Lower magic doesn't necessarily mean "no magic", "low magic", or "gritty". It can, but it usually means high adventure where magic is rare and dangerous.2. Paizo themselves "try different things" within their APs and rulebooks. New subsytems, new mini-games (e.g. kingdom-building), etc. These are not intrinsically tied to high fantasy. Does this mean they shouldn't be part of the game?
The system itself is designed around high magic. The only way to make the game not high-powered fantasy is to re-write significant portions of the rules and create rules to make the monsters and classes in the book usable in your "Not really Pathfinder at all" game. You can't "add" rules and make the game low-magic because any added rules would only cover the loss of magic items. To make the game low-magic, you have to change CORE rules and assumptions.
Even Erik already said this. It is an inherent fact that all the "I hate high magic!/I want to play a game without any of the high-powered fantasy!" people refuse to accept.
Erik post 2So you aren't really playing low magic Pathfinder. You are playing a low magic game with modified Pathfinder classes. That's cool and all, but it's not "low magic" D&D or Pathfinder.Almost every game I've ever played in has had some sort of house rules involved. So I'd say that the only games meeting your definition of Pathfinder would be PFS games (and even they could be borderline, as the GM might have to make up something to deal with a character's actions, as happened in my first PFS game).
Even the APs themselves often introduce new mechanics that aren't in the Pahtfinder RPG line, so running them RAW wouldn't count as "true" Pathfinder by your definition.
The system itself is designed around high magic. The only way to make the game not high-powered fantasy is to re-write significant portions of the rules and create rules to make the monsters and classes in the book usable in your "Not really Pathfinder at all" game. You can't "add" rules and make the game low-magic because any added rules would only cover the loss of magic items. To make the game low-magic, you have to change CORE rules and assumptions.
Even Erik already said this. It is an inherent fact that all the "I hate high magic!/I want to play a game without any of the high-powered fantasy!" people refuse to accept.
Omit parts of the system. It doesn't require anything even close to a total re-write.
BTW, I play high magic Pathfinder. Golarion is high magic, mostly. I'm just making the case that it isn't as deeply embedded in the system as you're claiming.
The system itself is designed around high magic. The only way to make the game not high-powered fantasy is to re-write significant portions of the rules and create rules to make the monsters and classes in the book usable in your "Not really Pathfinder at all" game. You can't "add" rules and make the game low-magic because any added rules would only cover the loss of magic items. To make the game low-magic, you have to change CORE rules and assumptions.
Again, you OPINION is not a FACT. Given the fact that other publishers have done exactly what you say CAN'T be done, it's demonstrably false.
While the desired product is more likely to receive 3PP treatment, we are allowed to express a desire for a Paizo-treatment.
Also, the subject is touched upon, at least in part in the core rulebook and the Gamemastery Guide. So it would appear that Paizo themselves DO NOT view it as the impossible task you claim it would be.
For fans clamouring for Paizo treatments on post-apocalyptic games, pulp games, & science fiction games I guess you're going to tell them that it's impossible for Pathfinder to be adapted to those games since high-magic is hard-wired into the game?
As for Paizo, I can fully appreciate their opinion/choice to not publish a LOWER (notice the -er? Not LOW magic, LOWER than High Fantasy --- this is what I'm talking about.) magic supplement. If Paizo has other supplements that will be higher selling items, then I totally understand the business realities determining the content.
Paizo can't publish every supplement that I'd like for them to publish. Paizo won't publish some supplements they could do because there are products that better align with their business requirements/objectives. My desire for those products is still valid and if I'm not alone and enough people voice their opinion, there's always a chance Paizo's opinion might change.
And finally, I don't hate High Fantasy. I also don't love Low Fantasy. I do like having options to tinker with, however. My preferred playstyle would be, for lack of a better term, "Middle-Fantasy" as depicted more frequently within the sword-n-sorcery genre.
If you adore High Fantasy, more power to you. I'm not a huge fan of ninjas & samurai, but I know that many players are. I don't begrudge them for liking it or wanting in-game support. However, I try to weigh in with an opinion of "I'd rather see them as archetypes than classes" rather than "you CAN'T have a ninja class, it's impossible".
The certitude being bandied about by the "it just can't/doesn't work" crowd in this thread has about as much weight at my table or grounding in fact as a bag full of hot air.
The system itself is designed around high magic. The only way to make the game not high-powered fantasy is to re-write significant portions of the rules and create rules to make the monsters and classes in the book usable in your "Not really Pathfinder at all" game. You can't "add" rules and make the game low-magic because any added rules would only cover the loss of magic items. To make the game low-magic, you have to change CORE rules and assumptions.
