Anyone else disappointed in the APG?


Product Discussion

51 to 100 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Define "disappointed". There are disappointments in that book. Big ones, even.

The summoner was messed up in my opinion (that's the biggest thing, actually), and there are too many errors to my liking.

But all in all, it was a great book.

The fact that it's the Advanced Player's Guide, an addition to things, justifies, at least to me, things like supernatural rage powers. They're even more optional than other stuff, being in the "advanced section".

I'm not a fan of literally flaming rages with barbarians, but I don't have too much of a problem of that being an option. It doesn't fit the image of a savage warrior who learned to harness his rage, no, but it's great for the idea of a barbarian who becomes possessed by the demon of wrath whenever he enters a rage. Very Record of Lodoss War.

I can't think of anything that is there just to exploit a mechanic, honestly. I think that if there is anything that is almost perfect with the book, it's the fact that all the ideas are great, that everything fits the theme. (Though there will be no racial abilities that allow elves and dwarves to re-live that ridiculous old nerd-war in my Chronicles. That crap has no place in my fantasy setting)

Only the mechanics sometimes don't measure up.


Dabbler wrote:
If you do not like the supernatural rage powers, and you want your barbarian to be purely mundane, then don't use them. Problem solved.

I don't think anyone doubts that, but the OP said:

Timtao wrote:
The thing is, I expected a supplement that, with only minor house-rules, I could hand to my players and say "everything is in!" I really thought Paizo could pull that off.

And he didn't get that, adding to his disappointment.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Absolutely love it. Easily one of the best RPG books I've ever bought. It just made me want more.


Kryzbyn wrote:

I enjoyed everything about APG. The art, the new classes...all brilliant. I love the introduction of archtypes! I like the idea that we won't be spammed with new base classes, but given options to modify existing ones.

This is by far the best bang-for-buck RPG supplement I've seen.

These are my thoughts, word for word. Thanks for typing them out so I didn't have to!


When I can drop a new supplement book on the table and have two groups worth of characters decide to either take or leave the content it tells me that not only is it well balanced, but that it has not outshone the Core.

The new class options etc are great, there's no killer must have combo's to be found - so full credit for pulling that off.

At no point have I looked at something and thought 'that has to go!'

The new class options and flavours are like the old Kits of 2ED, and if one doesn't fit your campaign just say X doesn't fit. I'm just not seeing the problem, but feel free to point out particular grievances.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
WelbyBumpus wrote:


Timtao wrote:
The thing is, I expected a supplement that, with only minor house-rules, I could hand to my players and say "everything is in!" I really thought Paizo could pull that off.

And he didn't get that, adding to his disappointment.

+1.


First off, I loved the APG, and I think it managed to do in one book what the Complete Series had to have multiple volumes for, and did many similar things in a much better, much simpler way.

That having been said, I can empathize with wanting to just blanket allow something. There have been many, many 3rd party products that have had some real gems in them, but if I can say "X is legal," I don't want to complicate things in the campaign by saying "Pages XX through XX are good, but not the sidebar on page XX, and pages XX through XX are right out."


Maerimydra wrote:
Also, there's no archetypes for the cleric, the sorcerer and the 6 new classes.

I was a tad dissappointed about there being no sorcerer/cleric archetypes, but at the same time, it would be fairly tough to do. Cleric's are defined entirely by their domains and energy channeling, so the APG decided to give options for domains. Based on what I've read, Ultimate Magic will feature alternative uses for channeling energy.

Sorcerers? They're entirely defined by bloodlines. The only other thing you could change about them are their proficiencies, HD, saving throws, etc.

Lastly, the six new classes don't have archetypes because... they're new. They already have 47 pages devoted to them. If they had a full suite of archetypes, that would add about another 36 pages (I averaged), and that would certainly cut into the rest of the book.

Maerimydra wrote:
I really like the Cavalier, but he misses one of the coolest aspect of the 3.5 Knight; the Knight's Code.

