John Lynch 106 wrote:
And are in general well-equipped with suggestions of possible alternative ways to handle any individual encounter.
I had kind of hoped that the bit of my post I have bolded would count as an answer to that. I was offering a suggestion for an approach to deal with the specific issue of combat-ineffectiveness getting in the way of making the characters people are interested in playing. I have no objection at all to people who want to play games almost entirely focused on combat to ameliorate the lack of utility of fighters in other contexts; the later parts of the Giantslayer AP suggest to me that neither do Paizo.
If I'm arguing for anything, it's support for playing the game you want to play.
I'd really like to see Casmaron, but I kind of like having Sarusan as a blank for the moment. And if it's going to be not blank, I'd rather it not be Aboriginal Australian fantasy, because my understanding is that what we know of Aboriginal Australian myths represents the stories of one surviving cultural group where many more were lost entirely, and also many of those stories are specifically tied to being told in certain locations or contexts which make it essentially impossible to adapt them into an RPG context without being disrespectful. If Sarusan is to be detailed at some point, I'd favour it being original content not based on any real-world culture.
The Gold Sovereign wrote:
I can't deny that the art for the hobgoblins is among my least favorite ones, especially since their illustrations in the Monster Codex and the Ironfang Invasion AP. I have nothing against their new head shape or their elongated arms - they are actually more fearsome in this way - but they do feel as smaller than they have always been.
I still don't like gangly hobgoblins, because if they're going to be the organised legions rather than the barbarian hordes, the more solid squat look of the PF1 hobgoblin is a lot more convincing to me as holding the line in a shieldwall.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Yep. 300 K = optimal temperature for a comfortable me; 0 K = absolute zero; intuitive endpoints split into a nice round number for easy maths.
I wish people would stop using that sort of shorthand for finding high-level play complex; the arithmetic may be long and fiddly, but it's arithmetic, not calculus or anything more abstruse than that. When the group I currently GM for get together, the average number of maths/sciency doctorates per person is about 1.5; and while I am well aware that makes us statistical outliers (y'know, because of having a grounding in statistics), I still appreciate the game being fun for that set of people as well as for newcomers.
It seems to me that "reward system mastery" and "avoid trap options" should not be mutually exclusive goals. A system with a baseline of everyone's character being competent and capable enough to succeed at whatever challenges the game offers them, but with options opening to be better than that, might be difficult but I don't believe it is entirely impossible.
My personal preference would be for design around a greater increase in complexity as the level goes up, rather than complexity in the initial build. In other words, give new players a chance to get a handle on that scale of complexity as the game progresses (it will always be a sight easier to implement E6 for those that favour a simpler game than to build working house-rules for high-end complexity). It does not feel to me like PF2.0 is going in the directions I would favour for this, but I am willing to wait and see.
Things I am unambiguously looking forward to:
1) significant reduction in attacks of opportunity.
2) cool flavourful unique monster abilities.
It may be worth noting that there are a non-trivial number of people for whom graphical interfaces are awkward and non-intuitive and who work and think much better in text.
That sounds a lot more combat-focused than the games I tend to run, which I can quite see making a difference; if your focus is social intrigue, I see no reason for those two characters not to be equally capable. Then again, if a magic-user/thief with AC like that is in frontline combat at all, it would seem to me that something's gone off the rails on a tactical level.
I love playing competent logistical support. One of my life goals is to take a character from 1 to 20 without ever doing a single point of damage directly.
I dislike this, compared to earlier D&D cosmologies, on a practical level because you can only kind of squeeze the equivalent of three of the paraelemental planes in there and there's no room for the quasi-elemental planes at all. (I also miss the outer planes from the Great Wheel that did not make it into Paizo's cosmology.)
I dislike it on an aesthetic level because it reduces most planar travel to essentially extremely long-distance teleporting. I far prefer thinking of Shadow and Faerie as adjacent to the Material Plane on opposite sides in one extra spatial dimension beyond the Material's three, the Ether adjacent in a second which leads to the Elemental planes, and Astral and the Outer Planes in a third.