Even Erik already said this. It is an inherent fact that all the "I hate high magic!/I want to play a game without any of the high-powered fantasy!" people refuse to accept.
Omit parts of the system. It doesn't require anything even close to a total re-write.
BTW, I play high magic Pathfinder. Golarion is high magic, mostly. I'm just making the case that it isn't as deeply embedded in the system as you're claiming.
You admitted to ignoring the CR system entirely and making your own monsters. The CR system is the very backbone of the game.
Again, you OPINION is not a FACT.The system itself is designed around high magic. The only way to make the game not high-powered fantasy is to re-write significant portions of the rules and create rules to make the monsters and classes in the book usable in your "Not really Pathfinder at all" game. You can't "add" rules and make the game low-magic because any added rules would only cover the loss of magic items. To make the game low-magic, you have to change CORE rules and assumptions.
It may not be fact, it is the opinion, or similar to the opinion, of at least one person that makes Paizo books.
Given the fact that other publishers have done exactly what you say CAN'T be done, it's demonstrably false.
I didn't say it can't be done. I said it would require re-writing the rules of the game to make it an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SYSTEM. You can't just add a few caveats here and there and make Pathfinder or D&D low magic. You can replace magic items to pretend that the bonuses from magic aren't inherent in the system, but to remove it entirely requires a redesign of the back-end.
For fans clamouring for Paizo treatments on post-apocalyptic games, pulp games, & science fiction games I guess you're going to tell them that it's impossible for Pathfinder to be adapted to those games since high-magic is hard-wired into the game?
No. Pathfinder can't or rather won't be adapted for those by Paizo for the same reason they can't do guns (reasonably). Even their major rulebooks are being constrained by the Golarion setting because the rules have to fit into Golarion - you can't have parallel rules and they want Golarion to look and behave a certain way so it is influencing their main, non setting-specific books.
If you want pulp, go buy all the 3pp d20 books that ARE pulp and ARE science fiction and ARE post-apocalyptic. They DO exist and Pathfinder is not one.
I think I misunderstand the difference between high magic and high fantasy. The terms are being used interchangeably here. I like high fantasy. Hollywood quality "crowning moments of awesome" and all that cinematic jazz. The only thing I want to tone down is magic.
I'm perfectly fine with a ranger nailing a narrow target through 300ft of underbrush in the woods, or a lone fighter cleaving orcs in two with a single blow from his longsword, but I would like to see fewer wizards with flying fortresses protected by laser monkeys wielding flaming burst lightsabers and wearing armor made of magic acid. With wings.
I want "grit" so to speak. More humanoid enemies like ogres, and trolls, and fewer outsiders. Demons and devils are all well and good, but there are SO FREAKING MANY. I understand Paizo has a soft spot for outsiders...? But dang... I mean dang.
So I'm really more in the camp that just wants fewer Christmas tree PCs, and more "mundane" monsters. Mundane to Pathfinder, but stuff that IRL would make you mess your pants.
You admitted to ignoring the CR system entirely and making your own monsters. The CR system is the very backbone of the game.
Couldn't disagree more.
CR didn't even exist for the first two editions of this game, and I completely ignore it when I am running the Runelords AP. I look at the numbers and gauge the challenge against my party.*
This is like claiming that the metric system is the very backbone of distance.
CR logic comprises maybe ten pages out of hundreds. So if my sorcerer with the aberrent bloodline is fighting a keketar protean in limbo, but I didn't use CR to award XP, somehow this is not Pathfinder?
* Well, not true, I sort of use it as a yardstick, but not as a precise measure.
Creative Director
|
I think I misunderstand the difference between high magic and high fantasy. The terms are being used interchangeably here. I like high fantasy. Hollywood quality "crowning moments of awesome" and all that cinematic jazz. The only thing I want to tone down is magic.
I'm perfectly fine with a ranger nailing a narrow target through 300ft of underbrush in the woods, or a lone fighter cleaving orcs in two with a single blow from his longsword, but I would like to see fewer wizards with flying fortresses protected by laser monkeys wielding flaming burst lightsabers and wearing armor made of magic acid. With wings.
I want "grit" so to speak. More humanoid enemies like ogres, and trolls, and fewer outsiders. Demons and devils are all well and good, but there are SO FREAKING MANY. I understand Paizo has a soft spot for outsiders...? But dang... I mean dang.
So I'm really more in the camp that just wants fewer Christmas tree PCs, and more "mundane" monsters. Mundane to Pathfinder, but stuff that IRL would make you mess your pants.
