waiting for the pdf
It also provides... five new monsters unique to Golarion’s cosmology... [and] fox-bard vulpinal agathions.
'Fox-bards'? *His ears prick up*
Okay, now I have to get it just to see what they look like.
It also provides... five new monsters unique to Golarion’s cosmology... [and] fox-bard vulpinal agathions.
'Fox-bards'? *His ears prick up*
Okay, now I have to get it just to see what they look like.
*chuckle* Vulpinals. They're pretty much a direct import from my home game. And Sarah Stone did an awesome job on the artwork for them.
Fox-bards make perfect sense from where I'm sitting.
And they're very sassy!
Got mine in the mail today. Thumbed through it quickly in the middle of our D&D session...looks awesome, as I expected.
Todd, I hope Paizo asks you to write the 3rd Book of the Damned (Daemons). (I'm assuming James will want to do the 2nd book, on demons)
|
You know, as a hard-core Planescape fan, I was somewhat uneasy about the Pathfinder planar setup. It's not as bad as the cluster**** that is 4e's planes, but still, there's a bunch of changes being made that don't really "need" (IMO) to be made. I was willing to accept what Paizo was going to do with the planes, but I wasn't exactly looking forward to it.
I'm kind of wondering the same thing, why did Pathfinder need a unique cosmology? Why not just define some unique planer destinations and leave the whole definition of the cosmology blank. We are supposed to be compatible with 3.5 right, so let people get the details from there, and just make some really cool and engaging planer destinations, and set them on the plans with the names like "heaven, hell, nirvana, abyss" etc which are non-trademark/copyright synonyms for the wotc planes?
We are supposed to be compatible with 3.5 right, so let people get the details from there, and just make some really cool and engaging planer destinations, and set them on the plans with the names like "heaven, hell, nirvana, abyss" etc which are non-trademark/copyright synonyms for the wotc planes?
Pathfinder RPG is supposed to 3.5 rules set compatible. Golarion is its own world, and as such warrants its own seperate and unique cosmology.
I have to be real honest. I didnt like this one at all. There were bits and pieces to steal, but the over all cosmology set up just doesnt do it for me.
Just curious -- which part would you say you liked the least?
I'm kind of wondering the same thing, why did Pathfinder need a unique cosmology? Why not just define some unique planer destinations and leave the whole definition of the cosmology blank. We are supposed to be compatible with 3.5 right, so let people get the details from there, and just make some really cool and engaging planer destinations, and set them on the plans with the names like "heaven, hell, nirvana, abyss" etc which are non-trademark/copyright synonyms for the wotc planes?
I think that it works. People familiar with the old can still use it. As a hardcore Planescape fan myself, I often regret how everyone is already familiar with the weird quirks of the planes; how quickly the wild and wonderful infinite became sort of "normal." They know all the factions and planar traits, it is difficult to replicate the naivete of a prime setting foot in the planes for the first time, in the spirit of Planescape.
A new cosmology helps me restore the sense of mystery for my experienced Planescape players. In this new configuration, the things they take for granted are gone — arriving in Axis for the first time will be every bit as confusing as arriving in Sigil was all those years ago. The Great Beyond should fulfill the role that the original Manual of the Planes had - new worlds.
As for compatibility, don't confuse the Pathfinder setting with the Pathfinder RPG. I don't think that the actual rules will contain reference to the individual planes beyond how they interact with spells, which doesn't seem to be any different in either cosmology. I don't see any compatibility issues in this book.
|
I have to be real honest. I didnt like this one at all. There were bits and pieces to steal, but the over all cosmology set up just doesnt do it for me.Just curious -- which part would you say you liked the least?
Most of the cosmology. I really like the great wheel, but I know they cant use it.
Start with the inside cover. The set up doesnt makes sense to me with all the rings. I dont like how the outer and inner spheres are set up.
