What is the future of Paizo?


Paizo General Discussion

101 to 150 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Coltaine wrote:
Joana wrote:
Wander Weir wrote:


Did someone say earlier that they're really doing a hardcover edition of RotR with the Pathfinder upgrades? Because if that's true (and this is the first sign of confirmation I've seen) I may have to sell some blood so I can afford it.

Dude! Where have you been? :)

I'm not deaf, but I'm not an aural learner. I try to listen to books-on-tape or podcasts or something, and no matter how hard I try, I suddenly find my mind has wandered and I have no clue what's been said for the last 5 or 10 minutes.

Focalin :P

I'm just a visual rather than auditory learner. :P I'm terrible at music appreciation, too. It just turns into white noise that I subconsciously tune out after a few minutes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:

We're working on a news/announcement blog that should hit in the next 48 hours or so.

Excellent, Lion's Tap burger waiting for you next time you are in town.

Dark Archive

Erik Mona wrote:
We're working on a news/announcement blog that should hit in the next 48 hours or so.

Since I was at the PFS HQ for almost the whole Con and I did not want to ask work related questions during off work hours from the Paizo staff, I can't wait for this !

My entire "official" Con experience was the PFS HQ, sprinting to the much loved Paizo booth to get my busy GMs daily pins and then taking my very quick meal breaks to head to the Fantasy Flight both to shoot down some X-Wings.

;)


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
It just turns into white noise that I subconsciously tune out after a few minutes.

Ah, married too I see. ;)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SCSi wrote:
Joana wrote:
It just turns into white noise that I subconsciously tune out after a few minutes.
Ah, married too I see. ;)

Favorited. OMG, favorited.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
sieylianna wrote:


So my post in the other thread projecting 30-50% recycled content was too generous, it's looking more like 80%. Maybe we'll get lucky and they will have an open call for submissions and we'll see some outside the box thinking. Otherwise, UE is not in my future.

Your original estimate is far more likely to be the case. This book will be more than 400 pages (so larger than most of our other books), and will contain more than 50% new content. There will be a TON of new items in this book.

A whole ton? That...well, that's just ludicrous. The logistics of shipping 2000-pound books are absurd. I'd suggest revisiting the plan entirely. Is the book perchance a compilation of 400+ stone tablets, held together by some high end titanium coil? I salute your love of trees and the environment, but it simply won't do. How do you propose we transport said book? I don't have a crane, or a pulley system with the appropriate counterweights; I'm also concerned that my players, iconic members of the gaming demographic's stereotype--misanthropic albinos that skulk in filthy, windowless comic shops by day, and their parents' basement by night, sweating off-brand Mountain Dew while resolving deep, unacknowledged social anxieties through unofficial PvP combat, wherein the losers of said combats are exiled into the hostile environment outside of the aforementioned comic shop until such a time when they acquire nourishment for the party, which, due to a most unusual and deadly allergy to nature and the outside world, must be purchased from a food establishment that, with the magic of modern chemistry, has found clever ways to make such wonderful commonplaces as pizza, chinese, hamburgers, and other various delectables entirely from fat byproducts; failure to purchase the appropriate quantity of food is punishable by a ritualistic killing of said player through the death of his character, often leading to social travesties that, upon revealing themselves to the public world, conjured such colorful depictions of the Tabletop gaming industry as were touted by concerned parent leagues across the nation in the eighties, and ultraconservative religious groups in the nineties--won't be able to turn the pages and use the information.

On Archetypes and balance: I am of the opinion that, should you choose an archetype, you do not have to go the "all-or-nothin'" route. If you like the third level ability of a given archetype, but none of the others, I see nothing wrong with selecting only that one, and continuing on your merry way; the differences it will make in the long run are so negligible that it's silly to argue over. I'll even let my players choose two archetypes, so long as the abilities the archetypes are replacing do not overlap.