Rahadoum could work in a setting where religion and Gods are left up to faith, but in Golarion it sticks out like a sore thumb, and one that would be better off amputated at that.
I have a strong desire to run a campaign in which Rahadoum turns out to have been intentionally helped along by agreement between the gods in order to create a location where, for example, outsider representatives of LG and LE deities could meet to negotiate a temporary alliance against some specific CE threat, without having to worry about that upsetting or demoralising any of the faithful of the LG deity in question.
One minor irritation I have, though it makes sense in terms of what Paizo can plausibly afford, is that their fantasy names appear to go through a rather limited localisation check. If I were still living in Ireland, running a game with characters whose name ends in "fek" or a major ethnicity whose name ends in "s~*&e" would be a non-starter because of those being local pronunciations of common obscenities.
(Huh. This interface doesn't censor "Keleshite" as a whole word.)
As a person who is actually from Ireland, lack of a fantasy Ireland in Golarion is something I am relieved by, because the overwhelming majority of fantasy Irelands are excruciatingly bad.
I'm one of "those people". The grim fate of all souls, whether good or evil, is a very repulsive feature of the setting.
An afterlife that works like a physical process, at that level, rather than being solely morality-based is a major plus for me in terms of suspension of disbelief. The fundamental underlying principles of the universe being something like entropy rather than something like justice is a scale I find works better.
I definitely do not want to return to days of rolling ability scores, that often resulted in bitterness when one of the guys rolled up an "elven hero" and the rest were playing farmboys with pitchforks.
My players would likely rise in revolt if there is not an option for getting exactly that result, because making characters of that sort of different level of capacity work well together is a large part of the fun for us.
Oh yes. And I do value that the range of stories we have about these characters covers some involve that aspect of their identity prominently and some to which it is less central. Thank you for that.
A class I have been thinking about recently that would be fun to port over is the 3/3.5 Jester, a master of improvised weapons, the man who always wins the bar fight (that isn't the monk). Someone who can play out the "Faceless Knight" Lancelot stories where he bludgeoned a man in full plate with a chair leg. I want a guy who can walk into Copper Tree, pick up LITERALLY ANYTHING, and then go and fend off a horde of goblins with it, maybe even a hobgoblin or 5.
That's kind of what I've always wanted a Brawler to be.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I am really hoping it won't be Mengkare, because the trope of "Utopian experiment turns out to actually be horribly evil" is massively overdone, and pernicious besides. As Kingmaker players may have learned from a certain particularly irritating NPC in the second volume, there is no better way of stopping power being used for positive ends than to foster a culture of instinctive distrust of anyone trying.
I loved Grigori, he was a wonderful way of not only vexing PCs in ways that needed them to think outside the box, but making them really think through what they were doing and why.
Unless you're playing an AP where the relevant information is defined and so is how it can be researched.
You can't enter a state of ecstasy because there is no you. Joy is only desirable because it's something you experience. 'Being' is a prerequisite for experiencing and the afterlife strips you of that.
It seems to me that the more intense a joy, the less aware one is of anything else other than it, so an all-encompassing bliss being accompanied by annihilation of self in a vaguley Buddhist direction seems a logically desirable endpoint to that.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
What that immediately suggests to me is that a truly Good soul, offered the choice between eternal bliss and the chance to become a powerful entity in the material world, is likely to feel duty-bound to the latter as an opportunity to do more good for those less fortunate. Not prioritising your own wants above all else seems fairly fundamental to Good, to me.
At-will interplanetary teleport makes that less reassuring than it might otherwise be.
"The replacement Tawil at’Umr typically does not reappear where it was killed, and it usually does not seek revenge against those who slew its predecessor. Usually." is one of my favourite bits of description in all the bestiaries; makes it sound like the most important part of killing Tawil at'Umr is somehow to do so without annoying it, which, Great Old One inscrutability as get-out clause aside, seems like a really nice challenge to throw at players and see what they come up with.