There's a bit or 6 that I would steal here or there and add it to planscape or the great wheel, but overall I dont think I can use this comology with the world if/when I run it.
|
|
We are supposed to be compatible with 3.5 right, so let people get the details from there, and just make some really cool and engaging planer destinations, and set them on the plans with the names like "heaven, hell, nirvana, abyss" etc which are non-trademark/copyright synonyms for the wotc planes?Pathfinder RPG is supposed to 3.5 rules set compatible. Golarion is its own world, and as such warrants its own seperate and unique cosmology.
No not really. I believe that they had to set up a new one because the old cosmology wasnt OGL compataable if I read right somewhere. Wotc still has the rights or something to that nature.
I think that had more to due with it, rather than Golarion is its own world and needs its own seperate or unique cosmology.
Start with the inside cover. The set up doesnt makes sense to me with all the rings. I dont like how the outer and inner spheres are set up.
Strangely that's my favorite part. I've recently taken some courses that covered ancient cosmology and this closely resembles the Platonic model of concentric spheres. There's a rich history there. I guess different people want different things, I can totally relate to being a Great Wheel purist.
Then again, I'm not sure I want a book of re-packaged Planescape, when my old planescape stuff is still on the shelf, and nobody could top those books.
Start with the inside cover. The set up doesnt makes sense to me with all the rings. I dont like how the outer and inner spheres are set up.
Strangely that's my favorite part. I've recently taken some courses that covered ancient cosmology and this closely resembles the Platonic model of concentric spheres. There's a rich history there. I guess different people want different things, I can totally relate to being a Great Wheel purist.
Then again, I'm not sure I want a book of re-packaged Planescape, when my old planescape stuff is still on the shelf, and nobody could top those books.
And just to add a third voice, I like the "great wheel", but not Planescape; my idea of planar adventure is shaped more by the Dragon articles on the Nine Hells from issues #75-76 and the module Aesirhamar (from Dragon #90). I also think that Eberron's planar cosmology is fairly elegant, too.
I have to admit I wasn't really jazzed by the "hollow world" picture of the planes in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, but I haven't really delved into it too much yet.
This also gives a source for when all those Planescape and other books are no longer available for prices folks are willng to pay :)
I'm still waiting to get my copy from my FLGS however based what was in the Pathfinder Chronicles setting book it seemed that they kept close to the alignment and trait based setups on the outer planes, to the point where you could replace it with the great wheel with only a small amount of jiggering.
I'll jump on the "settings should have their own cosmology" wagon. I've yet to see a published setting that doesn't break from whatever the 'standard' cosmology is at the time. Not to bash things like Spelljammer or Planescape but as multi-setting unifying over-settings they really didn't stand the test of time, not that I'd expect that any such settings would. Even the wink and a nod plane of shadows as a multi-setting transition plane that was created in 3e likely won't live for much longer.
Now that's settings, the core rules really shouldn't put to much focus on any one cosmology model. Like the bare bones material in the SRD those are good starting point for new GMs making their own worlds (with a little bit of expanded "how to" examples). Hopefully the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game will be far more generic with the planes then the Pathfinder Chronicles setting with its own 'unique' one.
No not really. I believe that they had to set up a new one because the old cosmology wasnt OGL compataable if I read right somewhere. Wotc still has the rights or something to that nature.
I think that had more to due with it, rather than Golarion is its own world and needs its own seperate or unique cosmology.
While its true that they couldn't use the Great Wheel (which I always found awkward) or other WotC IP, a cosmology is important background to a setting, they need places for the gods to live, for demons and devils and daemons to dwell, and they would be squandering literally a vast dimension of existance by not tailoring it to their needs, now instead of seperated, unexplored planar areas, you have something integral to the campaign setting, a new horizon, and some interlinking source of many adventures, cool ideas for world and magical sources and origins.
Golarion is a world where you can play any type of game you like, including a Great Beyond planar game. I'm sure some people would have preferred Tian Xia or Vudra to get further explored first, but I think the planes is more vital. However, this vitally doesn't deny or preclude replacement. Its neat background, but easily replaced by the Great Wheel, or say your own cosmology based on Eberrons, or infinite possiblities without definition of a whole.
