Soooon to be a GM hermit.
Search Posts
I did mean the true dragons, but I found it in the spoilers below. Thanks though! :D
Are people allowed to say what the dragons are in this bestiary yet? Cause I am going crazy here. :D
What would be the core issues with the Summoner, if not the Eilodon and the Summoner spell list?
Yeah if the sorcerer wants to slowly prep up a bunch as a GM I don't have a huge problem about that.That still means you can put multiple spells in over the course of several days. Or that one spell you wanted for downtime maximizing. So it all comes back to the original post and its question: Are sorcerers really screwed spell-wise compared to wizards, or is the OP up in arms for little to no reason at all? I am still going with no. Sorcerers aren't wizards and that's just fine.
Don't tell that to a shaman of nature. I think there might be one or two others that can do it too. But yeah normally not possible.Nothing prevents you from having both a animal companion and a familiar, RAW.I believe the only rule even remotely related to this is that your animal companion can't be a familiar, and vice versa. Dip into Paladin so you can have riding, companion and familiar pets? XD
There was no name calling, I was simply pointing out that it seems more like complaining to complain, than complaining about 'balance'. Not = to a wizard does not mean "is underpowered" IMHO.I never disputed this. I am simply trying to balance the two classes. This wasn't a point that I made. But it still stands. Oh no, the sorcerer isn't equal to the wizard, so it must be the worst class evar!!!!!!1111oneoneoneone.... Histrionics aside, the point is that just because sorcerers don't get the higher level spells at the same level as wizards do doesn't mean there's an imbalance in the classes as a whole. This thread isn't about optimization. The complaint is having to wait another level to get the cool stuff without any benefit other then flavor. I understand that, and I am saying that the one level isn't a huge chasm that requires crossing. And you seem to ignore the fact that the sorcerer catches up IN SPADES on the alternating levels, ending up with double to 2/3rds the number of castable spells a day as a wizard. This isn't as big as you make it out to be. That is bull. Show me sorcerer and a wizard at level 3 that are even, or one at level 5. Wizard will significantly outshine the Sorcerer. Even at even numbers where the Sorcerer has only one high level spell, the wizard will likely do better. Pity the poor wizard on the even levels then? For the wizard will do better on odd levels and the sorcerer will do better on the even ones.
Doesn't seem to work in Chrome though. -.-
It's awesome to hear about stuff like this. Reminds me of my days organizing Magic the Gathering games and tournies for kids at the local Library. :) Too bad about the shift to AD&D second edition. Fun game, but they've spent what, 5, 6 months working with Pathfinder? Surely there's a means to make most of the mechanic-y stuff fade into the background?
I don't think it's a problem. Just as the player party can coordinate to take on a challenge, so too can the NPCs/monsters. For the longest time, the mantra has been "Kill the Wizard first.". It may become "Kill the Occultist* first.". *Occultist meaning any of the new occult classes in the upcoming book. In your example, had the witch not been there, and instead a fighter took out the opponent (they do ignore SR pretty good I would say, almost OP), would you be saying the fighter is a problem? There are plenty of spells a cleric or wizard could cast that would beef up the fighter, and make it an unfair advantage. If the wizard's just going to "lol fireball" everything, well, they get what they deserve eventually. You're also completely ignoring the fact that there may be other things in the book that could be used to boost monsters. I mean, in the end, you're the GM. If you want the monster or NPC to resist the supernatural power, well, GM fiat away. That occultist can still die to mass arrows, being surrounded and dragged down by a horde of goblins, dropped down into pits filled with ouchies, the list goes on. I'm not going to worry because they can hurt the monsters a bit more...
I think it would take some doing to make a class represent any one sin. Classes are simply tools, it's the character behind the class that makes it good, bad or ugly.
Cool, thanks for posting this. Makes it easier to have everything in one spot, instead of searching through dozens of books for something. :D Two thumbs up, mate.
I don't think the sorcerer is underpowered, or even has any "problems". Frankly, for most GMs' games, you don't need to go hog wild with optimization. A modest amount of optimization is fine, and in that case, wizards and sorcerers are still pretty even. Does it matter that wizards are the better spellcaster in the long run? This thread smacks of butthurt sorcerer. I'd rather listen to the boohoos about fighters and rogues.
One of these days I may get around to updating the Dragon #310 alternate paladins. You might check those out as well. The only alignment I don't know of a write-up for is NE. Well, I am only necroing this post because I was searching for the updated alternate paladins to have in my campaign. And I found the answer for this post. Dragon #312 has write-ups for the despot (lawful evil), corrupter (neutral evil) and anti-paladin (chaotic evil) paladins.
