If I might submit,
Golarian specific information should be in the APs or Companion line, not in the Pathfinder RP line itself. Remember, Paizo puts out 4-6 APs, and 4-6 Companions per year. Anything like 'fleshing out <insert Golarian kingdom>' should properly be in one of those two lines (either as an AP set in that area, or as a companion book for that area).
Things in the Pathfinder RPG line (which only has 3-4 books per year, and one of those is slated to be a Bestiary each year, which only leaves 2-3 for non-bestiary stuff) should be world agnostic as much as possible (as they did for the core book, for example, no fluff on gods, which I admit irritated me at first but once I thought it over, I agreed with Paizo's reasoning that world fluff from Golarian did not belong in the RPG core book).
So my suggestions (see above) would be for rules crunch and fluff, not world specific crunch and fluff.
Now, generic world agnostic fluff would be very nice. For example, alternate builds for Monk utilizing different philosophies and weapon layouts would be great. But rather than 'These monks come from <golarian kingdom>' it would be 'These monks are rarely found, having only a few monasteries'. A Golarion companion could then reference the book and state 'In <area>, monks are generally of <school>, see <expansion book>, page ## for more details' and then give a 2 paragraph 'call out' on the monks in case you don't have that rulebook with the minimum info needed for the monks of that type, such as weapon layout, feat selection, etc.
|
Personally, I am all for a PF Complete series. More specifically, smaller book specifically focused on the Core classes.
I don't really care for the Clergy/Guild idea though, because unless it is nWoD style toolbox, (which I don't care for either personally), it is cutting off potentual story and background ideas by codifying it.
|
|
For folks who don't want psionics, they won't buy it. For folks who do, I doubt they'd mind 10-15 pages of junk. ;-)
Psionics was not in the core PF book, so I am not interested. Just my opinion, but if Psionics does not work with every other base concept for magic, I am not interested. I do not care one way or the other about psionics, personally, but I do not want an attached system like in the past.
Eh so your option is to tell dreamscarred not to make a useless book eh? Seems a bit harsh don't ya think?
No, as per a precious discussion my advice to Paizo is not to make a superfluous supplement when another company is already doing a good job of it. Please stop trying to put words into my mouth.
I really do not see them competing at all. Dreamscarred caters to the small group that love the current system. They are willing and able to support that system.
You mean, the vast majority of psionics rules' users is a small group? If that is true then it's not worth Paizo bothering with; if it's not, they will be producing a fringe supplement for a very small number of people.
I do not see how this effects paizo in any way. If a 3pp company wants to put out alt rules then they may do so, that does not effect what paizo will put out. It has been covered more then a few times why the 3.5 xph rules do not work for paizo's needs, and why they most likly will not be useing such rules.
It has? Forgive me, but I have heard nothing from Paizo about this, and in previous discussions it was pretty clear that the problems with psionics for Paizo are not greater than they are for any other supplemental classes or mechanics.
It has nothing to do with backward compatibility..as you can still use your 3.5 rules. Backward compatibility does not mean "everything we make from now on must be just like what came before" . It means "you can use your older stuff with little effort" so that has zero baring on what paizo does with psionics.
Which won't happen if you don't stick with the existing power point & power system and the existing classes. If you change the mechanics completely you have not kept backward compatibility, and this is what you want to do.
I am just not getting your logic here.
I get that you don't like the existing psionics mechanics, and desperately want different ones.
Unfortunately a lot of people do like it, and like the mechanics. Let's face it, if we wanted to play a game where every class used the same mechanics we'd be playing 4e. Bringing in a new system that does not use power points & powers a la 3.5 will appeal only to a very small number of people, and will not be backward compatible. The first point makes is hardly worthwhile, and the second is counter to Pathfinder's philosophy.
Do you get it now?
If I may?To use the 'backwards compatibility' argument. If a Paizo Psionic Handbook (PPH) didn't use the point system, and had the Psion and the Soulknife, then it's not a 'little effort' to bring the Wilder and Psychic warrior into play. That's a bit different than saying "Ok, in the PPH Mindthrust only does d8 damage, but allows a save for half."
I'll point out the flaw of the psionic attack/defense modes in the original psionic handbook is that by taking one level of a psionic class you suddenly became vulnerable to a whole slew of attacks no one else is.
I really have no ideal what any of that has to do with backward compatibility really. I just really have no ideal what your getting at here. Using the same name?
If it is using the same name 3pp do that all the time, an again that has nothing to do with what paizo does. I am not being snarky I just really have no clue as to what your getting at here.
If I may?To use the 'backwards compatibility' argument. If a Paizo Psionic Handbook (PPH) didn't use the point system, and had the Psion and the Soulknife, then it's not a 'little effort' to bring the Wilder and Psychic warrior into play. That's a bit different than saying "Ok, in the PPH Mindthrust only does d8 damage, but allows a save for half."
I'll point out the flaw of the psionic attack/defense modes in the original psionic handbook is that by taking one level of a psionic class you suddenly became vulnerable to a whole slew of attacks no one else is.