The cavalier's "knight's code" is the edicts of his order. If you want to play a traditional feudal knight, go with the Order of the Lion.


WelbyBumpus wrote:
Timtao wrote:
The thing is, I expected a supplement that, with only minor house-rules, I could hand to my players and say "everything is in!" I really thought Paizo could pull that off.
And he didn't get that, adding to his disappointment.

I get that, but I don't see how that disappoints. After all, of all the splat-books I have seen, almost none have nothing in I wouldn't ban or correct. That's the way of splatbooks.

Dark Archive

Sylvanite wrote:

The book is largely fantastic (hahaha yeah intended). The new base classes are awesome. Though I can't seem to force any sort of interest in the Cavalier. Oracles, Alchemists, Inquisitors, Witches.....so cool.

The alternate class features are so much better than simply scads of poorly balanced PrCs. The alternate racial favored class stuff is mad cool, too.

I'm not even sure what you refer to as the things you dislike.

I completely agree; I think this book is the the *best* D&D supplement I ever bought, and it has material to satisfy even an active group for *years*. I especially love (in addition to stuff mentioned above) the new bard and paladin spells, which complement their class features *perfectly* (and *FINALLY* they get some spells that can be cast as swift/immediate actions). Also, the new feats add a lot of tactical options to the game -- there are "misses" there, too, but most of them are well-designed and flavorful) -- and at last I can create a "sword-and-board" or polearm fighter who is mechanically interesting and can actually compete with two-hander guys.

Silver Crusade

Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

I'm generally positive about the entire book. Still hankering to play a Summoner, and the archetypes are something I really, really like.

I really only have one grief with the book: the capstone ability for Monks of the Healing Hand. Houseruled that into something more appropriate(and far less of a "@#$% YOU!" to the monk in question) working off of suggestions from other forum members here(thx guys, gg).

Strange... that ability is exactly what made me want to play a Monk of the Healing Hand. I love how it is truly an 'ultimate sacrifice', plus it seems somewhat Zen to me. (or maybe I just don't get Zen)

Different strokes for different folks. :)

It just really rubbed me the wrong way. Just the idea of a one-use suicide switch being your reward for making it to level 20 that irrevocably destroys the character, and robs them even of any afterlife or even being remembered by their loved ones, didn't sit well with me. The fact that it was given to the monk of all classes, the poor class that gets beaten on the most for not measuring up to the others, made it even worse. I really think I've seen more mean-spirited jokes born out of that ability(LOL THE MONK DOES SOMETHING USEFUL NOW!) than serious discussion of any dramatic potential.

I'm not saying the ability is without worth and that it's badwrongfun for those who actually like it. The concept works great for some folks. It just leaves me completely cold is all, as someone that actually would like to play a healy-type monk.

The house-ruled version though, I could live with.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually, APG is the first splatbook in a long time which I can just give to my players and tell them "break a leg, everything* is in".

* - OK, Selective Spell errata I am looking at you.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:

Actually, APG is the first splatbook in a long time which I can just give to my players and tell them "break a leg, everything* is in".

* - OK, Selective Spell errata I am looking at you.

Also take a look at persistent spell, at least for metamagic rods.


Generic Villain wrote:
Maerimydra wrote:
I really like the Cavalier, but he misses one of the coolest aspect of the 3.5 Knight; the Knight's Code.
The cavalier's "knight's code" is the edicts of his order. If you want to play a traditional feudal knight, go with the Order of the Lion.

Even a Cavalier of the Order of the Lion can benefit from flanking bonus against his opponent. That's what I was referring to. I really liked the whole "honor in combat" concept from the 3.5 Knight. Back then, you had to be fair against your opponent, even if you were an evil Knight. I have always thought that the same kind of rule should apply to the Paladin. It's not a big deal, really, because I just have to house-rule some new restrictions and bonus for the different Orders. :)

Silver Crusade

Oh, and I do want to punch every Order of the Cockatrice Cavalier in the face, but that's not really a knock against the book's quality.