I am not too young, I am 32 years old and have played 2nd edition since the early 90's. I\And you are right, I am not american, but do not have anything against the americans, much the contrary. KISS is a world wide famous expression for everybody who works in a corporative enviroment. Dont be stupid. Yes, but you equated 'dumbed down' with 'American culture'. You can see how that would cause a reaction in Americans, yes? Making things simpler is not necessarily dumbing things down, nor is making things simpler a bad business move. 5e being simpler is a way to make it easier for people to get into RPGs. They want to embrace new players as well as the old. 4e was a departure from the norm, and the complaint I heard most was not that it was too easy, but that it was too much like World of Warcraft. You faceroll your character to victory. Basic basic basic DAILY basic, fight over. Lather, rinse, repeat. If you have a DM who's flexible and imaginative, it's not quite so dull. But if you have a DM who's a RAW sort of person, well... Pathfinder's complexity can be a considerable drawback to people who've never played RPGs before, or to people who've never played D&D/Pathfinder. Sure, you can roll up a character and then wonder why the other players can do so much more with their highly optimized characters. And then you look at the many choices available and the math you need to do to find the best optimization... and there goes another new player resolved not to play Pathfinder. I do think that Paizo has thought ahead to what their next 'thing' will be. I don't see Pathfinder going away. They might update the mechanics, nip and tuck a few things to streamline it, take out some complexities... But I believe their next RPG won't be fantasy themed.
Thank you for the answers. :)
Lets say my character is at the Garrison, along with one other character. I take my turn, flip over the top card, and it's a monster. If I evade the monster, does the other character at the location still have to fight a summoned copy of the monster?
If your stuff won't run into any legal issues, you could always try self publishing. DriveThruRPG offers decent rates, if you are interested check it out.
Curse you both...now I can't help but to notice it!I feel you - the fact that the spines aren't in progressing shades of one colour is uber-irritating :)Great! I hadn't noticed that yet Thanks. A lot! :|
Anyone know the name of the halfling sitting between the bars of the railing on the left-center part of the cover? Rather, the halfling sitting in the railing on the right-center of the cover that is... xD
Anyone know the name of the halfling sitting between the bars of the railing on the left-center part of the cover?
Woo. Just got the book. Very nicely done, Paizo! :)
So the question I have, is this available in stores yet, or is it only available in the Paizo store?
Dragons, giants and elementals. :)
I'd like to see more dragons. :)
I can understand why there's opposition to non-consensual PvP. In parties we've always tried to work together. Attempting to hinder peoples' characters tends to get the party dead. And in my experience, a GM doesn't usually run more than one face to face group at the same time, simultaneously. So in the pen'n'paper world, there's not a lot of actual PvP, is my guess. And when there is, it can get pretty bitter because well, there's no anonymity, you know that guy who's character is trying to kill yours. And damn, he's being a massive jerk right now. I'm not driving him home. :P
TheAntiElite, I do see where you're coming from, I do see your point(s). I just disagree with having servers specific to eRP, it's probably a waste of time and effort on the game developer's part. In all my days of pen'n'paper face to face roleplaying, I have never once wished to roleplay out a sex scene, nor sit and listen to one of my friends do the same. Frankly it would be rather awkward, yet I have no problem role-playing a female character at times (and I've never chosen to play a female character for the specific purpose of roleplaying out sex scenes). So I understand why people wouldn't want to walk around a town and have to see the xxx chat all over the place. I've never played an MMO where that was a huge problem, however, and the odd time I've seen it, I simply laughed and carried on by. But as far as making a stand-alone eRP server, I see it becoming a quiet, empty, lonely place. A lot of people who do eRP on various online games are probably getting a kick from either doing something that is taboo, or because they might get caught. I see the charm of an eRP server wearing off rather quickly, and bet you'd see most of the eRP-ers back on regular servers doing their thing in a fairly short time. That is, if the relatively low number of RP-specific servers for various games holds true. I don't believe that the OP was talking about cut-scenes and fade-to-black where it's obvious that NPC is going to shag your character. Nor was he talking about using ones' character's charisma to woo the ladies (or men) and get what they want from them (food, beer, the Caramilk secret). I think overt sexuality can be tastefully displayed. I think one can have naked boobies and not cause a fuss. And if that's the direction PFO takes, with hints and teases and fade-to-black, that's fine. But I believe the OP was talking about players getting together somewhere and acting out (with chat or text or what have you) their own little scenes depicting whatever sexual fetish or scene their hearts desire. For the most part, that's okay too. Though from what I have heard, it can get a little out of hand. /shrug/ I just don't think we need separate servers for it.