There's a very good reason there's so many outsiders. They're simply the most populous of all the monster types.
Think of it this way. Pretty much EVERYTHING in the Material Plane consists of creatures of all of the non-outsider types. Pretty much EVERYTHING that's NOT from the Material Plane, on the other hand, are outsiders.
Which is the primary reason that there are so many outsider subtypes. It's sort of unfair to think of "outsiders" as equal to, say, oozes or fey or dragons or even humanoids, when it'd be more accurate to compare those types to fire outsiders, demon outsiders, or lawful outsiders.
(...) however, there is a wide range of playstyles that Pathfinder can support that exist between the poles of High Fantasy & Low Magic.
Several in this thread have stated that anything other than high fantasy cannot be played within the Pathfinder RPG. This is patently false.
1. The sword-n-sorcery genre, which is the primary source of inspiration for the original game is not high fantasy. However, it is not low magic, either. There are several d20/OGL variants that were published during the days of 3e D&D - all using the d20 framework which is the roots/core mechanic of Pathfinder. [Conan OGL, Thieves' World, Game of Thrones, Grim Tales, etc.]
Since people (myself included) were expressing a desire for an EXPANSION/OPTION supplement, it's certainly do-able. What we were expressing a desire for was a Paizo-written book of this nature.
Lower magic doesn't necessarily mean "no magic", "low magic", or "gritty". It can, but it usually means high adventure where magic is rare and dangerous.
+1
I think that between the assumption that EVERY character will either cast spells by the dozens (or have access to items that allows them to cast/recreate dozen of spell) and playing a commoner with a stick and no chance of leveling-up, there is a world - nay, a UNIVERSE - of possibilities.
(high magic and high fantasy) are being used interchangeably here. I like high fantasy. Hollywood quality "crowning moments of awesome" and all that cinematic jazz. The only thing I want to tone down is magic.
I'm perfectly fine with a ranger nailing a narrow target through 300ft of underbrush in the woods, or a lone fighter cleaving orcs in two with a single blow from his longsword, but I would like to see fewer wizards with flying fortresses protected by laser monkeys wielding flaming burst lightsabers and wearing armor made of magic acid. With wings.
This
IMO, the magic dial in Pathfinder is leaning on 9 (at least that's a step down from late 3.5 where every fragin' prestige class came with its spell list...). I'd like to se the same game with the magic dial at 5.
'findel
CR didn't even exist for the first two editions of this game,
Which were neither Pathfinder nor 3rd edition.
and I completely ignore it when I am running the Runelords AP.
What.. I don't even...
This is like claiming that the metric system is the very backbone of distance.
A system of measurement is the backbone of getting anything put together in a standard way. Metric, imperial, or whatever else.
CR logic comprises maybe ten pages out of hundreds. So if my sorcerer with the aberrent bloodline is fighting a keketar protean in limbo, but I didn't use CR to award XP, somehow this is not Pathfinder?
CR is the basis of the SYSTEM. Your houserules are not a valid counterexample. 3.X and Pathfinder is an adversarial system. Rewards for overcoming "an adversary" needs concrete rules so a SYSTEM can exist. That is CR. Encounters have CRs so rewards can be calculated for how hard it is to overcome that encounter and in reverse characters' expected abilities influence how a CR is determined. Currently, everything is balanced based on an assumed progression of character power level. The ENTIRE SYSTEM breaks down if characters don't progress in the expected manner. This is how the European and American space agencies screwed up some expensive electronics a while back - they tried to mix measurement systems.
Okay, fine Cartigan. You're right.
Has anybody who wants to run a low magic pathfinderesque game thought about using Mongoose's d20 Conan as a base, and then replacing and/or adding in things that Pathfinder does better (such as the skill system, the CMB/CMD system, various feats, etc.).
To expand a bit on that, speaking as the publisher, I'm a lot more interested in books that help you play the Pathfinder game as it is expressed in the Core Rulebook than I am in books that fiddle with those assumptions and shift the baseline to something that a smaller number of customers are going to be interested in.
So, for example, a book like the Advanced Player's Guide or Ultimate Magic is a potential sale to every customer who bought a Core Rulebook, whereas a book that modifies the Core Rules to provide, say, a Cowboy experience is going to appeal to a significantly smaller audience.
That's not to say we can't or won't get into the niche stuff, but I want to make sure we keep the focus on books appropriate to the largest segment of the audience first.
At some point the ideas left for rulebooks will be so niche and specialized that a huge part of the audience will stop buying them. That point is probably inevitable, but I will be doing my duty to ensure that we put it off as long as humanly possible.