Mikaze wrote:
Oh, and I do want to punch every Order of the Cockatrice Cavalier in the face, but that's not really a knock against the book's quality.

Why don't you Cockatrice Strike them in the face instead? (;


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I liked it. A few things were pretty meh (e.g., most of the fighter archetypes seem to give up more than they get, IMHO; and I still wish the default wasn't that all clerics and druids get all new cleric & druid spells, ever, meaning either new cleric/druid spells have to be fairly lame or the classes inevitably get more powerful), but mostly, it's good.


One thing that really bugged me was the Hungry Ghost Monk (which is a damn shame, b/c I love the idea).

The steal ki, life funnel, and sipping demon powers all grant the monk some hefty bonuses if he drops a living creature to 0 hit points. There should have been some kind of minimum HD for killed creatures, or a maximum number of uses per day, because here's what I envision:

A high level monk who, after every battle, brutally murders squirrels, goblins, and the like to fully replenish his hit points and ki pool, and gain a bunch of temporary hit points. All at no risk to himself.

Silver Crusade

Generic Villain wrote:

One thing that really bugged me was the Hungry Ghost Monk (which is a damn shame, b/c I love the idea).

The steal ki, life funnel, and sipping demon powers all grant the monk some hefty bonuses if he drops a living creature to 0 hit points. There should have been some kind of minimum HD for killed creatures, or a maximum number of uses per day, because here's what I envision:

A high level monk who, after every battle, brutally murders squirrels, goblins, and the like to fully replenish his hit points and ki pool, and gain a bunch of temporary hit points. All at no risk to himself.

That actually sounds like a fitting villain for Fist of the North Star...

Always keeps plenty of minions and hostages on hand for just that purpose.


Mikaze wrote:


That actually sounds like a fitting villain for Fist of the North Star...

Always keeps plenty of minions and hostages on hand for just that purpose.

And that's great for a villain. Not so great when an NPC can completely "refuel" by killing stray dogs and the like.

*EDIT*

Meant to say that it's not so great when a PC can completely refuel.


Generic Villain wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


That actually sounds like a fitting villain for Fist of the North Star...

Always keeps plenty of minions and hostages on hand for just that purpose.

And that's great for a villain. Not so great when an NPC can completely "refuel" by killing stray dogs and the like.

If we don't stop the Hungry Ghost Monks, then Golarion will quickly become just like Athas (Dark Sun): a barren wasteland. :\

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Maerimydra wrote:


The new classes are interesting, but I'm not fond of classes that use a new, limited spells list, because they are not "backward compatible" (you can't take spells from the Spells Compendium with those classes). Also, such spells lists are very restrictive.

Forcing me to throw out the Spell Compendium is not a minus but a plus. It means the loosing of an albatross of a poorly organised, uneven collection of spells thrown together without any regard for balance.

The limited spell list for these classes provides cohereence and flavor. Do you really want every spellcasting class to be nothing more than copies of wizards and clerics?

Silver Crusade

Maerimydra wrote:
Generic Villain wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


That actually sounds like a fitting villain for Fist of the North Star...

Always keeps plenty of minions and hostages on hand for just that purpose.

And that's great for a villain. Not so great when an NPC can completely "refuel" by killing stray dogs and the like.
If we don't stop the Hungry Ghost Monks, then Golarion will quickly become just like Athas (Dark Sun): a barren wasteland. :\

That just takes us back to "Fist of the North Star villain"!


Mikaze wrote:
Maerimydra wrote:
Generic Villain wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


That actually sounds like a fitting villain for Fist of the North Star...

Always keeps plenty of minions and hostages on hand for just that purpose.

And that's great for a villain. Not so great when an NPC can completely "refuel" by killing stray dogs and the like.
If we don't stop the Hungry Ghost Monks, then Golarion will quickly become just like Athas (Dark Sun): a barren wasteland. :\
That just takes us back to "Fist of the North Star villain"!