PrCs and limitations: Depending on the level of the game, and the nature of the prestige class, I lower prerequisites based on BAB and skill ranks so players can step into their intended prestige class more easily. A prime example is the Rage Prophet: the Rage Prophet is a wonderful blend for Barbarians and Oracles, but in the scope of things, allowing a player to take the class at lvl 3 is no different than taking it at lvl 7 since, by lvl 20, they'll have the same number of spells, barbarian abilities, and oracle mysteries and revelations, regardless of when they started to level in Rage Prophet.

On the word "Ultimate," and further publications by Paizo:
Paizo is a business in an industry that relies on providing generic(generic in the stuffy English major sense; something that asserts tried and true conventions of a particular genre) fantasy experiences to the consumer. If the "Complete" books from the 3.X days are any indicator, the name of the product doesn't necessarily reflect the product's nature so much as how the producer wants the product to be perceived. Paizo's writers can fling the word Ultimate around just like DnD used the word "complete," which is the same way that retailers use the words "NEW," or "IMPROVED," or "FREE." It's a marketing tool. They will revisit magic, magic based classes, and magic-related goodies (like Golem add-ons (since the UM only introduced the Heart and Brain, when it could have found ways to play with old beliefs about the humours and the organs) or spell duels (which lacked the dynamics I wanted, and were far too formal. We've all seen that Harry Potter movie where Gand--Dumbledore and Voldemort slash spells at each other, and there is no reason we can't make our pen-and-paper spells duels as mechanically interesting. There again, my idea of a fun spell system for a duel would be inspired by the periodic table and chemical reactions)), and, unless they find themselves swept up in TSR and Wizard's wake, playing the pheonix with their products, Paizo will have no choice but to release books that are mechanically "Ultimate <subject> II," even if they are thematically elsewhere. Like the Ultimate equipment book, the new release will update the Adventurer's Armory (was that the name of the original?), and provide new equipment and rules, but it will fundamentally be more of the same. In Paizo's case, that isn't bad, I'm quite tickled by their product, but genres can only act generically.

Whoo. Watch out for those asides.


SCSi wrote:
Joana wrote:
It just turns into white noise that I subconsciously tune out after a few minutes.
Ah, married too I see. ;)

lol Favorited.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Hobbun wrote:
I know this is a little off-topic, but has a podcast been done for the Pathfinder Rules Q&A from Saturday? I unfortunately missed it due to conflict with another event.

Neither Perram nor I caught this one. Hopefully Chronicles did. Erik mentioned two other podcasts recorded the Future seminar, so you are looking at two or three other shows that may be able to help you out. I can tell you we recorded the Writing for Paizo and Freelancing for Super Genius Games.

Joana wrote:
I'm not deaf, but I'm not an aural learner. I try to listen to books-on-tape or podcasts or something, and no matter how hard I try, I suddenly find my mind has wandered and I have no clue what's been said for the last 5 or 10 minutes.

That's so much like me with reading, at least most fiction. I know my eyes are going over the words but I am lost in thought and nothing is penetrating.


Ryan. Costello wrote:


Neither Perram nor I caught this one. Hopefully Chronicles did. Erik mentioned two other podcasts recorded the Future seminar, so you are looking at two or three other shows that may be able to help you out. I can tell you we recorded the Writing for Paizo and Freelancing for Super Genius Games.

I actually was at the Future of Paizo seminar. :)

As for the writing seminar, where it would be great to work for Paizo or another game company, I don't hold myself in such high regards for the talent necessary.

Although I may check it out when I have the time. Thanks.


Joana wrote:
I'm terrible at music appreciation, too. It just turns into white noise that I subconsciously tune out after a few minutes.

I suggest singing along!

Anything from the HPLHS is perfect for that :)


Joana wrote:
I'm just a visual rather than auditory learner. :P I'm terrible at music appreciation, too. It just turns into white noise that I subconsciously tune out after a few minutes.

Obviously, I'm a visual learner as well. If I have any chance at remembering someone's name, I have to see it written down.

I'm not 100% deaf, fortunately, but deaf enough so that when I got hearing aids for the first time (at 20) I was amazed at how different all the music in the world sounded. It weird to actually hear words instead of a jumble of nonsense. It was also pretty amusing to discover that most of "Louie Louie" actually was exactly what I thought it was.