So I think establishing their own cosmology was an important step for Paizo and Golarion, and you can still use your preference instead. I just wouldn't have purchased this book if you didn't want to use Paizo's Great Beyond.
|
|
Strangely that's my favorite part. I've recently taken some courses that covered ancient cosmology and this closely resembles the Platonic model of concentric spheres. There's a rich history there. I guess different people want different things, I can totally relate to being a Great Wheel purist.
Then again, I'm not sure I want a book of re-packaged Planescape, when my old planescape stuff is still on the shelf, and nobody could top those books.
In undertsnad where it comes from, but even that never sat well with me.
I would love a repackaged planscape set....so long as its not 4e rules.
|
|
I'll jump on the "settings should have their own cosmology" wagon. I've yet to see a published setting that doesn't break from whatever the 'standard' cosmology is at the time. Not to bash things like Spelljammer or Planescape but as multi-setting unifying over-settings they really didn't stand the test of time, not that I'd expect that any such settings would. Even the wink and a nod plane of shadows as a multi-setting transition plane that was created in 3e likely won't live for much longer.
I SO disagree with you thinking that planscape doesnt stand the test of time. Its tsill quite good, and quite relevant today, as well as tody.
|
|
While its true that they couldn't use the Great Wheel (which I always found awkward) or other WotC IP, a cosmology is important background to a setting, they need places for the gods to live, for demons and devils and daemons to dwell, and they would be squandering literally a vast dimension of existance by not tailoring it to their needs, now instead of seperated, unexplored planar areas, you have something integral to the campaign setting, a new horizon, and some interlinking source of many adventures, cool ideas for world and magical sources and origins.
Golarion is a world where you can play any type of game you like, including a Great Beyond planar game. I'm sure some people would have preferred Tian Xia or Vudra to get further explored first, but I think the planes is more vital. However, this vitally doesn't deny or preclude replacement. Its neat background, but easily replaced by the Great Wheel, or say your own cosmology based on Eberrons, or infinite possiblities without definition of a whole.
So I think establishing their own cosmology was an important step for Paizo and Golarion, and you can still use your preference instead. I just wouldn't have purchased this book if you didn't want to use Paizo's Great Beyond.
I have a subscription, so not buying it isnt quite an option. Besides its not like there's any place to look through the book first.
The great wheel has TONS of places in the great beyond to do stuff. There's definately a couple things I'm stealing from the book overall.
|
|
We are supposed to be compatible with 3.5 right, so let people get the details from there, and just make some really cool and engaging planer destinations, and set them on the plans with the names like "heaven, hell, nirvana, abyss" etc which are non-trademark/copyright synonyms for the wotc planes?Pathfinder RPG is supposed to 3.5 rules set compatible. Golarion is its own world, and as such warrants its own seperate and unique cosmology.
Well cosmologies are what ties the many campaign worlds together, so I'm not sure that it follows that it needs its own.
I SO disagree with you thinking that planscape doesnt stand the test of time. Its tsill quite good, and quite relevant today, as well as tody.
Yes and no perhaps. It's an awesome setting, and I adore it to a fanatical degree at times. However it faces the problems of its constituent settings like DL and FR having retconned their way out of that cosmology, and in FR's case abruptly retconning its way out of that retcon into the 4e default cosmology. When major chunks of Planescape's sub-settings in the current edition conflict with Planescape, or muddy the Planescape lore, it's difficult to play Planescape with the current edition, and new players who might only be familiar with the current edition.
That said, I've yoinked stuff from my home 3.x Planescape game for ideas in The Great Beyond, and I'll be happily incorporating ideas I developed for TGB into that same classical Planescape game with little or no problems at all. :D
|
|
I think that it works. People familiar with the old can still use it. As a hardcore Planescape fan myself, I often regret how everyone is already familiar with the weird quirks of the planes; how quickly the wild and wonderful infinite became sort of "normal." They know all the factions and planar traits, it is difficult to replicate the naivete of a prime setting foot in the planes for the first time, in the spirit of Planescape.