Even Hungry Ghost Monks will fall when they go up against Hokuto Shinken.


Mikaze wrote:

... I'm not saying the ability is without worth and that it's badwrongfun for those who actually like it. The concept works great for some folks. It just leaves me completely cold is all, as someone that actually would like to play a healy-type monk.

The house-ruled version though, I could live with.

Indeed - the advice on swapping abilities mean you could trade out the capstone from another monk type instead.


WelbyBumpus wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
If you do not like the supernatural rage powers, and you want your barbarian to be purely mundane, then don't use them. Problem solved.

I don't think anyone doubts that, but the OP said:

Timtao wrote:
The thing is, I expected a supplement that, with only minor house-rules, I could hand to my players and say "everything is in!" I really thought Paizo could pull that off.

And he didn't get that, adding to his disappointment.

His fault, really, for having the wrong taste!

I'm only half joking, by the way: If you deal with things not everyone likes, you can go two ways: inclusive and exclusive (i.e. either put everything in and let people cut out the parts they don't like; or only putting in stuff the vast majority likes and letting people come up with the more exotic stuff by themselves).

Paizo seems to go the inclusive way for the most part, and I salute them for it. This "I don't like this personally, so it should not be in the book" crap is just arrogant. Other people like different things, and they want to have fun, too. It's easier to ignore things than to invent them (and having other people do the invention work for us is what buying these optional books is all about). Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you should complain until they who do get their toys taken away. That's one of the major things that is wrong with people in this world (sure, there's worse things people can do, but this one is fairly wide-spread. Quantity over quality in evil, too, for sufficient quantities) and, to hit closer home, played a major part in destroying the Forgotten Realms for a lot of long-time fans.

So Pathfinder will always have some stuff that is not liked too much by some people (like guns, warriors with some supernatural options, colour-coded dragons, etc.) If you don't like it, don't use it. If you don't want it in the books, get lost and buy some other books.


Maerimydra wrote:
Generic Villain wrote:
Maerimydra wrote:
I really like the Cavalier, but he misses one of the coolest aspect of the 3.5 Knight; the Knight's Code.
The cavalier's "knight's code" is the edicts of his order. If you want to play a traditional feudal knight, go with the Order of the Lion.
Even a Cavalier of the Order of the Lion can benefit from flanking bonus against his opponent. That's what I was referring to. I really liked the whole "honor in combat" concept from the 3.5 Knight. Back then, you had to be fair against your opponent, even if you were an evil Knight. I have always thought that the same kind of rule should apply to the Paladin.

That code went too far, and the paladin should not be crippled by a "play dumb" rule.

Paladins have a code of conduct and must be fair and honest, but there's limits to everything. While it is important to keep your ideals, you still should be allowed to accomplish your mission, i.e. defeat evil. Tactics should still be possible.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

0gre wrote:

I can sympathize with this. IMO it's a gem with some significant proud thumbs, I enjoy the book a lot overall but some things made me cringe.

So disappointed? No. But... *shrug* there are definitely some things I don't care for.

I'm in the same boat. Overall, I enjoy the book and glad I have it but there are a few things I do find disappointing/frustrating. Notably, I think almost all of the prestige classes are frankly awful, and while I like the archetypes in general, there are a lot of holes and flaws upon close inspection.

I have to wonder if the "WE MUST PUBLISH BY GEN CON" mentality hurts tabletop game publishers the way the "WE MUST PUBLISH BY THE CHRISTMAS SHOPPING SEASON" hurts video game publishers/developers. I think of how many supposed-to-be-awesome video games I've played are insanely buggy because someone wanted to push them out for a certain sales quarter, and in a way, the APG is print-wise in a similar condition--awesome, but "buggy," as it were. I don't want "just wait for the errata" to become the mantra for tabletop games anymore than "just wait for the patch" has become the theme for PC games.