I really have no ideal what any of that has to do with backward compatibility really. I just really have no ideal what your getting at here. Using the same name?
If it is using the same name 3pp do that all the time, an again that has nothing to do with what paizo does. I am not being snarky I just really have no clue as to what your getting at here.
His point was that if you change a few descriptions of spells or powers, but keep the basic form of the class the same, and keep the same essential mechanics, not taking away anything; if you can still do roughly what you did before the change, then you have kept backward compatibility.
If you change the mechanics of the class completely, then you haven't kept backwards compatibility pretty much by definition, because changing the mechanics pretty much means that you won't work the new way as you worked the old way, unless you are ensuring that the new mechanics allow everything that the old mechanics could do. I think you have stated in the past that you would prefer a psionics system working in the same way as Vancian casting, and I don't see how this is going to be backward compatible no matter how you do it - it's just going to be magic classes with slightly different spells.
No, as per a precious discussion my advice to Paizo is not to make a superfluous supplement when another company is already doing a good job of it. Please stop trying to put words into my mouth.
It's not superfluous, but that does not mean "we must use a system we find does not work" DS is putting out something you want, so it really does not matter if paizo uses a diffent system and in fact helps DS out some
You mean, the vast majority of psionics rules' users is a small group? If that is true then it's not worth Paizo bothering with; if it's not, they will be producing a fringe supplement for a very small number of people.
It is in demand but to say everyone wanting it wants the 3.5 version is an overstatement. The diehard "it must be points!" are indeed the fringe group.
It has? Forgive me, but I have heard nothing from Paizo about this, and in previous discussions it was pretty clear that the problems with psionics for Paizo are not greater than they are for any other supplemental classes or mechanics.
Not going over this yet again, it has been shown about twenty times what your saying is false. Ya can believe what ya want but evedince does not back it up but points to the other side.
Which won't happen if you don't stick with the existing power point & power system and the existing classes. If you change the mechanics completely you have not kept backward compatibility, and this is what you want to do.
Again you fail to understand what BC means. It does not mean stuff we make from now on will work 100% with 3.5 stuff. What it means is 3.5 stuff will work with little work
Making a whole new system in no way effects BC one bit, not in the lest. It has zero impact on BC, none, nada.
I get that you don't like the existing psionics mechanics, and desperately want different ones.
Unfortunately a lot of people do like it, and like the mechanics. Let's face it, if we wanted to play a game where every class used the same mechanics we'd be playing 4e. Bringing in a new system that does not use power points & powers a la 3.5 will appeal only to a very small number of people, and will not be backward compatible. The first point makes is hardly worthwhile, and the second is counter to Pathfinder's philosophy.
Do you get it now?
Dude you really need to stop waving the BC flag as your using it wrong. And you just proved the point it has zero to do with "psionics" and everything to do with an alt magic system.
Thats system does not work with core. Might as well ripe out the true sorcery and say "looks it works!" well ya you can make it work
Alot of folks want psioncs..a core group want the 3.5 mechanic...thats not the same thing.
So no I have no clue what your talking about as DS is doing what ya want and nothing paizo does from this point on brakes BC as if you could make xph work with core 3.5 ya can do the same with core pathfinder.
Depending on when the book came some of the later classes are very compatible with Pathfinder, major example is the Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic books. Few dead levels, capstone ability, all you really need to do is adjust the HD to BAB and the skills.
It's not superfluous, but that does not mean "we must use a system we find does not work" DS is putting out something you want, so it really does not matter if paizo uses a diffent system and in fact helps DS out some
Where has it been shown that Paizo have found the existing system does not work?
It is in demand but to say everyone wanting it wants the 3.5 version is an overstatement. The diehard "it must be points!" are indeed the fringe group.
I get that you and a few others don't want that system, but the vast majority of posts I have seen do want it.
Not going over this yet again, it has been shown about twenty times what your saying is false. Ya can believe what ya want but evedince does not back it up but points to the other side.
You mean the twenty five times you repeated the same argument and I refuted it each time?
Again you fail to understand what BC means. It does not mean stuff we make from now on will work 100% with 3.5 stuff. What it means is 3.5 stuff will work with little work
My definition is that I can import my existing characters with a minimum of work and largely retain all their old functionality. If I can do most of the stuff I used to be able to do, then I call it backward compatible. As the power point system can do some pretty important things that, for example, the vancian system can't, I'd be impressed if you could change to a vancian system and pull this off. If you can't, your BC arguments are full of fail.
Making a whole new system in no way effects BC one bit, not in the lest. It has zero impact on BC, none, nada.
I think one of us at least has issues with the meaning of backwards compatible. I don't think it's me.
Dude you really need to stop waving the BC flag as your using it wrong. And you just proved the point it has zero to do with "psionics" and everything to do with an alt magic system.
Psionics IS an alternative magic system, in essence. As far as I know, I'm using BC exactly as Paizo do.
Thats system does not work with core. Might as well ripe out the true sorcery and say "looks it works!" well ya you can make it work
Works just fine, actually.