Ummm...on topic. I think I'd be okay with Ultimate Equipment, but I'd be more inclined to just stick with the pdf.


Fepriest wrote:
On Archetypes and balance: I am of the opinion that, should you choose an archetype, you do not have to go the "all-or-nothin'" route. If you like the third level ability of a given archetype, but none of the others, I see nothing wrong with selecting only that one, and continuing on your merry way; the differences it will make in the long run are so negligible that it's silly to argue over. I'll even let my players choose two archetypes, so long as the abilities the archetypes are replacing do not overlap.

So you're telling me that if I play in your campaigns, you'd let my Sorcerer take the Crossblooded Bloodline archetype, where I could select everything I wanted and choose not to take the archetype's drawbacks (diminished spellcasting is technically an ability granted by the archetype after all)? Wow, sir, you are a very kind GM! A GM with a poor eye for balance, but kind nevertheless. To be fair, this is an extreme example of what we're talking about, but a perfect example nevertheless of why you should not mess with the packaging.

Oh, and you do realize the overlapping archetypes rule is a core rule mentioned in every product that has ever included archetypes, right?

Quote:
PrCs and limitations: Depending on the level of the game, and the nature of the prestige class, I lower prerequisites based on BAB and skill ranks so players can step into their intended prestige class more easily. A prime example is the Rage Prophet: the Rage Prophet is a wonderful blend for Barbarians and Oracles, but in the scope of things, allowing a player to take the class at lvl 3 is no different than taking it at lvl 7 since, by lvl 20, they'll have the same number of spells, barbarian abilities, and oracle mysteries and revelations, regardless of when they started to level in Rage Prophet.

You have incredibly nice (or naive) players. I can promise you that if you lowered the prerequisites of a Prestige Class I wanted, after reaching the max Prestige Class level, there's a good chance that I would NOT simply go back to Oracle / Barbarian. After all, I don't really care about most of those class features; I traded them away for my Prestige Class, after all. Instead, since a Rage Prophet is heavily built around melee fighting, I might use my free levels you gave me in a level or two of Fighter for extra feats to buff my damage; maybe Vivisectionist Alchemist for some Sneak Attack / Strength and Natural Armor mutagen. Oooh, Rage Chemyst, so I could pop a mutagen while raging so I could rage while I rage. Nice.


Souphin wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Souphin wrote:

I was hoping for an Ultimate Divine

I'm not too interested in another Ultimate Magic nor Ultimate Combat but I'd buy an APG2 is it has the same format of the APG but with new content. By same format I mean table of content stay the same. Races, classed, prestige class, feats, rule updates, magical items, spell index, spells.

The APG was really good and packed a lot of stuff in it and paizo shouldn't not deliver the same amount in order to win product of the year next year

I'd rather not. We already have 18 base classes. I really think we shouldn't add many more...maybe two or three along the way. Having a whole book devoted to adding more classes right now?
I totally agree, we don't need any new classes. We already have casters using each mind attribute and spell system. So the new classes in the APG can be removed and are not needed but I'd like to see more flexibility in the current classes, mostly sorcerers, oracles, clerics. Other classes getting a spell recall system like the Magnus, multi-classing feats to allow better balancing, and allowing people to play different roles with their class pretty many items that need to be fixed in the system.

Well, not every combination of mind attribute and spell system. For example, I thought that they missed a trick by failing to make the Witch as a Wis-based arcane caster. Oh sure, it would've been word -- I mean wyrd -- gosh darn it, I mean weird! but that's a witch for ya, so I thought it would've suited.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
I don't like how weapons and armour have been handled in PFRPG books. In fact, I threw out everything in my house rules and made my own list of weapons and armour.

If you're still around, what was it you didn't like, and what did you change? If you've already made a post on this elsewhere feel free to point me to it.