If you think about it, the APG was in a fairly quick production period--while I'm sure it was being worked on even before the Pathfinder Core Rules were released.... the same Core Rules weren't released THAT long after beta.... all material for the APG had to have been finished a good chunk of time before it was actually released (accounting for the time it takes to do layout, proofing, printing, and distribution). Of course this is entirely speculation upon my part, but I can't think that time taken to write up, playtest, and revise much of the APG material was very long, and I wonder if it was excessively rushed.

As a matter of fact, I've seen the sentiment that the best, most polished part of the APG are the six new classes---the part of the APG that got openly playtested. And of course we know the core rules are so very polished is because of the open playtest. I wonder if the archetypes and feats would be even better if they got the same playtest treatment---or at least more time for internal playtesting.

I am aware these open playtests have their drawbacks, and remember reading how frustrated Jason Buhlman was after the Magus Round 1 playtest. There is a huge drawback of course in opening anything to the public, particularly via the Internet and particularly with gamers, who as a group are not possessive of the best levels of tact or patience (and of course I say this as a gamer on the Internet, and fully include myself in this statement).

But in the end, I still have to wonder if the APG had been given more time, if it would be even far better--with all the awesome it has now but without the few glaring issues dragging it down.

It also wouldn't have overshadowed the GMG's release, which only had about a month of glory before the APG came out---and the GMG was pretty awesome and by its nature needed less playtesting anyway, and they could have highlighted that at GenCon just fine if that is so very necessary.

And we could have gotten it around... oh, let's say, the Christmas shopping season. I hear that's a good time for sales. :)

All that said, of course I know Paizo has their production schedule planned out well in advance and am sure they had their reasons for doing things the way they did... it's not easy to churn out books at a constant rate! But still, parts of the APG feel unnecessarily rushed, and I find that unfortunate.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:


Paladins have a code of conduct and must be fair and honest, but there's limits to everything. While it is important to keep your ideals, you still should be allowed to accomplish your mission, i.e. defeat evil. Tactics should still be possible.

And they are.. but being a Paladin is like being Batman...you either set yourself a line WHICH YOU DO NOT CROSS, or you're not fit for the class.

I rememember a passage from the Star Wars RPG. Jedi are going to fail to live up to the code every now and then. The important thing is how they handle the failure. I do believe that their are degrees of code breech and that they can be handled by graduated penalties until the Paladin atones as opposed to an all or nothing.

Every now and then this is going to mean forbearing a tactical advantage or two. That doesn't mean that a Paladin can't use tactics but there are going to be things that she must forswear using.


I have a gigantic stack of 3.5 books and I feel that the APG buries 95% of them in quality. The APG is a greater value than the entire 3.5 "Complete Series" because it doesn't have all the fluff/crap that ate up chapters of each book, the sheer physical weight of five volumes and cost me less than the entire series... and an APG PDF is available to customers, whereas there is no available electronic equivalent offered by the publisher of the "Complete Series".


The Mighty Grognard wrote:
I have a gigantic stack of 3.5 books and I feel that the APG buries 95% of them in quality. The APG is a greater value than the entire 3.5 "Complete Series" because it doesn't have all the fluff/crap that ate up chapters of each book, the sheer physical weight of five volumes and cost me less than the entire series... and an APG PDF is available to customers, whereas there is no available electronic equivalent offered by the publisher of the "Complete Series".

Couldn't agree more. I've always been a HUGE fan of 3.5. Yes it's broken and ugly in parts, but the customization opportunities are awesome. I look forward to a few more PF books so that PF reaches toward that level of customization.

That said, PF material makes the 3.5 stuff look so ill conceived and executed that I don't even really feel the desire to use it anymore. Do I miss my Abjurant Champion and Wraithstrike? Yeah. But only because they were so poorly balanced and overpowered.

The APG is just loaded front to back with cool options and less filler.