I think you are on point in saying that the larger part of the audience wants a higher powered game with more magic. Many of us wish that were not so, but I acknowledge it probably is.
That said, I don't think a low-magic option is anywhere near as "niche" as psionics or epic level play, for example. Just from the posts on these boards, I think a lot of people are interested in it. Reading between the lines of the posts, I think an awful lot of those people are GMs, who can probably bring their players along, even if those players are personally yearning for higher power.
I also believe that the never-ending (thusfar) trend toward higher power could, if not arrested at some point, degenerate into ridiculousness and parody. I don't think you guys have come anywhere near that yet, but some warning signs are there. By catering purely to the larger part of your audience's desire for more and more power, you may gradually lose the rest of the audience until that is all you have left.
So, my bottom line is that I hope y'all will give consideration to, some time down the road, when you've done all the necessities for the basic game, a Campaign Option type book dealing with low magic, probably about on the same timeline as you consider things like epic play and psionics. I think you'll be surprised at how much support it will receive.
Finally, not addressed to you at all, but more generally. I wish people would stop using the term "high fantasy" to substitute for "high-powered" or "high magic". I far prefer the way the terms high fantasy and low fantasy are treated in literature, to refer to the dominant themes of the book. High fantasy refers to save the world, epic-scale adventuring like LoTR. Low fantasy refers to more mundane, grittier adventures with much less lofty goals, a la Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser or Thieves' World. The terms as used in literature are utterly unrelated to the level of power or magic present and are much more accurate and less confusing, IMHO.
Actually, here are a number of descriptions of different types of fantasy as paraphrased from Hero Game's Fantasy Hero, which I had to write up for someone the other day. They 'High Fantasy' had something to do with how prevalent guns were in the setting.
Common themes:
1) Magic Almost all fantasy settings involve magic to one degree or another. Magic ranges from minor to world-shaking in potency, and with magic come fantastical beings like magic. Only the lowest of the low fantasy settings do not include magic at all.
2) Alternate Worlds Again, almost universal to Fantasy is that it isn't set upon our own world. Instead the characters are on another world, often superficially similar to our own. This isn't always the case, of course, but it is a very common thing to apply to a Fantasy Setting.
3) Low Technology Almost all Fantasy settings are set with semi-medieval technology. Of course, some settings diverge from this, having modern or even futuristic technology. On the other side, there are settings where magic has entirely replaced technology, which can lead to interesting changes to the world to say the least.
These three threads are what commonly define a Fantasy setting. You can mix and match such things, of course, but when you hear Fantasy, this is what is most commonly meant. However, there are a large number of sub-genres inside of Fantasy, each with their own complex meanings.
1) Crossworlds Fantasy In Crossworlds Fantasy, the heroes of the piece find themselves transported from one world to another, most commonly from our world to a fantasy world where they find they can become heroes in some great conflict. These worlds are often strangely similar to the original world (except when they're startlingly different) and cause confusion. A good example of this is the Chronicles of Narnia. However, Crossworlds Fantasy is something of a sub-sub-genre. A story can be told using other sub-genres in addition to this one, which makes seeing it on its own unusual.
2) Epic Fantasy Most famously represented by Lord of the Rings, Epic Fantasy features grand and romantic stories of the struggles of the heroes against the vast and often overwhelming forces of the enemy. This setting is built to focus around the heroes, for they are the only ones who matter, and everything else awaits them to finish their grand Quest and defeat the great evil. This is the focus of Epic Fantasy most of the time, the concept of a quest that the hero must achieve and the great journey it involves. Much like Crossworlds Fantasy, Epic Fantasy is often told in High, Low, or Swords & Sorcery Fantasy styles, and is rarely seen on its own.
3) High Fantasy In High Fantasy magic is powerful or common, capable of wonders that can shake the world. While in Low Fantasy spells and magic-users are rare, in High Fantasy it might often seem that you can't throw a stone without hitting a mage of some ability. In the most exceptional of situations, magic can be used to completely replace technology in High Fantasy. In High Fantasy a powerful spellcaster may even be able to bargain with a god on equal terms.
4) Low Fantasy The opposite of High Fantasy, Low Fantasy settings contain little magic, or even none at all. If it does exist it tends to be hard or dangerous to cast and have little effect. There is little to say about such a setting, but it is often blended with a Historical Fantasy game.