Player knowledge really is a huge issue for me, I find that my players actually know more about Galorion then I do, and of course I learned about this book first from my players who are subscribers to the various subscriptions here.
While I am running an adventure path, and know that they haven't read the contents of that path, they know what is in the MM, and they meta game the s*#% out the campaign at times.
So maybe a reboot of the planes is good, but of course my players already know to much. So in essence the only way to keep my game fresh is to use as much non-cannon as I can.
ah well end ramble.
I SO disagree with you thinking that planscape doesnt stand the test of time. Its tsill quite good, and quite relevant today, as well as tody.
Planescape as a setting is very good and one that many of my current players greatly enjoy. However, what I was saying is that its purpose as a multisetting connector and a universal cosmology hasn't lasted. I don't think you can have that without heavily enforced requirements on future writing. There isn't any reason for it to be the main form all setting cosmologies take.
You don't see Spelljammer still being used as be all and end all of cross-over settings. Some of those concepts of adding 'space' to fantasy setting can still be seen in Pathfinder Chronicles, but not as the unifying mechanic.
So maybe a reboot of the planes is good, but of course my players already know to much. So in essence the only way to keep my game fresh is to use as much non-cannon as I can.
You could try reskinning stuff. It's a shame to resort to that, but it changes/obfuscates the first pieces of information that people use to metagame in a negative way.
Or perhaps it's time for the group to sit down and talk about out of character knowledge. It sounds like meta-gaming with out of character knowledge is something they enjoy, so why not see if you can't get them in on it and then concentrate on surprising the characters rather than the players? Perhaps they'd enjoy a bit more of an author/director stance on controlling their characters rather than being in actor stance.
As for the structure of the cosmology in Golarion, I see it as how mortal scholars are trying to diagram and represent it within the world of Golarion itself. Like the Platonic cosmology being an attempt to diagram and understand our world. The spatial relation of the different realms within the Great Beyond isn't exactly that meaningful in play/telling stories set in Golarion.
Or perhaps it's time for the group to sit down and talk about out of character knowledge. It sounds like meta-gaming with out of character knowledge is something they enjoy, so why not see if you can't get them in on it and then concentrate on surprising the characters rather than the players? Perhaps they'd enjoy a bit more of an author/director stance on controlling their characters rather than being in actor stance.
Good suggestions all, frozenwastes, and good players are usually able to keep the metagaming in check. But what I am most grateful for in The Great Beyond is that ability to engender actual confusion and curiosity in the players - not as a cudgel to beat them with, but rather to enhance the enjoyment of exploring a new and untamed setting. That's something you can only get with actual ignorance, not simply fair role play.
I've been waiting for years for the opportunity to re-live my first planar experiences, but the tone of the material I'd seen thus far was not quite what I was looking for. The Great Beyond seems like a good fit to me.
I am a little bummed about the maps though. It seems like Lazz was trying to do something different, but in this instance I would have preferred he stick to tradition. They're more like illustrations of each plane than "maps" comparable to MotP3e or the Planescape boxed sets. Space was obviously a consideration here, but I wish the maps had been a little bigger and more detailed.
|
|
Where's the Ecology section of the keketar's statblock? It just goes straight from Statistics to Special Abilities.
Edit: and the Treasure line from the Astradaemon's Ecology section?
Edit 2: And the Astradaemon's Weapon Finesse feat shouldn't be limited to its claws only. The attack bonuses for the tail and bite are correct, but then the bite damage is wrong as a secondary natural attack (should only be 1d8+2 plus energy drain).
Edit 3: And the Astradaemon's Hide check is wrong, too. -4 size penalty from being Large should make it a +20, not +24.
Sigh. Between this book and the litany of errors in Dragons Revisited (seriously, I don't think any of the statblocks there are error-free), this is kind of getting ridiculous. WotC editing circa MM3 ridiculous.
Good suggestions all, frozenwastes, and good players are usually able to keep the metagaming in check. But what I am most grateful for in The Great Beyond is that ability to engender actual confusion and curiosity in the players - not as a cudgel to beat them with, but rather to enhance the enjoyment of exploring a new and untamed setting. That's something you can only get with actual ignorance, not simply fair role play.