I like seeing how other people play with rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Deanoth wrote:
Don't remember Dark Sun from back in 2E do ya :)

Never got to peruse any of the 2nd ed Darksun material. My only encounter with Psionics from 2nd ed was the Complete Psionics Handbook which only had 1 class in it.

kaeyoss wrote:

Classic as in what was in the Expanded Psionics Handbook:

Psion: a bit like the psionic equivalent of the wizard. Gets a lot of psi-powers and usually focus on one of the psionic disciplines.
Wilder: a bit like the psionic equivalent of the sorcerer. Doesn't get a lot of psi-power, but has raw power. Wild surge lets you overcharge powers.
Psychic Warrior: a bit like the psionic equivalent of a magus. Gets some psi-powers and combat abilities.
Soulknife: A bit like the psionic equivalent of a fighter. Has the mindblade, a weapon created by his own mind, and most class abilities focus on using and improving on this mindblade.

Ok that makes sense I went by my definition not by your definition hence my confusion as I said above the 2nd ed Psionicist was my go to "classic" Psionic wielding class full of goodness.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
We're working on a news/announcement blog that should hit in the next 48 hours or so.

Thank you. I do appreciate your responses. Hopefully, we can get you that burger and beer at Lion's Tap this fall-ish season.


Golden-Esque wrote:
Fepriest wrote:
On Archetypes and balance: I am of the opinion that, should you choose an archetype, you do not have to go the "all-or-nothin'" route. If you like the third level ability of a given archetype, but none of the others, I see nothing wrong with selecting only that one, and continuing on your merry way; the differences it will make in the long run are so negligible that it's silly to argue over. I'll even let my players choose two archetypes, so long as the abilities the archetypes are replacing do not overlap.
So you're telling me that if I play in your campaigns, you'd let my Sorcerer take the Crossblooded Bloodline archetype, where I could select everything I wanted and choose not to take the archetype's drawbacks (diminished spellcasting is technically an ability granted by the archetype after all)? Wow, sir, you are a very kind GM! A GM with a poor eye for balance, but kind nevertheless. To be fair, this is an extreme example of what we're talking about, but a perfect example nevertheless of why you should not mess with the packaging.

How does he not get the drawbacks? If someone only took Crossblooded Bloodline, they would also get the drawbacks because that particular Archetype is different than all the others in that it doesn't replace anything, it actually lets you choose which ability from which bloodline you would like to have.

I totally agree with what that poster is saying. Treat archetype class features as WotC Alternate Features where you trade on a one-to-one basis. Someone has yet to prove to me how Archetypes are Player-Friendly, because all my players have reacted rather hostile towards archetypes. They feel it doesn't let them optimize at all and they're shoehorned into losing class features they don't want to lose in replacement for one, maybe two, features they do want to have.

Like my example above, one of my players has a grapple-themed monk. He wants the 1st level ability ONLY in Manuever Master. He does not want to lose practically ALL his other monk abilities for that one feature that will grant him the kind of Monk he desires. Sadly, he stuck with regular ol' Monk. I think it's a shame Paizo created a subsystem of classes with no room for customization at all.

This is where PrC are fun for my players. They know what they're getting into and they can choose how far in it they want to go and stop at anytime. Not so with archetypes.

Archetypes = NPC friendly. That's it. It definitely helps DMs make variable types of NPCs of the same class, but Player-Friendly it is not.

The solution is simple: Let them choose. If, for example, my friend chose the 1st-level Maneuver Master feature, he'd take it, have it replace whatever it's meant to replace (Flurry of Blows, in this case) and then continue with the rest of the class acquiring his wholeness of body, diamond body, etc. Another solution is for Paizo to allow a feat, call it "Substitute Feature" feat where each time you take the feat you can choose any archetype feature and get all its benefits (and drawbacks).

Simple.

I don't see the game imbalance in that at all. Instead, what Paizo created, was something more akin to 4E's shoehorning "Paragon Paths", which no player really desires.


Razz wrote:


How does he not get the drawbacks? If someone only took Crossblooded Bloodline, they would also get the drawbacks because that particular Archetype is different than all the others in that it doesn't replace anything, it actually lets you choose which ability from which bloodline you would like to have.