Alot of folks want psioncs..a core group want the 3.5 mechanic...thats not the same thing.
95% of those that I have seen posting want the 3.5 mechanics. You are one of the very few exceptions.
So no I have no clue what your talking about as DS is doing what ya want and nothing paizo does from this point on brakes BC as if you could make xph work with core 3.5 ya can do the same with core pathfinder.
Exactly. The only problem appears to be that some - like yourself - want yet another system, and I think Paizo might be better off expending their resources elsewhere.
Dabbler man, I am done dragging this up for the 100th time. You think it works fine... sweet use what dreamscarred is doing ..for the mass amounts of groups that disallowed psionics based off mechanics paizo willingness to try something new is frearking wonderful. And no yet again it does not hurt backward compatibility unless they go back in time and rework the XPH somehow.
The groups that like the xph are getting there wish with DS, and everyone else may get something that works better for them with what paizo does. Win/ win man
Dabbler man, I am done dragging this up for the 100th time. You think it works fine... sweet use what dreamscarred is doing ..for the mass amounts of groups that disallowed psionics based off mechanics paizo willingness to try something new is frearking wonderful. And no yet again it does not hurt backward compatibility unless they go back in time and rework the XPH somehow.
The groups that like the xph are getting there wish with DS, and everyone else may get something that works better for them with what paizo does. Win/ win man
Fair enough, I'm happy to agree to disagree - on both backward compatibility and psionics ;)
Edit: And I like what DSP are doing - I've gotten heavily involved with it.
Fair enough, I'm happy to agree to disagree - on both backward compatibility and psionics ;)
That works for me as well :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
For folks who don't want psionics, they won't buy it. For folks who do, I doubt they'd mind 10-15 pages of junk. ;-)Psionics was not in the core PF book, so I am not interested. Just my opinion, but if Psionics does not work with every other base concept for magic, I am not interested. I do not care one way or the other about psionics, personally, but I do not want an attached system like in the past.
which was my point :P
More seriously when you say 'not in the core PF book' do you mean the RPG or the campaign setting?
Does this mean you won't be buying the Gamemaster's guide or the Advanced Player's guide when they come out? They aren't in the core book either.
Not trying to be snarky, I'm honestly curious.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If I may?To use the 'backwards compatibility' argument. If a Paizo Psionic Handbook (PPH) didn't use the point system, and had the Psion and the Soulknife, then it's not a 'little effort' to bring the Wilder and Psychic warrior into play. That's a bit different than saying "Ok, in the PPH Mindthrust only does d8 damage, but allows a save for half."
I'll point out the flaw of the psionic attack/defense modes in the original psionic handbook is that by taking one level of a psionic class you suddenly became vulnerable to a whole slew of attacks no one else is.
I really have no ideal what any of that has to do with backward compatibility really. I just really have no ideal what your getting at here. Using the same name?
If it is using the same name 3pp do that all the time, an again that has nothing to do with what paizo does. I am not being snarky I just really have no clue as to what your getting at here.
I can take a Duskblade, and fit it in Pathfinder with 'little effort' I can take a Binder and fit it in Pathfinder with 'little effort'
To take a rulebook that doesn't use the power point mechanic, does include a psion and a soulknife only, does not mean I can convert a Wilder with 'little effort'.|
|
For folks who don't want psionics, they won't buy it. For folks who do, I doubt they'd mind 10-15 pages of junk. ;-)
Psionics was not in the core PF book, so I am not interested. Just my opinion, but if Psionics does not work with every other base concept for magic, I am not interested. I do not care one way or the other about psionics, personally, but I do not want an attached system like in the past.
which was my point :PMore seriously when you say 'not in the core PF book' do you mean the RPG or the campaign setting?
I mean the full base rules for Psionics included in the rpg right there with Wizards and Clerics. I am not really a fan of Psionics, nor do I dislike the concept, but nearly every problem i have encountered involving Psionics has to do with either multiple different views on what it should be, the assumption that no one is suppossed to "know" or understand anything about psionics (in game), or the fact that the rules for psionics are different than magic. If they were in the core book, even the people that don't like them wouldn't have to buy another book to allow them or be caught by as much surprise by them. It would be right there for everyone to see.
Does this mean you won't be buying the Gamemaster's guide or the Advanced Player's guide when they come out? They aren't in the core book either.Not trying to be snarky, I'm honestly curious.
Actually, for the most part, this is mostly just Psionics related. Because Psionics 1.) has so many different meanings and 2.) brings a completely new system and mechanic to the game when there is already one in place that psionics (as a magic type) essentually ignors.
However, to answer your question, I probably will not for a long time, but that is more because I will probably be in Iraq or something. I am really looking forward to the APG, though.
I wouldn't say psionics ignores magic, it's a supplementary system and the XPH refers to mainstream magic a lot. It's a different way of doing things rooted in a different mysticism, that's all.
I know the different mechanics can be a pain because you have to discover how to use a different system, but once you know them they do mesh well. Unfortunately this the case with any supplementary system, be it the Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle or whatever. Psionics just proved to be the most popular of all of these and made it into the SRD is all.