5) Swords & Sorcery Also known as Heroic Fantasy, Swords & Sorcery tends to focus on warriors and roguish characters for the most part. There are magic users, but they tend to be rare. These works tend to focus on characters like Conan, where the sword-wielding hero relies on his wits and physical abilities to slay the monster, save the fair maiden, and save the day. When magic users show up, they primarily tend to be villains whom the hero must defeat and their magic is slow and difficult. More often than not, if a spellcaster starts casting a spell the sword-wielding hero will cut him in half before he can finish a single incantation.
6) Urban Fantasy Last is the popular Urban Fantasy. Blending magic with modern day or futuristic themes, Urban Fantasy often involves a 'hidden history' where the monsters or magic users have hidden their existence from the world. Magic is generally subtle or doesn't get along with technology, and beasts silently prowl the night. Some of the more recent examples of this style of Fantasy are The Hollows by Kim Harrison, The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher, and a host of works by authors such as Wen Spencer, Laurell K. Hamilton and others.
I will note, again, that this is paraphrased from Fantasy Hero, and written up by me. I may have made some mistakes in writing it, but it should be mostly accurate. I will also note that Horror, Comedy and other such aren't in here because they're full genre's of their own, much like Fantasy is.
(...) By catering purely to the larger part of your audience's desire for more and more power, you may gradually lose the rest of the audience.(...)So, my bottom line is that I hope y'all will give consideration to, some time down the road, when you've done all the necessities for the basic game, a Campaign Option type book dealing with low magic, probably about on the same timeline as you consider things like epic play and psionics. I think you'll be surprised at how much support it will receive.
+1
I fully get behind Brian on this. Despite all the "if you don't want to play high magic, don't play Pathfinder" comments on these boards, the demands/suggestions for low(er) magic rules are as recurrent - if not more - than support for high level play or psionics.
'findel
By catering purely to the larger part of your audience's desire for more and more power, you may gradually lose the rest of the audience until that is all you have left
...as opposed to catering to the "Lower power" minority and losing the MAJORITY of their audience? I imagine Paizo could find better ways to kill themselves in the industry.
Before it all runs dry, can we get a hardbound Player's Companion, say a book of all the races or one of all the factions. Perhaps 12-18 companions. I really enjoy a nice heavy book like the corebook.
Any idea's on a battlesystem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlesystem or skirmish rules such as miniatures handbook or the miniatures skirmish rules. An easier approach than the previous rule models.
...as opposed to catering to the "Lower power" minority and losing the MAJORITY of their audience? I imagine Paizo could find better ways to kill themselves in the industry.By catering purely to the larger part of your audience's desire for more and more power, you may gradually lose the rest of the audience until that is all you have left
Carty, my man. Did you read the entire post? If so, you doubtless would have noted that I wasn't asking them to do anything less for the majority of their audience, just to throw some bones to the minority now and again, after taking care of the majority.
Or are you just cranky again this afternoon and looking to pick a fight? If so, I prefer pistols at dawn...
But pistols are terrible. We might as well use throwing daggers.
Any idea's on a battlesystem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlesystem or skirmish rules such as miniatures handbook or the miniatures skirmish rules. An easier approach than the previous rule models.
Ooh, ooh!!! Yes, please. I know you have some mass combat rules in Kingmaker, but those are largely designed to make it easy to resolve mass combat with just a few rules. I'd love to have something like the old 1st edition Battlesystem to appeal to guys like me who also play historical miniatures wargames. That's probably a real niche, though, so maybe some 3PP can take it on.
Wizards with flying fortresses protected by laser monkeys wielding flaming burst lightsabers and wearing armor made of magic acid. With wings.I was going to take a break from running my campaign while I brainstormed some story ideas, but I no longer have to! One question though: the part about the wings, is that the monkeys, the armor made of magic acid, or the flying fortresses. I couldn't tell.
Pfeh. A daunting challenge for some lesser adventurers, perhaps... but for our party, it's just Thursday. :)
Harms is my GM. He's also one of my players. Any and all concerned parties should probably pray for both of us, just to make sure all of the bases are covered.
Oh, and it's Mongoose, not Green Ronin :)
Thanks for the correction... I thought I might have gotten it wrong but was too lazy to walk over to my bookshelf and check.
Yeah, Brian I totally agree. I am a veteran of mass combat systems,I have played many, as far as d&d I think the battle system did a decent job, DDM skirmish 1.0 rules rocked as well as the miniatures handbook, that introduced new classes. When DDM 2.0 came out they ruined a good thing but that was during 4.0. So I guess that would be something I would definately try out. It needs a paizo approach beta testing and such, I think they would have a hit.