I totally agree with what that poster is saying. Treat archetype class features as WotC Alternate Features where you trade on a one-to-one basis. Someone has yet to prove to me how Archetypes are Player-Friendly, because all my players have reacted rather hostile towards archetypes. They feel it doesn't let them optimize at all and they're shoehorned into losing class features they don't want to lose in replacement for one, maybe two, features they do want to have.

Like my example above, one of my players has a grapple-themed monk. He wants the 1st level ability ONLY in Manuever Master. He does not want to lose practically ALL his other monk abilities for that one feature that will grant him the kind of Monk he desires. Sadly, he stuck with regular ol' Monk. I think it's a shame Paizo created a subsystem of classes with no room for customization at all.

This is where PrC are fun for my players. They know what they're getting into and they can choose how far in it they want to go and stop at anytime. Not so with archetypes.

Archetypes = NPC friendly. That's it. It definitely helps DMs make variable types of NPCs of the same class, but Player-Friendly it is not.

The solution is simple: Let them choose. If, for example, my friend chose the 1st-level Maneuver Master feature, he'd take it, have it replace whatever it's meant to replace (Flurry of Blows, in this case) and then continue with the rest of the class acquiring his wholeness of body, diamond body, etc. Another solution is for Paizo to allow a feat, call it "Substitute Feature" feat where each time you take the feat you can choose any archetype feature and get all its benefits (and drawbacks).
...

For me the Archetypes are PC friendly, Heck I play PCs using these acrhetypes. There are a few standard laws of the universe one of them is Everything is Give AND Take, get over it.

Your players claim their is no customization, well the Archetype IS the customization of the Class it is attached to. And some of those archetype abilities eat up more than 1 class feature or level of it. For me I consider the archetypes balanced, usable and fit the theme that they represent, sure I dislike losing a few class features I want. but you know what, Paizo did it for a reason.


Razz wrote:
Big Block of Text that does not take into account the quoted material.

When I quoted Fepriest, he specifically said that he allows his player's to essentially dissect Archetypes, allowing them to pick and choose which abilities they gained from the Archetype. Technically speaking, if you read the Cross-Blooded Archetype, the benefits and the drawbacks are completely separate abilities within the Archetype, so under his rules, I could take all of the benefits (picking and choosing between bloodline powers) without any of the negatives (diminished spellcasting and -2 Will). I was sarcastically pointing out why allowing people to pick all of the caramels out of an archetype's box of chocolates is a poor choice to make as a GM. The ironic part about it is that Sorcerer Bloodline abilities tend to be fairly weak as it is, as their power comes from spellcasting and not from the bloodlines (a reason why the Cross-Blood bloodline is pretty lackluster) so allowing this change is not a big deal at all in terms of balance. Such action would, of course, lead to a world where every sorcerer is a mutt.

Quote:
I totally agree with what that poster is saying. Treat archetype class features as WotC Alternate Features where you trade on a one-to-one basis. Someone has yet to prove to me how Archetypes are Player-Friendly, because all my players have reacted rather hostile towards archetypes. They feel it doesn't let them optimize at all and they're shoehorned into losing class features they don't want to lose in replacement for one, maybe two, features they do want to have.

From what I have noticed, 'optimizer' never take archetypes for one simple reason; the trade off is never good enough for them. I can't think of a single archetype in the books that isn't balanced; most involve trading away the generalist abilities of the base class for more specific abilities. You trade some spellcasting for more flexible bloodlines, you trade specialization with a bunch of weapons for just one or with a specific way of fighting. In my own groups, about half of the players use archetypes (2 / 5). Two of the three that do not are probably like your players; they don't want fair, balanced trades, they want trades that give away a little bit but give them a lot more power in return. They want 'no-brainer' options; things that you look at and say 'Well, duh! I have to take that!' My other two players see fair trades and accept them because, and this part is important, THE TRADES MAKE SENSE FOR THEIR CHARACTERS.