I must admit that as a DM who's totally into the cosmology of a setting and loves knowing every tid bit of information about it regardless of the game, I find Golarion's cosmology to engender wonder/confusion and curiosity in me just from reading about it. It reminds me of the first time I encountered Plansecape stuff. In my last session the PCs encountered their first outsider-- a demon servant of Pazuzu. After they dug into it a little more, I read them some of the stuff related to Pazuzu in the Campaign Setting book. I got a visible shudder from one player and the group came to the conclusion that it would be best not to attract any more attention from the denizens of the Abyss.
I've been waiting for years for the opportunity to re-live my first planar experiences, but the tone of the material I'd seen thus far was not quite what I was looking for. The Great Beyond seems like a good fit to me.
I didn't think of it until you said it, but you're exactly right. For me, it's the tone of the material that works so well. Old school isn't quite the right term, but there's something classic about it. It's the same thing as the tone of the drow in the Second Darkness stuff.
The only thing I don't like is the word "multiverse." From playing too much Rifts back in the day, it gives me an icky feeling. A lot my players are old Rifts veterans as well and I don't even want the word uttered at the table. At no times do I want to conjure any image or emotion connected with the mish-mash splat-book-fest power creep twinkery that was the Rifts multiverse. That experience has ruined that word for me. The first time I saw it in the Campaign Setting, I had to promptly make sure it meant something else, and thankfully it did. I still get a bad taste in my mouth every time I see the word in print though-- as irrational as that is.
Yeah, I also feel gripey about the term "multiverse," due to a logic issue.
The only thing I don't like is the word "multiverse." From playing too much Rifts back in the day, it gives me an icky feeling. A lot my players are old Rifts veterans as well and I don't even want the word uttered at the table.
I've never played Rifts before, nor read any of its material. I'm using the term purely from its Planescape era usage and connotations to describe the planes. So forgive my use of the word, I mean well. :)
I've never played Rifts before, nor read any of its material. I'm using the term purely from its Planescape era usage and connotations to describe the planes. So forgive my use of the word, I mean well. :)
You can't be held responsible for what others have done with the word :)
I am overjoyed that "multiverse" in Golarion doesn't mean that every possible universe/world/whatever is out there somewhere and it's all connected to the setting regardless of whether or not it's compatible in terms of genre, tone, etc.,.
Imagine if you will, a post apocalyptic Earth with rifts to everywhere and everywhen, mashing together fantasy, sci-fi, westerns, comic book super heroes, anime, cthulhu-esque horror, Bond style spy antics, etc., including specific things like Robotech and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Thank you so much for meaning something else by the use of that word. I really mean that.
The creator of the term "multiverse" is M. Moorcock, not some guy at palladium, so it should be save to use it. AFAIK golarion has some elements from Moorcocks multiversum.
Actually, the term was coined by William James, a psychologist and medical doctor in 1895 and first appeared in a published work in 1897 (the publication of his lecture, The Will To Believe). The word is 114 years old-- ofcourse it's safe to use it. It is by no means a trademark or copyrighted title. It's just a word.
I was merely talking about my own hurdle with the word because of my own gaming history. Even if Palladium has stopped using it in favor of the term "Megaverse."
Speaking as a Planescape purist and collector (I think the only thing I don't have is the concept art sketch book at this point, I even have all the Ral Partha miniatures.) I like this book. Is it Planescape? No. But I can see many things that can be yoinked for a Planescape game (which I will be most likely be doing for my Silver Rose Planescape PbP). While I would have loved to have Sigil in all its' soot-stained glory as part of the Golarion/PFRPG, I know due to IP issues it will never happen. That doesn't mean I can't use my materials, or use the new stuff with the old materials. I use stuff from Beyond Countless Doorways as well, and many other 3pp publications from the 3e era.
The great thing about the planes is it can be as open and wonderful as you want it to be. I hope more stuff is written in this vein Todd, keep up the good work!