As for the different meanings, I think myself it's a case of it meaning what you want it to. Just because the system was given a slightly more 'scientific' feel does not make it any less 'magic' in any way. You can justify it in your world setting any way you want to, at the end of the day.
In Golarian, there are a surprising amount of psionic precedents from extra-planar influences to the far eastern magic if Vudra to the esoteric science of the Aboleths and the Azlanti. I was surprised at how easy it was to justify a psionic character in Golarian ...
Chief Technical Officer
|
Golarian specific information should be in the APs or Companion line, not in the Pathfinder RP line itself.
You are correct—the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line is and will remain campaign setting-agnostic. Our campaign setting material will continue to be reserved for the Pathfinder Adventure Path, Module, Companion, and Chronicles lines.
|
<snark>a book of how to draw maps that don't suck</snark>.
More seriously, how did White Wolf's year of the X do? I'd love to see...
"Year of War." Book dealing with Akiton, mass combat rules, airships and firearms (both Alkenstar and Akiton's flechette rifles). Beastiary dealing with interstellar threats and Akiton's natural critters. Module or two dealing with Akiton. AP dealing with a small sized army, maybe something like Kingmaker but carving out an empire.
"Year of the Mind." PPH (Pathfinder Psion's Handbook) with the point based system, and a note in the back how to convert to Vancian casting and how to convert casters to point based. Anti-psi tactics and anti-magic tactics also. AP could deal with a Runelord style conflict orchestrated by a Castrovel Elan. (Feel free to take my 'Elans as Azlanti survivors' bit) Modules could include a 'trip to the green' or the green comes to Golarion. Bestiary could be chalk full of psionic goodness (put either the base write up or the psionic write up in 8 point font in the monster entry, like in the Darkland's book)
"Year of the Divine" Epic level handbook, immortals level handbook, Epic Bestiary multi part module for 'test of the starstone' and a high-to-epic level AP.
edit: forgot...
"Year of the First World" Some more info on the first world, big book of Fae (could do a Savage Species like book with fae and others) Fae heavy Bestiary, more gnome stuff, and an AP dealing with a 'hole' between the First World and the current. (feel free to put Kirby Kontent in there as well)
and of course...
Year of Jade. Just don't leave India out like so many do.
I just want to chime in and say that I really like this idea, and most of the other ideas Matthew Morris has posted in this thread. I would love to see some meta-continuity to the release schedule and a lot of the books he mentions sound exciting.
|
|
I wouldn't say psionics ignores magic, it's a supplementary system and the XPH refers to mainstream magic a lot. It's a different way of doing things rooted in a different mysticism, that's all.
It ignors certain base concepts about magic, both mechanically and in the fluff. I am not talking about the Magic/Psionics transperancy (which honestly should never have even been braught up, period, in my opinion), but rather the hard limits that spells have to caster level, that a lot of powers are extremely versatile in comparison, (such as allowing you to pick the damage type on the spot, when Spellcasters needed feats and actually either used higher level spell or more effort to pull of, not to mention still had to have the right one prepared). Psionics has a lot of ways to "cheat" the magic system.
I know the different mechanics can be a pain because you have to discover how to use a different system, but once you know them they do mesh well.
I am more refering to the fact that a great many people ban it outright because of 1.) correct realizations on how to break Psionics, 2.) misconceptions about psionics, 3.) do not want to deal with needing to carry around and read through another entire book for one character, and things like that. As it is, they mesh, "ok". I wouldn't say well, but not terrible, either. But they would mesh a lot better if they were in the Core book right be spells.
Yes, we've had this conversation before. I don't see how two competing systems (which is what you would have) would leave anyone happy. I don't see how breaking backward compatibility all of a sudden becomes a good idea, either. The real problem is, some people absolutely love psionics as it is in 3.5, and some hate them with a passion. If you please one group, you will likely win the ire of the other.
What if it were the case that a Pathfinder Psionics book did only have spell-slot casters, but wouldn't have a psion, psychic warrior, soulknife, or wilder, instead making several new classes. I would suggest, in that case, backwards compatibility wouldn't be broken in the same way that the Cavalier existing doesn't break backwards compatibility with previous "Knight" classes.
Do you feel that would still be breaking backwards compatibility and cause the ire of an entire group?
|
I also really like this type of book, but I don't think it was done all that well in 3.5. I don't like a big splat book full of feats, prestige classes and new gimmicks. But I have a lot of fondness for the 2e Wizard's Handbook, Theive's Handbook, and Fighter's Handbook....blah blah blah... Plus, I think these books appeal a lot to newer players and would be a good way to ease someone new to the game from the core rules into the campaign setting/APs.
Indeed they do. I remember when I started playing AD&D, aside from the PHB, I picked up the Theive's Handbook because that's what I was playing.
Of course those softcover handbooks were priced and made much differently then supplement are these days.
Golarian specific information should be in the APs or Companion line, not in the Pathfinder RP line itself.You are correct—the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line is and will remain campaign setting-agnostic. Our campaign setting material will continue to be reserved for the Pathfinder Adventure Path, Module, Companion, and Chronicles lines.