Best example is our combat-specialized Cleric; if you look at the new Crusader archetype, it's an awesome trade. You give up a domain and one spell per level and in return gain six bonus feats and a special metamagic-like ability. Cleric is an extremely feat-starved class, so it's a very good trade in the long run if you're looking to specialize in fighting. However, the class didn't give him the one thing he really wanted (Fighter base attack bonus, which would be overpowered for a full spellcasting class to get, in my opinion), so he decided that the fair trade was not worth it.

Now, take my two Archetype-using players, who are not optimizers. One is an Investigator Rogue, the other is a Mysterious Stranger Gunslinger. A lot of people look at the Rogue and go, "Great Scotts! You traded away Trapfinding? BUT WHY ITS SO GOOD?" Well, she'll say, being good at Perception and Sense Motive makes more sense for my character. Guess what? It's a perfectly logical statement; do what makes sense for your character and things will work out. So what, the party doesn't have Trapfinding. I just won't throw magical traps at them. A good GM encourages players to make choices that define their characters; they don't try to pidgeonhold them to a specific composition. These two players love their characters because they love the feel of their classes, and to me, it sounds like your ground is too concerned with the myth of battle efficiency.

And it really is a myth, because we as GMs build the encounters, we build the worlds. If we want to design a creature that is completely immune to every possible option the players can throw at it, we can, and there isn't a thing the optimizers can do about it; in my experience, they tend to throw temper tantrums about their perfect combos not working. At least, that is the BIGGEST reason why I hate people who think they 'need' to optimize in this game. No you don't, a good GM will cater the encounters to your ground. The only thing you 'need' to do is show up at my table every week on time, maybe with a bag of chips or s six pack or something.


Razz wrote:

How does he not get the drawbacks? If someone only took Crossblooded Bloodline, they would also get the drawbacks because that particular Archetype is different than all the others in that it doesn't replace anything, it actually lets you choose which ability from which bloodline you would like to have.

I totally agree with what that poster is saying. Treat archetype class features as WotC Alternate Features where you trade on a one-to-one basis. Someone has yet to prove to me how Archetypes are Player-Friendly, because all my players have reacted rather hostile towards archetypes. They feel it doesn't let them optimize at all and they're shoehorned into losing class features they don't want to lose in replacement for one, maybe two, features they do want to have.

Like my example above, one of my players has a grapple-themed monk. He wants the 1st level ability ONLY in Manuever Master. He does not want to lose...

My players love archetypes. However, I also create custom archetypes all the time, from practice creating custom archetypes for my Kaidan publications.

For crossblooded sorcerer or ranger scout, you wouldn't gain something those archetypes don't have. Ranger scout gets no divine spells, so making an adjusted archetype still means no divine spells. If you want divine spells then never take a scout, or an altered scout.

Otherwise I find creating new archetypes, easy-peasy.


cynarion wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
I don't like how weapons and armour have been handled in PFRPG books. In fact, I threw out everything in my house rules and made my own list of weapons and armour.

If you're still around, what was it you didn't like, and what did you change? If you've already made a post on this elsewhere feel free to point me to it.

I like seeing how other people play with rules.

For weapons, I started with the core rules. I threw out all weapons that are just "monk versions" of stuff we already have. This just in: The Kama is out!

Monks get to treat local weaponised farming implements (like sickles) as monk weapons.

Then I re-evaluated all weapons and assigned them categories more in line with their utility. (That is a fancy way of saying that a lot of weapons that don't belong in exotic weapons were turned into martial or even simple ones. And some martial ones were "simplified"). Examples: greatclubs are simple weapons. Hand crossbows are simple weapons. Spiked chains are martial. So are whips).

I added some extra weapons from a few Paizo sources. Meteor hammers get paid overtime because they are used for all the weird chain weapons. I also added some own homebrew weapons like a dwarven greathammer.

Some of the extra weapons from Paizo I added in, but changed - Usually reverted them to before Paizo fixed them till they were broke.

Same goes for armour. Main additions are some of the armours from Paizo, but fixed back. Field plate gets its +8/+2.

And I made basic, "non-magical" versions of "super armour" like celestial armour. They're still made using magic, but are not magic. And they're hella expensive.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Archetypes are totally player-friendly. They're just not munchkin-friendly.