I'd take umbrage at the term pervert if I didn't wear it with pride, and find the petty small-mindedness of sexuality being somehow 'icky' compared to 'murder simulators'. I'm sorry people are so repressed that they don't think such subject matter isn't part of their daily lives in advertising, television, novels, and fashion, engaging in deceptive brinksmanship because someone has a case of the Moral Guardians over the very act that brought about the children they're impersonating Mrs. Lovejoy over. You're going to find that most people are going to think along similar lines. It seems that most North Americans take more issue with topics about sexuality than they do with violence. You've got lots of Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner causing violent things to happen to Wile E. Coyote, and lots of Coyote trying to commit violence on the RR and Bugs, but you've got exactly zero (official WB stuff) cartoons where Bugs and the Coyote engage in casual sex. Sure, dressing in drag is just fine, and so is dynamiting someone, but no casual sex or threesomes. We're that bent. :P It comes down to the kids really. If PFO was an adult only game, the sex tangent really wouldn't be much of an issue. But as soon as kids are allowed to play the game, well... anything sexual goes out the window. I mean, I imagine my friends watching their kids playing WoW. "Look daddy, I'm killing a giant spider." "Cool!" Now I imagine: "Look daddy, this guy wants to show me Mr. Wrinkles.." WTF?!?! It goes downhill from there. :P
All the fighting I've seen on this board over the PvP issue has me thoroughly convinced that going with only one server with one style of play is a very bad idea. Some people want a game where you can attack anybody and everyone is in competition. Others want a game where they can team up and fight NPCs, not other players. Neither is wrong, and I don't think it would hurt to have a non-consensual PvP server and a consensual PvP server. It works for a lot of other games. I just find it odd that you call what people are doing here "fighting". This sort of argument has happened in lots of different places online, and many are way, way more angsty and antagonistic than this thread has been. Folks have been golden here. No one has disagreed that one or the other is wrong, really, just whether or not it (non-consensual PvP) should exist in the same framework as consensual PvP and PvE. I mean, I've been waiting for someone to call someone else a poopie-head, and it's just not happening. This popcorn is going to waste, people! :P In pondering this for a while, I think it is possible to just have one server type and have something for everyone. You make PvP arenas for the arena junkies, make most of the world a PvE only zone where the danger comes from the monsters, and have a select few areas be completely open PvP. Everyone would know which areas are which, and that risking PvP comes with good bonuses (loot!).
I would. The fighting I've seen on this board has me convinced that going with only one style of play is a very bad idea. I'd rather see a game with something for both crowds. The opinions expressed on this board aren't reflective of the world at large. The non-consensual PvP on EVE was set up on purpose, everyone knows it exists, and for the most part people will never see griefers or trouble if they don't go into the low-sec areas. The one world instance works for EVE, their numbers have been increasing slowly over time. Just because some, even half, even more than that, people don't want non-consensual PvP, doesn't mean EVE's setup is a failure. Also, having the multi-server aspect like WoW has its own issues. Want to help your friend out on a PvE server? Roll up a new level 1. Oooorrrr pay 25 bucks. Hmmm. At least in EVE if you want to help out, you just fly over to where your friend is. Which is sometimes an adventure in and of itself. Failures on EVE's part: Advertising gigantic, climactic battles... and then having the servers slow down to still frame as soon as anyone in the gigantic space battle opens fire after a big patch.. And then failing to fix it for ... well, ever. Playtesting!! Other failures include purposefully gimping certain ships and weapons because they couldn't figure out how to fix them. And saying everything was working as intended, nothing to see here... IE. Not acknowledging problems and addressing them.
We should also remember(Somebody came up with this point just while ago) that PFO PvP won't really look like WoW, as we don't deal with two fighting factions (which are red to each other by default) Yes, instead it will be red vs blue vs yellow vs black vs green vs skull thingy vs... Basically, it's a free for all.
Don't create a game with only one server. That was one of the major issues with EVE: only one type of gameplay. PFO needs multiple servers to satisfy people who want non-consensual PvP and people who want consensual PvP. That way, we can all get what we want and stop fighting over it before the community gets torn in half over the issue. I wouldn't list that as a failure.
Ah ERP. Where two frumpy middle aged men con each other into believe the other is a hot young teenage girl. It's the Internet: Where men are men, women are men and children are FBI agents. As for the OP: Heck no.