Thanks Vic, I just said something because of all the responses about what to see for Pathfinder RPG that said something about Golarian.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yes, we've had this conversation before. I don't see how two competing systems (which is what you would have) would leave anyone happy. I don't see how breaking backward compatibility all of a sudden becomes a good idea, either. The real problem is, some people absolutely love psionics as it is in 3.5, and some hate them with a passion. If you please one group, you will likely win the ire of the other.What if it were the case that a Pathfinder Psionics book did only have spell-slot casters, but wouldn't have a psion, psychic warrior, soulknife, or wilder, instead making several new classes. I would suggest, in that case, backwards compatibility wouldn't be broken in the same way that the Cavalier existing doesn't break backwards compatibility with previous "Knight" classes.
Do you feel that would still be breaking backwards compatibility and cause the ire of an entire group?
For me, I'd still complain, but that's because I found the points system beautiful, elegant, and balanced. ;-)
Mechanically, I'd not mind so much because I'd just either a) sit down and convert them backwards or b) chuck the book out of the window.
I'm not completely opposed to a 'new' psionic system (I thought Green Ronin's was interesting) but it would have to really wow me to knock the XPH/DSP style psionics out of the park. Call me 95% opposed ;-)
It ignors certain base concepts about magic, both mechanically and in the fluff. I am not talking about the Magic/Psionics transperancy (which honestly should never have even been braught up, period, in my opinion), but rather the hard limits that spells have to caster level, that a lot of powers are extremely versatile in comparison, (such as allowing you to pick the damage type on the spot, when Spellcasters needed feats and actually either used higher level spell or more effort to pull of, not to mention still had to have the right one prepared). Psionics has a lot of ways to "cheat" the magic system.
You mean it works a bit differently, which you would expect of different mechanical systems. Yes, powers are versatile - that is why psionic characters get less of them. Yes, they can be augmented, which is why some of them have to be (a wizard doesn't need to use a feat to get 1d6 per level damage out of a fireball, does he? or to change his spell selection for that matter) which consumes more resources, of which psionic characters have less than casting ones in the first place.
The psionic system is no more broken than the magic system. Comparing psionics with arcane magic, it's a little better at doing direct damage and mind influencing than arcane magic, about the same in a few other areas, and behind in abjuration, transformation, illusion and necromancy areas (in fact it has almost no equivalents to illusion and necromancy). The other factors all balance out - versatile powers, but less of them; better able to resource manage but less resources available.
What if it were the case that a Pathfinder Psionics book did only have spell-slot casters, but wouldn't have a psion, psychic warrior, soulknife, or wilder, instead making several new classes. I would suggest, in that case, backwards compatibility wouldn't be broken in the same way that the Cavalier existing doesn't break backwards compatibility with previous "Knight" classes.
Do you feel that would still be breaking backwards compatibility and cause the ire of an entire group?
No, that would be cool, although I doubt they should bother even calling it psionics. If they want a 'magic system but different' then do one that is just that for things like Eastern magic.
For me, I'd still complain, but that's because I found the points system beautiful, elegant, and balanced. ;-)
I echo the sentiment, which is why I suggest they don't call it psionics. Then everyone can enjoy it for what it is, and not compare it to what it might have been.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm let me revise my 'year of X plan a bit to seperate things out. We're assuming 3 hard covers a year for the RPG right?
Hardcover one: The Big book of travelling. Rules for naval ships, airships, submarines and space travel. Both the 'From the Earth to the Moon' and the 'astral travel to Barsoom' versions. Maybe even a section on astral ships and etherial tunnelers. If room, some notes on maintaining a trade organization/business. I know it's not 'Paperwork and Paychecks' but some folks like doing that.
Hardcover two: Pathfinder Psionics Handbook (PPH) with the point based system, and a note in the back how to convert to Vancian casting and how to convert casters to point based. Anti-psi tactics and anti-magic tactics also.
Adventure Path one: Trailblazers. The party is initially hired to establish a trade route. It might be Marco Polo overland or Christopher Columbus sailing, who is funding them, who's trying to stop them. It may even culminate in the overthrowing of a pirate king or a Mongol type warlord.
Adventure Path two: Into the Green. The AP could deal with a Runelord style conflict orchestrated by a Castrovel Elan. (Feel free to take my 'Elans as Azlanti survivors' bit)
Companion: Expansion on the races in the PPH. Godminds of Catrovel Azlanti magi-tech and psi-tech. Pirates of Golarion, listing some of the more (in)famous pirates. Seas of Golarion.
Chronicles: An overview of Castrovel, a city of psions, ruled by an Elan dating back to the fall of Azlant (the 'formatting' would muck with memory of course, but imagine being able to talk to a guy who had tea with Aroden!) a book on the Shackles.
Modules: Exploration, Pirate hunting, a trip to the green world, or it comes here. a Big Game Hunter type adventure.
Bestiary: Heavy aquatic and Castrovel influence. I'd include some kind of Saurian here, for some reason I think lizard people on Castrovel.