Golden-Esque wrote:


When I quoted Fepriest, he specifically said that he allows his player's to essentially dissect Archetypes, allowing them to pick and choose which abilities they gained from the Archetype. Technically speaking, if you read the Cross-Blooded Archetype, the benefits and the drawbacks are completely separate abilities within the Archetype, so under his rules, I could take all of the benefits (picking and choosing between bloodline powers) without any of the negatives (diminished spellcasting and -2 Will). I was sarcastically pointing out why allowing people to pick all of the caramels out of an archetype's box of chocolates is a poor choice to make as a GM. The ironic part about it is that Sorcerer Bloodline abilities tend to be fairly weak as it is, as their power comes from spellcasting and not from the bloodlines (a reason why the Cross-Blood bloodline is pretty lackluster) so allowing this change is not a big deal at all in terms of balance. Such action would, of course, lead to a world where every sorcerer is a mutt.

Totally not what I got from that, I still don't get it. I'm reading the archetype. It's a special case where you're not trading in a host of class features for a host of different class features, you're choosing abilities from 2 bloodlines for a drawback. I'm pretty sure his players are suffering the drawback. I don't see why not.

Golden-Esque wrote:
From what I have noticed, 'optimizer' never take archetypes for one simple reason; the trade off is never good enough for them. I can't think of a single archetype in the books that isn't balanced; most involve trading away the generalist abilities of the base class for more specific abilities. You trade some spellcasting for more flexible bloodlines, you trade specialization with a bunch of weapons for just one or with...

You seem to be ignoring my examples. So I'll ask you a question then after I clear things up again.

One of my players has a grapple-themed monk. He wants everything to make his monk the master grappler. Here comes the Maneuver Master. The 1st-level ability lets him trade Flurry of Blows for Flurry of Maneuvers, which is perfect for his Monk to be better at grappling (btw, this is not for min-maxing, it's for RP purpose as well) and is willing to trade in Flurry of Blows for it.

The problem is, he does not want to lose, and doesn't agree that he HAS to lose, Still Mind, Slow Fall, Purity of Body, Diamond Body and Quivering Palm for the rest of the features. He doesn't really care about the rest of those alternate features and feels his character is better expressed keeping the original features. But according to Archetypes, you HAVE NO CHOICE but to be stuck with them. Conclusion, not player friendly since the game is, after all, based on giving players the options and not hardcore locking them into anything they don't want.

How is that customization? It's shoehorning and it's not there for balance because I'd like to see a character put together with my suggestion and be more imbalanced than the umpteenth other killer combos I've seen when actually following the rules. What you have not offered was a solution to the problem (which in my opinion I see as a problem) other than belittling what I have proved to be a problem (not just my players, but clearly someone else here and their players have the same issue).

Not asking for Paizo to change the rules, but to consider a compromise via a feat cost.


Razz wrote:
...Instead, what Paizo created, was something more akin to 4E's shoehorning "Paragon Paths", which no player really desires.

I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong with regard to your central objection - since it's clearly not what you and your players want. Nonetheless, it's not the case that Paizo are blithely producing some mechanic which nobody wants. I'm a player who prefers less customisation and fewer individualised options. In my experience, universal truths rarely are.


Razz wrote:
Totally not what I got from that, I still don't get it. I'm reading the archetype. It's a special case where you're not trading in a host of class features for a host of different class features, you're choosing abilities from 2 bloodlines for a drawback. I'm pretty sure his players are suffering the drawback. I don't see why not.

In some cases, they are not. For example, he has already stated that he would give the Hospitaler Paladin the modified Channel Energy and the super healing aura without giving them the major downside to the class (the reduced Smite Evil progression). By allowing you to pick and choose your abilities in this manner, you ARE basically ignoring the drawbacks of the archetype. The Sorcerer example was extreme, as the ability that balances the archetype was actually 'drawbacks.'