I agree that the Conan RPG is one of the best OGL implementations on the market. It was my go-to game for many years prior to Pathfinder. For classic "sorcery is corrupting" style games, it's still my game of choice.
That said, I think Pathfinder is superior in most regards. While I love the Conan RPG, I give the edge to Pathfinder with regards to:
1. Classes - the class improvements to the 3e classes, along with the introduction of archetypes has caused Pathfinder to leap-frog Conan here.
2. CMB/CMD - cleaner mechanics
3. Skills - since Conan utilizes the 3.x-style of skill point distribution, Pathfinder wins hands-down.
4. Presentation/content - While I love the thematic "true to the source material, no apologies" presentation of the Conan RPG, I can show the Pathfinder rulebooks to my kids and their friends without having to explain the scantily-clad/naked women occupying the page borders.
5. Adventures/world-building. I love Hyboria, but tastes vary, and I get more mileage with more players with a setting like Golarion.
I also do like the spellcasting classes in Pathfinder. I like the mechanical differentiation (Conan has only a single spell-casting class). I like the spell system (although I'm still not crazy about Vancian magic). There is clearly, no shortage of d20/OGL systems that have modified the spell system: Arcana Evolved, True Sorcery, Thieves' World, Grim Tales, etc. It's demonstrably proven that you can "vary the dial" on the power, frequency, and safety of using magic. Can I continue to use these games/systems with Pathfinder? Yes, and I do. Do I still want to see a Paizo-treatment? Abso-frakkin-lutely because if the RPG line to date is any indication, it'd be AWESOME.
I'd love to see a similar mechanic to Conan's parry/dodge show up as a Pathfinder variant. Class dodge bonus, whatever.
Finally, despite Erik's expressed desire to expand the Pathfinder rpg rather than focus on optional rules (which I can appreciate), Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat -- heck even the APG, contain optional rules. I found this little gem from the Ultimate Combat description:
"Tons of optional combat rules like called shots, armor as damage reduction, and new ways to track character health."
It would seem that the claims that "you can't do that and still be Pathfinder" are solidly built in sand. On top of a sinkhole.
A book full to the bursting of Dinosaurs/Megafauna and a few chapters about running a campaign based around them would be AWESOME.
A book full to the bursting of Dinosaurs/Megafauna and a few chapters about running a campaign based around them would be AWESOME.
Prehistoric Pathfinder... I could dig it.
I was going to take a break from running my campaign while I brainstormed some story ideas, but I no longer have to! One question though: the part about the wings, is that the monkeys, the armor made of magic acid, or the flying fortresses. I couldn't tell.
All of the above? (Sorry, I let my modifier dangle, or something like that. Fun was had though, so yay!)
@James Jacobs: I see your point. However, that does nothing to quell the riot in my soul that yearns for more of my 'mundane' beasties. How about if I said "Pretty please, with sugar on top?" :D
Re: Epic level adventuring: I do not know anyone, nor have I ever heard of anyone using epic level rules. Except online, and every character I have heard about online that was used in such campaigns were munchkined out the wazoo. Obviously I am one of thousands, and my narrow band of experience by comparison holds little weight on this topic. I can say with confidence that I will never own an epic-level rulebook, though. Not intended to be a threat, just casting my vote.
Re: Epic level adventuring: I do not know anyone, nor have I ever heard of anyone using epic level rules. Except online, and every character I have heard about online that was used in such campaigns were munchkined out the wazoo. Obviously I am one of thousands, and my narrow band of experience by comparison holds little weight on this topic. I can say with confidence that I will never own an epic-level rulebook, though. Not intended to be a threat, just casting my vote.
+1 to the Epic-play experience & the vote.
Re: Epic level adventuring: I do not know anyone, nor have I ever heard of anyone using epic level rules. Except online, and every character I have heard about online that was used in such campaigns were munchkined out the wazoo. Obviously I am one of thousands, and my narrow band of experience by comparison holds little weight on this topic. I can say with confidence that I will never own an epic-level rulebook, though. Not intended to be a threat, just casting my vote.
All I will say is, I ran an Epic Level game from 21st to 36th level, for two and a half years. Most of the PCs were NOT munchkined (save for those that were played by my group's resident powergamer) and most of them were built for the stories that could be told. It was one of the best games I have ever participated in, personally, but I can understand others not enjoying such.
Heck, I have no problem at all with the idea of a low-magic sourcebook! That's the entire point of sourcebooks in my opinion, to get the feel you want in your games. But I digress, and I will say that I've only heard of one other group in RL going epic. I shall now shut up and go back to lurking.