Second hardcover doesn't have to deal with the Year of War, though if you wanted to go that route, a book of politics would be nice, maintaining a kingdom, relations with neighbors, etc. Also a view on magic at the national level. Again have sections dealing with how the players can influence things.Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz would approve.
Bestairy: Would have that Akiton influence I mentioned earlier. You're not going to be able to scrub all the 'fluff text' from the critters, but you shouldn't need to. Banths, 4 armed green men, blood golems, etc.
Adventure Path: AP dealing with a small sized army, maybe something like Kingmaker but carving out an empire. Only one AP to touch on this. Another idea if you want to have both APs focused on the Year would be to have the PCs up against a hobgoblin invasion.
Modules: Again not all the modules would touch on the Year, but a 3 part 'terror from the sky' module would be nice. Especially if it started on Golarion, then ended with the party having to travel to Akiton to stop the invasion. I've liked Falcon's Hollow and the Crypt/mask/City concept of linked adventures.
Companion: one on races of Akiton, one on PCs and war. (Warlords of Golarion?)
Chronicles: An overview of the red planet, an city of Akiton (Ossium?) that could be dropped on a sub continent if no one wants the planet there. This would also be the year to expand (figuratively) on the Worldwound
Hardcover one: Epic Level Handbook. Rules for 21st to 40th level, how Epic characters influence the world, how the world influences Epic characters. Strongholds and threats for Epic Level characters. (Second Darkness you're trying to stop the asteroid, Epic characters just fly up and sunder it) Paths to Divinity.
Hardcover two: Immortals Level Handbook. You're a God, now what? Rules on divine intervention, divine politics, portfolios. Level advancement, effects of having/gaining domains. (You have the Protection domain, can you defend yourself better?) For more mortal concerns, domain construction church construction, possession and exorcism rules.
Adventure Path one: Thwarting a villian's attempt to godhood, culminating in a battle in the Starstone chamber itself.
Adventure Path two: Epic level AP. Remember Karzoug? You know the 20th level bad ass that beat on your party? Yeah. Bad news is he was am Epic casting simaculum Worse news, he and 6 of his friends are waking up for real...
Companion: Holy Warriors of Golarion. What makes a Paladin of Erastil different from a Paladin of Adbar? What does happen when a Paladin and an Anti-paladin's powers collide? You're a new god, are you a lonely one?
Chronicles: Razmiran, Hermea, historical of Azlant.
Modules: 3 part test of the Starstone, Rescuing someone from Hermea human target style. An epic level module, a deity level module.
Bestiary: What gives a god nightmares? Things in this Bestiary. On a smaller power level, things that feed off of divine energy, living blasphemies, Chrstohper Hitchens and other religious themed creatures. ;-)
Hardcover one: Over the Top of the world, the exotic east of the PRPG. Hengeokai and Kitsune are a must, and not just for the furry population.
Hardcover two: This one I can't honestly think of a second book for. Maybe everything left out of the first one?
Adventure Path one: Over the top of the world. Amiko hires the party to escort her father's remains back over the top of the world. Once there, they suddenly find social skills are not wasted skill points.
Adventure Path two: Anything based on a Kirosawa film or three.
Companion: Races of Jade expansions, Honour and duty. maybe a companion of martial arts.
Chronicles: Jalmeray, the eastern nations, the Forbidden city.
Modules: a trillogy set in the east. one or three set in Jalmeray, one where the party gets to escort an eastern diplomat in the west.
Bestiary: well kind of a duh moment, eastern themed monsters.
Hardcover one: a 'Savage species' type book with a heavy fae emphasis.
Hardcover two: No idea maybe a Tome of magic style book? different forms of magic? Borrow chuncks of Secrets of Pact Magic with Golarion-themed aspects? Aroden as an aspect?
Adventure Path one: Stopping a Fae/gnome attempt to draw Golarion into the first world.
Adventure Path two: Not sure
Companion: Not sure
Chronicles: Not sure an expansion of the plane of shadow would be nice.
Modules: trips into the first world, some nice Grimm tales made into modules
Bestiary: Big book of fae. Also things that give beings of dreams nightmares.
Ok, Year of the first world is weak.
I must admit that apart from the 'year of the X' titles (been done too many times before) I like your ideas. I really like the concept of Elan as originally being Azlanti survivors.
With regard to the psionics system, Dreamscarred concede to having problems getting printed stuff done unless it's through Lula or similar. Perhaps Paizo could publish the Dreamscarred work on Pathfinder psionics under a license, with their own section tacked on the end?
Hmm let me revise my 'year of X plan a bit to seperate things out. We're assuming 3 hard covers a year for the RPG right?
Oh yeah These are great I want all these books
Really? The big attraction for me was the fact we could upgrade on the fly existing characters, even ones from outside the core, while mid-campaign. Further, I'll point out that the Pathfinder RPG is setting-neutral, even though it was necessitated for the other material.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Exactly. To keep with the Pathfinder theme of backward-compatibility, you'd have to produce a system similar to the 3.5 system. Currently, you can update any 3.5 character to Pathfinder with no real loss of features. Why should psionic characters be any different?