My big worry is that the PrCs are tending towards useless in a lot of ways. I didn't like how in 3.5 the vaaaaaast majority of PrCs were terrible and thus never used, and I see that happening with Pathfinder to some degree. They need to find a way to hit a balance with more of the PrCs so that they are worth taking, but not a "must take". If they can master that, this system will be amazing.

Dark Archive

I love the book and have no reservations about its content.

The Exchange

Not crazy about the editing job, but the content itself? I have no real complaints.


The Mighty Grognard wrote:
I have a gigantic stack of 3.5 books and I feel that the APG buries 95% of them in quality. The APG is a greater value than the entire 3.5 "Complete Series" because it doesn't have all the fluff/crap that ate up chapters of each book, the sheer physical weight of five volumes and cost me less than the entire series... and an APG PDF is available to customers, whereas there is no available electronic equivalent offered by the publisher of the "Complete Series".

My thoughts exactly. The APG has as much good stuff as the Complete Series, the PHB II and several other splats without any of the rubbish.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sylvanite wrote:


My big worry is that the PrCs are tending towards useless in a lot of ways. I didn't like how in 3.5 the vaaaaaast majority of PrCs were terrible and thus never used, and I see that happening with Pathfinder to some degree. They need to find a way to hit a balance with more of the PrCs so that they are worth taking, but not a "must take". If they can master that, this system will be amazing.

The PrC's in Pathfinder are worth taking but not for the reasons they were in 3.5. In 3.5, PrC's were just so dammed good that staying in a core class was a losing proposition. I think that many are having shocks of adjustment because they aren't quite that standout a choice in Pathfinder and more folks are taking their cues from theorycraft rather than actual play. I've played both Eldritch Knights and Loremasters in Pathfinder games and I haven't regretted either choice. I think that balance does exist, but it's going to be seen differently by each pair of eyes.


I think that a few of the PrCs from the core book are pretty good, though usually they are taken by classes that are most similar to 3.5, such as Wizard as you are kind of pointing out. Wizards can PrC in pathfinder 'cause they don't lose a lot by not going to 20, as long as they are advancing their spellcasting. Same with Sorcs taking some levels in Dragon Disciple or something (it advances the one thing that taking Sorc levels also advances!).

Other than that, however, I see very few people talking about using other PrCs on here, and I don't see much of it in games I've played either. I have seen someone go Rage Prophet, and that was pretty cool.

I should mention that I love the flavor of a lot of the PrCs in both books, I'm just skeptical if they are really equal to staying single classed. Overall, just expressing that I hope they are able to find a good balance of PrCs that are equal to staying single classed while offering cool options. Some of the PrCs already do this, and I think it's great.

Edit: Now that I think about it, I think the greatest use of PrCs and the only real way I often see them used it with hybrid character concepts. Fighter/Wizards, Oracle/Barbarians, Paladin/Sorcerers....these end up using the PrCs because they NEED them to function. The PrCs meant for single class characters are often very underwhelming (I'll make exceptions for a couple, like Loremaster and maybe Master Chymist for sheer cool). If PrCs are going to be used mainly to create hybrids or AMAZINGLY cool variations of single classed characters, then I am fine. Its the bunch of classes that fail at being either, or are too underpowered compared to staying single classed, that I am worried about.


I have one, and only one major disappointment with the AGP. Which, coincidently, is one of it's greater strengths. And that's the fact I cannot plop the book down and say "Everything in here is approved."

For my game, which allows some martial classes to acquire a god that fights along side them, the elemental rage barbarian powers make sense. For a different game, I'd have to say "No."

Likewise with the drunken range and drunken monk abilities, which I had to tell a player they couldn't have. Not because they were broken, but because they were not appropriate to my game world. (And I personally don't like alcoholism as a source of power, but that's a completely different argument.)

So, I like most, if not all, of the new options. Just not all for the same game.

I think a table or something that says "These should be removed for a low magic game." "These are most appropriate for a light hearted game." etc... might be helpful. Still, if the worst thing I can say about the AGP is it forces me to think about the genre of game I am running, that's hardly a disappointment.