Seems that the universe is out to prove me wrong. Just a minute ago I happened to read through the "What do you want from Paizo in 2012?" thread... How I missed it before, I don't know, but there were several posts that asked for epic-level books.
So apparently, I'm very wrong. [shrug] It will happen anyway, sooner or later.
I'd just rather it came later is all.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Epic Rules
Psionic Rules
Monsters as PCs rules
Kingdom Building rules
Rules for various real world myth cycles
Mass Combat rules
Horror rules
Romance rules
Comedy rules
Steampunk rules
Rules on how to run high level (not Epic level) games
Character background rules
World building rules
More monster books!
Collections of NPCs
Suggestions to add to the list:
Magic item book, especially under 1000 gp permanent itemsAlternate magic casting that still works with the core classes
City/settlement building (could have lots of maps) with samples
A gods book (expanded info on worshippers/temples/mythology building)
A planes book (same ones, how to build your own, an alternate set)
Magic item alternate rules (special abilities in place of magic items)
Dungeon/cavern/building book--maps, real world examples, guidelines
Doomsday book--how to bring Ragnarok etc. to close a campaign and perhaps spring that into a new campaign
Post-apocolyptic fantasy
Monster/threat book: a completely new type of monster (an alien ecology) and rules for handling its invasion/teleporting/breaking through a thin spot arrival in the Material plane
So, my bottom line is that I hope y'all will give consideration to, some time down the road, when you've done all the necessities for the basic game, a Campaign Option type book dealing with low magic, probably about on the same timeline as you consider things like epic play and psionics. I think you'll be surprised at how much support it will receive.
This is what I was trying to say. My idea was a sort of "Adventures of Golarion" book that took the sub-headings of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, (e.g. Magic-Dead Scientific Microstate, Lost Land of the Distant North, Savage Land of Super-Science, Fog-Shrouded Land of Gothic Horror, etc.) and had a few pages on how to run campaigns based on each setting.
I also feel that low-magic is very achievable without a drastic rewriting of the rules. Just toning down the "required" magic items, would make many people happy. A slight reduction in the power of full casters would also go a long way. How about not giving bonus spells for high ability scores, or saying that any spell of 6th level or higher takes at least a full round action to cast?
Postmonster ate my post earlier, looks like.
Apparently, I am very wrong about the number of people who want epic rules. I found a thread earlier where people mentioned how they hoped 2012 would have books with this sort of stuff. So I guess this is more of me seeing only what I want to see.
I still feel like there is just as much support for a lower-magic rule set as there is for an epic ruleset, and that one shouldn't be ignored in favor of the other. There do seem to be more threads started for getting advice for low-magic than ther are for epic levels. This is ground WotC never covered (to my knowledge, and I know a guy who has pretty much every 3.5 book they ever put out), and I think it is an amazing opportunity for Paizo.
To expand a bit on that, speaking as the publisher, I'm a lot more interested in books that help you play the Pathfinder game as it is expressed in the Core Rulebook than I am in books that fiddle with those assumptions and shift the baseline to something that a smaller number of customers are going to be interested in.
So, for example, a book like the Advanced Player's Guide or Ultimate Magic is a potential sale to every customer who bought a Core Rulebook, whereas a book that modifies the Core Rules to provide, say, a Cowboy experience is going to appeal to a significantly smaller audience.
That's not to say we can't or won't get into the niche stuff, but I want to make sure we keep the focus on books appropriate to the largest segment of the audience first.
At some point the ideas left for rulebooks will be so niche and specialized that a huge part of the audience will stop buying them. That point is probably inevitable, but I will be doing my duty to ensure that we put it off as long as humanly possible.
Steampunk
High Level PlayPsionics
I may be hated for this one, but I like prestige classes for specific gods, there I said it. I love what pathfinder did with core classes making it so that people don't just multiclass for the powergame. But there is nothing wrong with multiclass or prestige classes when done right. And I love prestige classes for specific deities, especially if it is a specific order withing the hierarchy.
I would like to see a well written book on guile and subterfuge. Perfecting the role of thief in society is probaly the thing I am working on most right now. I think I have a good feel for the other classes. But thieves, they need plot twists and edginess and backstabbing and... wit!