Where's the Ecology section of the keketar's statblock? It just goes straight from Statistics to Special Abilities.
Oops.
Edit: and the Treasure line from the Astradaemon's Ecology section?
Astradaemons don't carry treasure.
Edit 2: And the Astradaemon's Weapon Finesse feat shouldn't be limited to its claws only.
It actually doesn't need Weapon Finesse at all, given that it's Str and Dex are the same.
The attack bonuses for the tail and bite are correct, but then the bite damage is wrong as a secondary natural attack (should only be 1d8+2 plus energy drain).
Fortunately, the Pathfinder RPG simplifies the rules on how this sort of thing works, and I've built a monster-builder spreadsheet that does all the math, so we should see much fewer incidents of this sort of thing.
Edit 3: And the Astradaemon's Hide check is wrong, too. -4 size penalty from being Large should make it a +20, not +24.
Sigh. Between this book and the litany of errors in Dragons Revisited (seriously, I don't think any of the statblocks there are error-free), this is kind of getting ridiculous. WotC editing circa MM3 ridiculous.
You're right, five errors in a 45,000 word book (which was turned over as a 63,000 word manuscript and had to be cut down to size), that's just ridiculous. I shall arrange a beating post-haste. :)
Fortunately, the Pathfinder RPG simplifies the rules on how this sort of thing works, and I've built a monster-builder spreadsheet that does all the math, so we should see much fewer incidents of this sort of thing.
Oooh ... that would be something I think a lot of folks would like to get a copy of :) I know I would!
Well, in the other thread he cited stuff from the monsters section.
5 monsters x 1400 words per (approximately) = 7000 words
So if there are 25 errors (estimated from his other thread) in those 7000 words, that's an error rate of about .35%, or a success rate of 99.65% for the Bestiary chapter.
I'm not happy that the errors are there, but (1) most of them don't significantly affect the creature (it's not missing it's HD and hp, frex), (2) given the amount of extra work the book required to get it to fit in the pages alloted, I'm satisfied with the overall quality level of the book.
The Pathfinder RPG stat block really really really helps take care of things like this. Just this morning Wes asked me some questions about the skills entry for the trumpet archon (a monster I wrote). We were able to pull up the spreadsheet and check all the info to see if the numbers were wrong somewhere. All the math was correct, it just so happened that someone noticed it had fewer racial class skills than it should for its creature type. Which, at the time I designed it, was probably a matter of me thinking, "the only other skills it has ranks in that aren't class skills are Escape Artist and Handle Animal... do we really want to put them into either of those niches?" Wes made the decision to add the two remaining class skills anyway for consistency's sake. He typed in TRUE for those two class skills, it calculated the new skill values, and we were all set.
(1) Now that the RPG is done, I can update the spreadsheet to take into account the final feat names, etc., but at the moment I'm trying to get 3 books out the door (books that have been delayed for various reasons, including "there are no spare editors or graphic designers to work on these books because everyone is trying to get the RPG out the door by the absolute deadline").
(2) Once that is done, I wouldn't mind getting the spreadsheet in the hands of the public, but I think I'd need the go-ahead from some people above me.
|
|
(1) Now that the RPG is done, I can update the spreadsheet to take into account the final feat names, etc., but at the moment I'm trying to get 3 books out the door (books that have been delayed for various reasons, including "there are no spare editors or graphic designers to work on these books because everyone is trying to get the RPG out the door by the absolute deadline").
(2) Once that is done, I wouldn't mind getting the spreadsheet in the hands of the public, but I think I'd need the go-ahead from some people above me.
How about as an online web tool we can print out our creations? Should be really simple to implement and will allow a broader user base to enjoy. Think of the time wasting one could have creating creatures and then posting to the forums...
Getting that spreadsheet would be awesome.
How about as an online web tool we can print out our creations? Should be really simple to implement and will allow a broader user base to enjoy. Think of the time wasting one could have creating creatures and then posting to the forums...
Well, I'm not a programmer, I just know how to build stuff in Excel.