Backward compatibility was never an absolute goal with Pathfinder. It basically was a goal applicable in various priorities.
1. The top priority was compatibility with previously published Paizo modules, i.e. the Pathfinder 3.5 material. The goal there was to be able to use those modules in Pathfinder with little to no adjustment neccessary.
Then you agree that converting the points system and powers from the XPH is important, since XPH psionics as Into the Darklands has XPH psioncs. :P
More seriously, it's one book, part of the SRD. The power point system is balanced, well playtested, and works. Why not take it and improve it?
Hmm let me revise my 'year of X plan a bit to seperate things out.
I would suggest that breaking things into "years" might be a bit extreme. Imagine a customer who just doesn't care for that much "eastern" influences in their game, so not only are then not going to buy the adventure path, they probably will not buy any of the books from Paizo for that year.
While I believe that grouping similar things together is a neat idea, I think that it is better to keep a variety of products coming out to try to avoid excluding any group of customers.
I really like the concept of Elan as originally being Azlanti survivors.
That doesn't appeal to me as much. It is a neat idea, but it isn't really what I want to add to Castrovel.
With regard to the psionics system, Dreamscarred concede to having problems getting printed stuff done unless it's through Lula or similar. Perhaps Paizo could publish the Dreamscarred work on Pathfinder psionics under a license, with their own section tacked on the end?
I doubt that publishing through Paizo would make it more cost effective for the two companies than Dreamscarred Press just getting it published themselves. I really doubt that Paizo wants to get into the business of printing other companies books when they have many of their own lines to take care of. Besides, I believe that Paizo, overall, likes psionics too much for them to be content with just "their own section tacked on the end."
The power point system is balanced, well playtested, and works. Why not take it and improve it?
Aside from just wanting to go in a new direction, I would suggest that if one is not just taking the power point system and improving it, that it is possibly because they disagree about whether it is balanced, well playtested, and works. That convincing them otherwise here would be pretty much impossible.
Aside from just wanting to go in a new direction, I would suggest that if one is not just taking the power point system and improving it, that it is possibly because they disagree about whether it is balanced, well playtested, and works. That convincing them otherwise here would be pretty much impossible.
It's certainly impossible convincing some people, I will agree on that. Seriously, though, I have to say that from my experience it really is balanced with arcane magic, it has definitely been well play-tested, and it certainly works. Most of the complaints I have seen have not argued (or have failed to establish) that it isn't, they have simply argued that it is different.
Different is not bad. Different is good. Different is what makes things interesting.
I'd like to see a book focused on creating magic items, intelligent items, and artifacts(minor and major).
A sort of index of magic items, with maybe some new ideas, expansions of old ones and an eye to not making it as broken as some parts of the MIC were? I think that's a good idea too.
A sort of index of magic items, with maybe some new ideas, expansions of old ones and an eye to not making it as broken as some parts of the MIC were? I think that's a good idea too.You mean weak?
No, I mean balanced. There were some good items in the MIC, some bad ones and some ideas that really made me cringe. Weapon augment crystals, for example - I could understand the idea, but in the end it was a way of getting a magic item without forking out the full expense of it. It always struck me as a bit too 'industrial' in feel, which is OK in some settings (Eberron for example) but not in most.
|
|
A sort of index of magic items, with maybe some new ideas, expansions of old ones and an eye to not making it as broken as some parts of the MIC were? I think that's a good idea too.You mean weak?No, I mean balanced. There were some good items in the MIC, some bad ones and some ideas that really made me cringe. Weapon augment crystals, for example - I could understand the idea, but in the end it was a way of getting a magic item without forking out the full expense of it. It always struck me as a bit too 'industrial' in feel, which is OK in some settings (Eberron for example) but not in most.
Ya, but a great deal of the items in MIC became very useless. All but one of the Relics, in particular. A lot of the new concepts just didn't work well, like the Item Sets. The book was way, way to focused on low level, with a lot of the once good items becoming a huge waste of money. A lot of other items could have just been one item with different energy types or what not. I agree with the crystals, but I have a GM that has used things like that since 3.0, so it was not a stretch for me. In my opinion, MIC is a perfect example of the evils of balance.
Ya, but a great deal of the items in MIC became very useless. All but one of the Relics, in particular. A lot of the new concepts just didn't work well, like the Item Sets. The book was way, way to focused on low level, with a lot of the once good items becoming a huge waste of money. A lot of other items could have just been one item with different energy types or what not. I agree with the crystals, but I have a GM that has used things like that since 3.0, so it was not a stretch for me. In my opinion, MIC is a perfect example of the evils of balance.
Fair comment, there were a lot of items at the lower end that seemed to me to be fiddly and unwelcome. Some were neat, but others seemed to be a way of circumventing costs. That said there were some good ideas that worked well, but others seemed to me to be nothing but filler material.
|
|
Very true. I really liked the idea of the Item Sets, just not their actual mechanics. For example, by the time a character actually aquired a Set, it was kind of weak level wise. Much better guidelines for designing a set would have been more valuable to me than the entire section, in my opinion.