Have you ever had a Pathfinder game (or any other tabletop RPG for that matter) story that legit made you cry?
To each their own, but that would feel to me like painting without using half the colours.
Name Violation wrote:
Not necessarily. It is entirely possible to believe minmaxing is compatible with roleplaying, and still prefer not to have minmaxing at your table because you find it incompatible with your group's preferences. (Such as rolling your stats with a d6 like Gary intended, as specifically opposed to point-buys that give a boringly even set of stats to each PC.)
I read that as saying "good people shouldn't follow deities who condone and enable torture" which is legitimate, but you could say the same thing about good people following Abadar (who's A-OK with slavery, at least before the gap) or good people following Torag (who's strangely enthusiastic about genocide, depending on how you read "my people's enemies.")
Only if for some reason you want Good the alignment to map onto a real-world value of good.
Myself, I prefer Good the alignment to generate maximum amounts of drama for my players, and I would give seriously dubious looks to anyone who used that standard for determining real-world good.
"Here is this thing you personally do not believe is good, now see where roleplaying in a setting where it is Good leads you" is both fun and an interesting challenge provided you can keep the concepts separate.
A female minotaur is a fairly significant character in Ironfang Invasion, for what that is worth.
Also, considering that Paizo is not averse to specifying potentially icky reproductive strategies in lore for some creatures in the bestiaries (skum, sphinxes, and the difference between satyrs and fauns come to mind), I would presume that if minotaurs were intended to work that way it would be pretty unambiguous.
Magda Luckbender wrote:
...or a GM who cares about roleplaying far more than about combat utility. These are not necessarily the same thing.
Sir Belmont the Valiant wrote:
No dump stats. I've always hated them. Stats should not go below 10 unless they are racially modified.
Meeeh. Stats should be rolled with a bunch of d6s as God and Gary intended. Point buys just encourage minmaxing, and the expectation that characters should start off some abstract value of evenly matched, both of which IME cut against interesting directions of roleplaying.
I can see the point of 4d6 and pick your favourite three, but I would be absolutely opposed to anything that meant you can't ever have any stat below average.
I'd entirely agree that that behaviour is Evil, but it is clearly Chaotic Evil to me.
On the other hand, people who dedicate their lives to a cause that involves killing innocents and generally causing misery, join organisations that do so, are constantly loyal to that organisation, and makes ongoing sacrifices up to and including their life for that cause, also exist. I grew up in an environment where there were a fair number of such people around. Selfless dedication to group A while being entirely willing to cause endless misery to group B because you regard group B as the enemy or in some way inherently having fewer rights is every bit as Evil, to my mind, and in some ways more dangerous. (The corrupt and selfish are easier to subvert than the murderous zealot.)
I'm strongly in disagreement here. The way to address CMD is to make martials more awesome, not to nerf casters. (People who object to martials being too unrealistic/anime can always play E6 in a system that makes martials awesome at higher levels.)
Oh heck no. The last thing you want involved in alignment is the DM's own convictions.
Something along the lines of "Here are some common issues that come up with alignment. For game purposes, A, B and C are defined as Good, X, Y and Z are defined as Evil, 1, 2 and 3 are defined as Lawful and 7, 8 and 9 are defined as Chaotic. Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic are game-specific technical terms, their purpose is to be consistent and coherent and allow for quick judgements to keep a game moving. Any resemblance to any real-world morality, living or dead, is entirely accidental. Also, Paladins can only ever be Exalted Good, So There."
The bigger your numbers, the more granularity you have, and this strikes me as a plus. I want to see lvl 20 Fighters with effective Str of 40 once all the relevant buffs are counted.
Why not ?
I'm strongly in agreement here. GURPS is a great game if you want to play GURPS, but what I want from PF or any other D&D-type game is well-defined classes with a distinct feel to them as they progress from newbie to legend.
I'd go so far as; no multi-classing. No prestige classes. No archetypes. Give me forty well-tested base classes with solid progressions that fit forty worthwhile character concepts, or fifty, or seventy, rather than hundreds of feats and skills and whatnot where it is not humanly possible to test all possible interactions for trap options or game breakers.
