batch before, but the Wrath and Mummy's promos haven't been available for purchase yet.

And still waiting on the digital assets -- the character sheets, etc, since Summoner. I saw threads addressing that though.

(And to chime in on "which set?" Only bother with Wrath if you've played and enjoyed every other set first. It's a frustrating -- not just challenging, but frustrating -- experience.)


Mel, that egotist of "yor". Did you go to print yet? Speaking of fixing typos -- we haven't gotten updated PDF sheets in ages. I'm going to be starting up another round soon and hope to use some of the newer characters. Any idea when we'll get the PDF sheets updated with them? http://paizo.com/products/btpy914x/


Did anyone playtest all this "don't roll too high" mechanics throughout the adventure path for fun factor? That scenario previewed makes me scream seeing it. I haven't started MM yet (finishing Rise Wednesday, already have MM Ch1). I know Ch1 had some of it, I thought it was just there, but I see it's continuing, and gets even worse.

And the monsters are so close to that punishing 19.


Can't Paizo just publish bundles of JPG/PNG images (maps, handouts, portraits, tokens) that we can then buy and use in our VTT of choice? All of these "exclusive use" from each of those systems does nothing but generate lock-in, plus none of them recognize the concept of software ownership and they all use DRM schemes rather than just selling software.

PLUS, above all that, I still find the free and open-source MapTool better, after my experiences seeing what the paid ones had to offer.


How does the difficult compare to the previous sets? I'm hoping it's not as hard (and certainly not harder!) than Wrath?


http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/charmMonster.html
"Charm Person" doesn't link to referenced spell.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedPlayersGuide/advancedNewRules.ht ml
There are multiple HTML element "id=" tags duplicated. Example: #campaign-traits . This makes it difficult to link directly to what's desired.


Chris Lambertz wrote:

September 30, 2015 Update

We've also corrected all bugs indicated up to this post.

Not true. My mentioned bugs about the Witch page are still not fixed.


http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/baseClasses/witch.html#natural- disaster

Right under this, the Witch's Familiar table has big issues -- as in it's paragraphs in a table instead of as paragraphs, no word wrapping, etc.

There are also TWO divs with the same ID "witch's-familiar", which is why I couldn't link to the appropriate one directly.


Please create a print style sheet that, at a minimum, drops the navigation bar when printing a page.


Vic, I see a lot of this thread agree that that the release schedule is too aggressive. Is that something Paizo is willing to address?


New to Pathfinder after taking a few years off to non-d20 games. This thread brought the +3/+4/+5 equivalences to my attention. My first taste of reading that is "yuck!"

Anyway, the way I did it in 3.5, at least for non-cannon-fodder foes, was approximately this:
DR5 was unchanged
DR10 was "half the attack's damage, then DR5 to the remaining"
DR15 was "quarter the attack's damage, then DR5"
and so on.

You don't quite as easily get the "immunity to armies" from that, but it brought things like power attacking in check against DR. An example 20 point hit against DR10 became 5 damage (20 -> 10 -> 5) instead of 10. Against 15, it would be fully absorbed.

I was a golf bag carrier when I played, too. You need your cold iron weapon, your silver weapon, your adamantine weapon -- and it's trivial (by the time you really need to) to make them +1 as well. Alignment usually would come via buff... And then I was also saddened by seeing the other guy just power attacking with a 2-hander through the DR with his one big-plus weapon.


It's too expensive. Your question is about the base set, but purchasing the base set is, more or less, a commitment to getting the rest. That's a very expensive $120 board game (using discounted prices from buying elsewhere) that doesn't get as many plays as it could because of dedication required to it (time to play, setup, cleanup, deck management...).

And that's excluding all the very-off-putting extras, like the $30 (THIRTY!?!?!) for the UltraPro little piece of cardboard character mats that somehow have game content.

And then there are the promo cards -- as a completionist, I like to get all the game content available for a game I commit to. ROTR showed me that's simply not going to happen for a PACG game unless I go and take another mortgage. And the rampant errata/misprints (that alone is enough to make me want to wait until after an entire line has been out for a good long while!)

And then there's storage. The box inside looks nice, like everything was thought out, but it's actually not useful at all. Even if you don't sleeve the cards (and I'm not one who does), there's all the time, effort and materials spent finding a decent way to store the cards.

AND THEN the guild adventures are a new thing for S&S that cost even more money (each sold separately, of course!)

So, ROTR is probably it, unless Paizo changes the way it is going to do things for the future. Ideally, boxing the ENTIRE line up in one bulk-priced bundle instead of doing reprint runs on the separate content.

But, that's unlikely because here we are with zero delay in the next one coming out. I might be able to overcome dread of the excessive costs if the release schedule were not so aggressive.