Lazarus Yeithgox wrote:

I have one, and only one major disappointment with the AGP. Which, coincidently, is one of it's greater strengths. And that's the fact I cannot plop the book down and say "Everything in here is approved."

I do not do that with core, much less any other book

Dark Archive

Generic Villain wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


That actually sounds like a fitting villain for Fist of the North Star...

Always keeps plenty of minions and hostages on hand for just that purpose.

And that's great for a villain. Not so great when an NPC can completely "refuel" by killing stray dogs and the like.

*EDIT*

Meant to say that it's not so great when a PC can completely refuel.

If you have non-evil PCs in your group strangling squirrels, rabbits and stray dogs, I don't think the problem necessarily lies in the game mechanics. And even if it was an evil PC who tried this, after a while he'd have a bunch of angry druids and dog owners snapping at his heels.


Seems like there's probably been a post to this effect already, but I've had a few beers.

Anyway, I've yet to see a book that got 100% categorical no-holds-barred green light status from me. Even the Core Rulebook gets house ruled, excepted, addenda'd, and the like. Were the APG to accomplish this feat, it would be the first book in 25 years to do so.


KaeYoss wrote:


His fault, really, for having the wrong taste!
...
get lost and buy some other books.

So, you're allowed to have an opinion about the current state of the Forgotten Realms, and I'm not entitled to have a opinion about the APG?

Interesting...


KnightErrantJr wrote:
That having been said, I can empathize with wanting to just blanket allow something. There have been many, many 3rd party products that have had some real gems in them, but if I can say "X is legal," I don't want to complicate things in the campaign by saying "Pages XX through XX are good, but not the sidebar on page XX, and pages XX through XX are right out."

Thanks, KnightErrantJr, that's about where I'm at. Read on to see why...

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Lazarus Yeithgox wrote:

I have one, and only one major disappointment with the AGP. Which, coincidently, is one of it's greater strengths. And that's the fact I cannot plop the book down and say "Everything in here is approved."

I do not do that with core, much less any other book

We've all been playing like this for a long time, some of us for decades (cough! cough!). The overriding rule is that optional material requires GM approval, and the same Rule 0 applies to core material. And, there's nothing wrong with that.

What I've noticed in the game I GM, and the two I play in, is that the GM and players spend a lot of time talking about what's in and what's not - starting to seem like a waste of time. So, I'm trying to give my players a consistent base-line. I too have issues with the core material, but they are small in number and easy to deal with. I give my players all my house rules. I try to keep them simple, easy to remember, easy to apply (eg: shields offer an AC bonus based on size, buckler +1, small +2, large +3, tower +4).

I can't stress this enough: I love, Love, LOVE the Pathfinder core rules. I love the Bestiary, the GMG, the APs, and all the supplements I bought so far. IMHO, the stuff so far hits the sweet spot where the mechanics and the "fantastic" are palatable to the majority. This makes them easy to tweak to play the kind of game I want to play. The house-rules are concise and manageable, and I don't feel the need to come up here to chat about them. I expected the APG to hold that same fine line. Perhaps that is overly optimistic, but this is Paizo we're talking about!

KaeYoss wrote:
Define "disappointed".

I'm sure that didn't quite cut it, so still owe you loyal Paizo-fans some examples. That will have to wait until tomorrow because I just GM'd a long session, and I'm beat.


Timtao wrote:


  • magic abilities granted to martial classes

Wait a second.. How did the fighter get magical abilities? I didn't see any there? Other than that. All the other martial classes have gotten some form of magical abilities since day 1 of their invention as core classes, or got some later on in addtioins such as this.

Paladin - duh
Ranger - yeah
Barbarian - didn't start, but additions in AD&D 2nd ed did have totem barbarians if I remember correctly.

So unless I missed something, and fighters got magic some where (and probably not even then), I don't think this is a valid complaining argument having more to do with personal tastes and close mindedness than actual cannon breaking.