I hope I didn't sound negative on pathfinder when I requested a low magic setting/rules. Pathfinder has amazed me and my group. I would have never thought it possible to write a gunslinger class that impressed my players. I would love to see what you do with psionics. You tend to blow away everything that has been done before. You do a very good job of giving old classes a new twist or direction that was not there before. Your sorcerer was outstanding and amazing. I never liked sorcerers before pathfinder. What you did to the cleric with their domain, a work of pure beauty. Rogue Talents were great (and looking forward to further expansion on Rogue abilities). No need to leave Fighter after gaining specialization any more, it just keeps getting better. Paladin, okay I don't like smite, but other than that great job (though smite is slowly growing on me, maybe at my age that change comes slowly to accept, not there yet). I can go on. I miss save or die, but I can see why you did what you did. My players insist that we still use save or die, guess they like rolling up new character more than the young kids. But it was their choice. Love the changes to skills. I don't like monks using magic items that improve combat, never will. But I can allow it and grit my teeth. I look at the Magus and see things I would have liked done for the wizard. Other than that Magus seems to be a great class. But I do feel the wizard needs something more, especially with all the spell changes against them. Monster Summoning was never our thing in prior editions because my good aligned wizards found it morally wrong to summon a creature with knowledge that the battle would kill them. Old summoning rules were different, so the new strategy isn't inherent in us. And Kingmaker may be the greatest adventure I have ever played. I learned alot about writing adventures from Kingmaker.
LARP rules.
For some weird reason, there never where official D&D 3.5 live-action rpg rules. It's about time to fix that.
I think that was meant ironic, right? D&D in any incarnation is not suited to a LARP conversion - many spells are not usable in a LARP, the AC/HP rules don´t carry over, to say nothing of exotic monsters. I recently was on a LARP where Drow were one of the enemies, and the gamemasters told us "they cast a sphere of darkness, it is dark in this 5ft area" - it was awful to play with that. For LARP, the best rule is "you can do what you can show" IMO. So, fly, fireball, darkness, teleport and similar magic is out. And I have seen no way so far to bring variable weapon damage over into LARP. IMO, D&D and LARP just don´t go together.
Stefan
|
LARP rules.
For some weird reason, there never where official D&D 3.5 live-action rpg rules. It's about time to fix that.
I think that was meant ironic, right? D&D in any incarnation is not suited to a LARP conversion - many spells are not usable in a LARP, the AC/HP rules don´t carry over, to say nothing of exotic monsters. I recently was on a LARP where Drow were one of the enemies, and the gamemasters told us "they cast a sphere of darkness, it is dark in this 5ft area" - it was awful to play with that. For LARP, the best rule is "you can do what you can show" IMO. So, fly, fireball, darkness, teleport and similar magic is out. And I have seen no way so far to bring variable weapon damage over into LARP. IMO, D&D and LARP just don´t go together.
Stefan
If you could have robust LARP rules for WoD, where people turn into 600kg furry killing machines and tear your guts out while others boil your blood via magic or warp reality to their whim, you could have such for D&D as well. :)
|
As far as I'm concerned, Pathfinder has the definitive set of RPG rules. I don't need anything more to present a world that my players can enjoy.
The craziest stuff my players can imagine can be resolved by either a CMB/CMD check or spending a hero point - the rest is even simpler than that. I'm prety much done with the rulebooks already.
This means we can all focus on what IMHO is the essential part of why we play : the absolutely awesome adventures!
As long as adventures will keep being published, I will keep buying them. If it says Paizo Adventure, I'm already hovering halfway over to the buy button before reading the description :)
However, there's one part of my gaming table that I've not seen highlighted yet : props.
I like to use real props in my games - things like Gamemastery Maps and mini's are very helpful, but I mean props such as the Chelish Crux, coin purses, magic scrolls, contracts, stuff like that. These items are cool, but they also have a practical use: with a physical item it's much easier to show how difficult it actually is for a character to unlock a puzzlebox, pick a pocket, forge a contract, etc.
So, my wish list:
* Adventures - lots of them! especially ones targeted at any level between level 15-25, because those are so rare.
* I'd love to see 3d paper cutout settings / stages, e.g. for events such as the battle on the Storval Stairs in AP4
* I'll settle for a Gamemastery Guide to Props / propmaking :)
However, there's one part of my gaming table that I've not seen highlighted yet : props.
I like to use real props in my games - things like Gamemastery Maps and mini's are very helpful, but I mean props such as the Chelish Crux, coin purses, magic scrolls, contracts, stuff like that. These items are cool, but they also have a practical use: with a physical item it's much easier to show how difficult it actually is for a character to unlock a puzzlebox, pick a pocket, forge a contract, etc.I'd love to see 3d paper cutout settings / stages, e.g. for events such as the battle on the Storval Stairs in AP4 - but I'll settle for a Gamemastery Guide to Props / propmaking :)
Oooh! I hadn't thought of that! +1
I removed a post. Don't make things personal.