So, with that in mind, I would love to see PF do something along those lines, but do not eant to see a balanced reprint of anything. I think some alternate type/style of magic items would be interesting too. Right now, the main thing I personally want is Feats/Spells/Traits/Gear/etc that starts to really set Clerics apart based on religion and concept, and things that offer options to characters to break away from the stereotypes, but without going to the extreme of just being a new class or stepping on other classes overly much either.
It may have been an optional system, but it was the most popular of all of the optional systems, that's why it made it into the SRD and why so many people still remark on it. And if you go around disintegrating every psi in Golarian you will end up killing one of my PCs, so please don't ;)
To bring psionics in tune with Pathfinder they need a bit more than just a hit-dice upgrade (or a BAB upgrade for the Soulknife). Casters in Pathfinder did get some toys, after all. I find my Wilder in Counsel of Thieves is feeling decidedly lacking in some options, while the party Conjurer and the Cleric can both pull little tricks out she's lacking in toys.
|
|
Casters in Pathfinder did get some toys, after all. I find my Wilder in Counsel of Thieves is feeling decidedly lacking in some options, while the party Conjurer and the Cleric can both pull little tricks out she's lacking in toys.
That is how I feel about PF Clerics. With a few Domain exceptions, everyone else got cool toys. But, on the other hand, many Psionic classes are already very versitile, and might not actually need anything new.
Casters in Pathfinder did get some toys, after all. I find my Wilder in Counsel of Thieves is feeling decidedly lacking in some options, while the party Conjurer and the Cleric can both pull little tricks out she's lacking in toys.That is how I feel about PF Clerics. With a few Domain exceptions, everyone else got cool toys. But, on the other hand, many Psionic classes are already very versitile, and might not actually need anything new.
Powers are certainly more versatile than spells, but then you get less of them to compensate. For example, your Pathfinder sorcerer at level 20 knows 52 spells, or your Pathfinder specialist wizard 55 spells. The psion gets 36 powers at level 20, and the wilder 11. They also get some powers they can use if they have run out of spells, and that's what the psionic characters don't have, when they run out of power points faster.
|
|
Powers are certainly more versatile than spells, but then you get less of them to compensate. For example, your Pathfinder sorcerer at level 20 knows 52 spells, or your Pathfinder specialist wizard 55 spells. The psion gets 36 powers at level 20, and the wilder 11. They also get some powers they can use if they have run out of spells, and that's what the psionic characters don't have, when they run out of power points faster.
While true (and I notice you didn't include Clerics in that part :) ), Psions also have the option of really upping their lower level powers, or dumping a lot more into the upper level ones, which no other spellcaster can do. A great many spells become worthless as the caster goes up in level, while virtually no Powers do. Also, a great many powers are actually like 5 powers in one (for free, too), because the base Power can can do this or that effect, each time used. I'm just saying. I personally don't care one way or the other. I do not have a lot of experience playing a Psion, but have a bit of experience DM for one. So, I am taking my point of view from the DM side, and also the side of players in the same group as a Psion.
Powers are certainly more versatile than spells, but then you get less of them to compensate. For example, your Pathfinder sorcerer at level 20 knows 52 spells, or your Pathfinder specialist wizard 55 spells. The psion gets 36 powers at level 20, and the wilder 11. They also get some powers they can use if they have run out of spells, and that's what the psionic characters don't have, when they run out of power points faster.While true (and I notice you didn't include Clerics in that part :) ), Psions also have the option of really upping their lower level powers, or dumping a lot more into the upper level ones, which no other spellcaster can do. A great many spells become worthless as the caster goes up in level, while virtually no Powers do. Also, a great many powers are actually like 5 powers in one (for free, too), because the base Power can can do this or that effect, each time used. I'm just saying. I personally don't care one way or the other. I do not have a lot of experience playing a Psion, but have a bit of experience DM for one. So, I am taking my point of view from the DM side, and also the side of players in the same group as a Psion.
:) Clerics get 56 spells including domain spells. Druids get 46. The 'great many powers' are only the energy powers (not many of them), which have four options, not five, all of which are variations of direct damage. Having the four options means you are likely to find something that does damage to anything, but then these are also powers that don't scale - you have to augment them to increase the damage, so it's kind of like a 9th level sorcerer having to use a 5th level spell-slot if he wants his fireball to do 9d6 damage. Less than half of the psion's powers can be augmented in any way at all, and the ones that can't are pretty much the same as spells, so if you take that a psion's powers would be the equivelant of 50% more spells in numbers than powers you get 54, which matches what the wizard and sorcerer can do. The augmentation is a double-edged sword; you can increase powers a great deal, but some you have to increase to achieve anything, and you have to pay in power points for them.
On the power point comparison, if you convert spell slots into their power point equivalents, the psion ends up behind compared against clerics, specialist wizards and sorcerers. On the flip-side, they can manage their resources better.
On the whole, the magic (with spell slots) vs psionics (with power points) thing actually works out pretty balanced.