(Also, I would like something front and centre that says "Here are the basic axioms about how the game and the game world work. Any combination of interactions between game rules that causes these axioms to break is automatically not valid.")
In my recent GMing experience, they feel great about it, because it gives them an actual challenge where mechanistic optimisation is boring, and it gives them more hooks for roleplay.
Don't they all effectively have the same goal in mind, that is, destruction/corruption etc?
A win for devils is the entire multiverse under their control, forever.
A win for demons is them being top dogs with an endless supply of stuff to trash, forever, because what they enjoy is the act of trashing stuff.
A win for daemons is everything ceasing to be, including themselves.
As real-world lore goes, the distinction between demons (evil since the moment of Creation) and fallen angels (evil only since the fall of Lucifer) seems to me to be where the Pathfinder/D&D distinction between demons and devils originally comes from.
I have a philosphical question, if the Maelstrom is eating all the outer planes what happens if it succeeds?
Apparently the multiverse as a whole goes through cycles of existence, the manasaputras are strongly connected with this.
So far as I am aware, there's nothing been said definitively in lore about how this works, but "the Maelstrom wears everything down to nothing except Pharasma and a bunch of proteans leaping around and doing proteanishly random things for timeless ages until one of them lets some qlippoth in again, or otherwise does something that starts more defined outer planes crystallising out of the quintessence for long enough to develop inhabitants" would feel a plausible answer.
The question would be whether the Maelstrom eats the Outer Planes faster than recycling souls and outsiders builds them up; it must be fairly closely balanced for the current multiverse to have existed on the timescale it has. (Which raises the thought that the effects of the Drift in the Starfinder era might just be enough to throw that balance off and eventually destroy this instantiation of the multiverse; now stopping that would be a fun really high-level campaign.)
Marco Massoudi wrote:
For what it's worth, the amount of high fantasy content in this is what I find appealing about it; there are any number of good systems and settings out there for doing harder SF, and lots of fantasy in the science-fantasy mix is what I am starting to rally appreciate in Starfinder.
I'd like to see a Realm of the Mammoth Lords AP that then delves into Deep Tolguth, the Vault of Orv underneath it, so we can have arctic megafauna and jungle megafauna and troglodyte civilisations.
I'd also love a Geb and Nex one, come to think of it. Or for "Kings of Absalom" to come out in a generally available form, be that an AP or a mega-module.
Also, planar stuff. Lots and lots of planar stuff. Particularly given that with the existence of Starfinder, it feels like spacefaring in the Pathfinder era will be less likely to show up.
Lots of people seem to be enthusing about this point or something very similar to it, and it feels unbalanced to me.
I am absolutely opposed to any game that operates from a basis of "players must be able to make any concept they like without consulting with the DM" as a fundamental axiom, because that undercuts getting a set of tonally consistent characters in a tonally consistent story, and the collaborative aspect of that, between players and DM both is most of what I am there for as player or DM. Strongly defined classes feel to me like a strongpoint of PF1.0, because they give a DM something to assess for any given story.
I'm very aware of being in a minority perspective on the boards in many of my preferences as a DM, and as a player; such as the strong preference for restrictive classes mentioned above, really enjoying playing characters whose utility is entirely outside combat, favouring mechanics strongly tied to role-playing (such as the Sin and Virtue points in RotRL and the influencing significant NPCs rules from Jade Regent). At this point I don't expect PF2.0 to contain major shifts towards my preferences.
I appreciate the insights into the game design process, I really appreciate Paizo's approach to customers on these forums generally and specifically Jason's here. If I have to houserule PF2.0 significantly to make it work for the particulars of my table, that will not be notably different from PF1.0 or make it notably less appealing; and in the unlikely case of a PF2.0 so far from my group's tastes that houseruling it enough to work for us would be more work than porting APs to GURPS, I'll still be here for Golarion.