I think part of the problem the OP has with the APG is one that is quite understandable really. With the game mastery guide, core rule book, beastiary, adventure paths...on and on down the list of Pathfinder products there is a lot of red velvet roping of "hey Players...this area isn't for you." You could argue chapter names, the nature of the book, or even the title in the case of the Game Mastery Guide. Players and GM's are inherently steered towards agreement.

Then you come to the Avanced Player's Guide and there is nothing inside that would inherently steer a player to not read cover to cover and politic for their favorite juicy bits to be included at the table. You could find yourself in a situation as a GM where you are trying to build a quorum on what is in and what is out rather than just saying...here blokes...enjoy.

For me, I was able to just toss the book into the center of the table and hand out bibs, garlic butter and shell cracking utensils and say "bon appetit." For other GM's they are able to just lay down the law and say "avoid section x and chapter y completely." And for some GM's it may add a level of explanatory headaches and drama that doesn't exist in a world free of the APG.

My experience has been a toboggan ride of thrills and I can say in reply to the OP that no I wasn't disappointed, but I hope it works out for you and yours in the long run.


LazarX wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:


Paladins have a code of conduct and must be fair and honest, but there's limits to everything. While it is important to keep your ideals, you still should be allowed to accomplish your mission, i.e. defeat evil. Tactics should still be possible.

And they are.. but being a Paladin is like being Batman...you either set yourself a line WHICH YOU DO NOT CROSS, or you're not fit for the class.

I rememember a passage from the Star Wars RPG. Jedi are going to fail to live up to the code every now and then. The important thing is how they handle the failure. I do believe that their are degrees of code breech and that they can be handled by graduated penalties until the Paladin atones as opposed to an all or nothing.

Every now and then this is going to mean forbearing a tactical advantage or two. That doesn't mean that a Paladin can't use tactics but there are going to be things that she must forswear using.

The dosage makes the poison.

Sure, Paladins have a code and a line they should not cross (and will have to face the consequences if they will, since their divine patrons themselves check on them), but the position of that line makes all the difference.

If you put it too far to one side, you can as well ignore the whole thing, since you have to go out of your way to get past it. If you put it too far to the other side, Paladins become an NPC class, since no PC can play this.

And I think that if you forbid paladins from taking advantage of feints, flanking, prone enemies and so on, you're overdoing things.


Lazarus Yeithgox wrote:
(And I personally don't like alcoholism as a source of power, but that's a completely different argument.)

It's a classic - the "Drunken Master"

Lazarus Yeithgox wrote:


I think a table or something that says "These should be removed for a low magic game." "These are most appropriate for a light hearted game." etc... might be helpful.

What criteria would you introduce. What play styles would be mentioned? You'll either end up pissing people off because you didn't mention their preferred style, or have a sidebar that is bigger than the whole book! :P


Timtao wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:


His fault, really, for having the wrong taste!
...
get lost and buy some other books.

So, you're allowed to have an opinion about the current state of the Forgotten Realms, and I'm not entitled to have a opinion about the APG?

Interesting...

Don't try to twist the words in my mouth.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I have no problem with people not liking things.

The problem starts when people start campaigning against things they personally don't like, to get them out of the books so others who do like that stuff have their toys taken away. I have zero tolerance for this kind of zero tolerance (and yes, I know how that sounds).


TriOmegaZero wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:


The problem starts when people start campaigning against things they personally don't like, to get them out of the books so others who do like that stuff have their toys taken away. I have zero tolerance for this kind of zero tolerance (and yes, I know how that sounds).

Or out of society, like smoking?

Don't go there. Why not drag abortion or mosques into it, while you at it?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Retracted.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Retracted.

Alright. The smoking thing's touchy, that's all.

We can discuss it separately, in a different thread. Maybe have a discussion whether alder or oak is more suitable, and all that.

51 to 100 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Anyone else disappointed in the APG? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.