Just Google "it's over 9000". Then you will know. :P
Well not saying that can't be worked around in game, but I'm saying the design of the game is certainly not about encouraging this style of play. As sharing Teamspeak/skype information means you had to either make an allience character, to exchange that information. I am just saying it is legitimate and understandable for people to be heartless jerks to random people of the other faction, because the game more or less tells them they are supposed to. I believe people are jerks like that online because they can get away with it. Even if they could talk to others, group with others, and play nicely with them, people will still act like jerks because they have little to no connection to the other players. It's way easier to act like that when you can't see how upset the other person is. And for some, it's even more fun when the other person starts ranting and raving because they just got killed for the 234905863475th time in a row. The game doesn't have to tell them anything, they already know how to act like jerks. :P And I find that using a VoiP program makes gaming a bit better. You have a bit more of a connection with people. Even if they are playing on the other side, you eventually get to know them, what country they live in, what they do for a living, all sorts of things that normal friends learn of each other over time. You can't learn most of that stuff trying to type it, 'cause you can't type and raid at the same time. :P
And yet despite these barriers, I have on numerous occasions "grouped" with an Alliance character and successfully completed quests with them. As players, we both knew what the quest was, how tough the mobs were and how to beat them. We took turns killing and picking up the items, and in almost all cases, neither of us backstabbed the other at the end. Also, all of the barriers are instantly destroyed by Skype, Ventrillo, TeamSpeak, etc. :P
I think an interesting way to sort of bridge the PvP issue is to use a +1/-1 system. It could enhance roleplaying as well. Each character could have a player-set group of guidelines. If your character hates thieves, for instance, for whatever reason, then you would give thieves a -1. Now, you wouldn't know if a person is a thief, mind you, unless they've told you, or you find out information somehow that the specific character is part of the Thieves Guild. If a character has enough negatives, this could allow your character to take certain actions with a certain amount of impunity, but only if your character has enough knowledge. Actions could range from being able to yell for the guards to arrest the character, or hire an assassin to go after the character, or even go after the character yourself. A player could also rate other characters with a +1/-1, but with a limit. The limit can be whatever arbitrary limit the game devs decide upon.
Agreed. This thread is doing well, by the way, it's still civil.
The problem could have been solved with a few paid character transfers, but who am I to complain now when neither she nor her friend is playing WoW anymore? Either way, if this kind of crap will be pulled off in PFO, then count me out. Also, I still think blaming her for being griefed is wrong, not only because she's a friend, but also because that's more or less giving ALL PvP players a rather negative image. We're not blaming her for being griefed. But I won't accept that she was surprised that she was attacked and ganked. Do folks really need a sign? "PvP means player versus player, you can and will be attacked. Yes, this includes you." If PFO has servers or in-game regions where PvP is not only permissible but also non-consensual, you shouldn't be under any illusion that folks won't be trying to kill your character. By going there, you've agreed to it.
WoW has PVP, PVE, RP and RP-PVP servers. It's entirely your choice where you play. Please, don't call people out as BS if you have no idea what are you going on about. Gorbacz is entirely correct, WoW has those different server types. Thus, his comment about it being your friend's fault for joining a PvP server is entirely in the right also.
Unless you're with a full group of friends. This last point you make has always been my pet peeve. I can stand getting ganked, and indeed I have repaid the favor umpteen times. I can stand losing a fight to a big end boss. I can take people being silly or inexperienced. I can't stand being forced to group with people though. I should be able to solo anything and everything. :P 'Cause inevitably I end up grouped with someone who'll "need" all the treasure, even though they said they didn't want it. Or a raid leader who kicks you at the last moment to hog all the glory. Sure, guilds are nice, and if you've a lot of friends who play the same game, a big raid group can be lots of fun. But get stuck with a group of glory hogs, or treasure hogs, or people who don't understand that they shouldn't run around and aggro all the adds... oy vey.
~sighs~ I know. All I was trying to say is that I do not want a few bad apples to spoil the game. That is all. It's a part of playing, nay, doing anything online. The more people playing, the more you will see bad apples. If it's only a couple of jerks, you should have a thick enough skin to ignore them. If the game turns out to be Jerkfest 2012, well, then something is fundamentally wrong. :P Let's wait and see how they've decided to set things up before we split up into left or right, up or down, pve or pvp divides. :P
I have no real issue with PvE. I have verry little issue with PvP, if done right. My main issue with Non-Concentual PvP is that there is a real temptation for there to be jerks making other players lives a pain. I can tolerate some jerks, provided they do not cause too many troubles. But, OTOH, Thus, I have less tolerance for jerks when my money and time is on the line. Prove to me that the "Jerk Factor" can be reduced or eliminated and I will agree. But if you can't prove it, then move the non-concentual PVP play to a location that can be avoided. And everyone else isn't paying their hard earned money to play? I cannot prove that the jerk factor can be reduced or eliminated. Nor can I prove that the jerk factor will be increased.
These are the places where people will hang out to kill you. I mean come on your leaving that dungeon with loot and your worn down best time to gank you. Well, if we're using WoW as the basis: Separate instance dungeon, wander through with group, kill end boss... warp back to town without ever leaving the dungeon. Leaving the griefers on the doorstep: priceless.
Eeh, PvE and PvP are simply two different sides to the same coin. To me, PvP has always felt a bit more like work and a bit less like play. But there's a certain satisfaction in whacking a player character. If someone is "griefing" you, then you can complain to the GMs, assuming that the griefer is doing something against the rules of the game. Why do people assume that if you are able to kill a person's character that this will end the griefing? |