Quote:
Grapple Monk Stuff

The reason I skipped your comment is, because, I feel like your player made the appropriate choice for his character. He saw one thing he wanted, but ultimately he did not want to take the whole package, so he kept the standard Monk. That is how archetypes were intended to function. I don't understand how you don't think this isn't customizing, as you are picking which set of abilities you want. The word "archetype" implies that the character fits a theme to begin with; I think what you (and perhaps your players) really wanted was more Quiggong Monk archetypes, where you trade and take what you want. The point is that, like other people have said, making choices, especially hard choices, is interesting. Having a specific talent-like build, World of Warcraft style, is not interesting, because every grapple monk is going to take all of the grapple abilities. With archetypes, not all monks will decide to take Maneuver Master, because they don't like all of the trades they have to make.

As an aside, I don't know why your player doesn't want the Maneuver Master archetype. With a little bit of prying, the archetype is perfect for him. That archetype single-handily reduces the Monk's MAD, gives you a double-roll to confirm your checks ability, and lets you grapple, pin, damage, and move your target in a single turn. It's wicked powerful, and most Monk Archetypes are worth it (such as this one) because they usually trade most of the monk's less-powerful class features. And besides, if your player takes the Quiggong Monk archetype, they can basically trade all of the class features they DON'T want to get back the class features they DO want that they traded away for the Maneuver Master archetype.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Golden-Esque wrote:
And besides, if your player takes the Quiggong Monk archetype, they can basically trade all of the class features they DON'T want to get back the class features they DO want that they traded away for the Maneuver Master archetype.

+100% this. (Good observation, Golden-Esque.)

Thanks to the qinggong monk archetype, many monk archetypes are actually "trade out whichever X number of monk abilities you don't want" archetypes, no matter what they claim they replace.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
Archetypes are totally player-friendly. They're just not munchkin-friendly.

The poor Oompa-Loompas...

Sovereign Court

drkfathr1 wrote:
Serendipity wrote:
Ultimate equipment? I thought the other poster was joking.
Nope, it's true. They want to pull in all the various equipment, weapons, armor, etc. from the other books so that it's all in one place, while adding new armor, weapons, etc. They want it to be the definitive volume on gear. And it will have lots of new magic items, organized by slot. With new magical properites for weapons and armor too.

Im good with that. Provided they /Old Argument: Increase the Monk Weapon list. /End Old Argument


Golden-Esque wrote:
Razz wrote:
Big Block of Text that does not take into account the quoted material.

...You have incredibly nice (or naive) players. I can promise you that if you lowered the prerequisites of a Prestige Class I wanted, after reaching the max Prestige Class level, there's a good chance that I would NOT simply go back to Oracle / Barbarian. After all, I don't really care about most of those class features; I traded them away for my Prestige Class, after all. Instead, since a Rage Prophet is heavily built around melee fighting, I might use my free levels you gave me in a level or two of Fighter for extra feats to buff my damage; maybe Vivisectionist Alchemist for some Sneak Attack / Strength and Natural Armor mutagen. Oooh, Rage Chemyst, so I could pop a mutagen while raging so I could rage while I rage...

...When I quoted Fepriest, he specifically said that he allows his player's to essentially dissect Archetypes, allowing them to pick and choose which abilities they gained from the Archetype. Technically speaking, if you read the Cross-Blooded Archetype, the benefits and the drawbacks are completely separate abilities within the Archetype, so under his rules, I could take all of the benefits (picking and choosing between bloodline powers) without any of the negatives (diminished spellcasting and -2 Will)...

...In some cases, they are not. For example, he has already stated that he would give the Hospitaler Paladin the modified Channel Energy and the super healing aura without giving them the major downside to the class (the reduced Smite Evil progression). By allowing you to pick and choose your abilities in this manner, you ARE basically ignoring the drawbacks of the archetype. The Sorcerer example was extreme, as the ability that balances the archetype was actually 'drawbacks...

Look at you, putting words in my posts. Why don't you let me tell you how I would handle the Crossblooded and Hospitaler archetypes, before you start trying to tell me, and the rest of the board, what I'd do. There is an old adage, something about what happens when we assume, and you're making both of us look foolish by proving its wisdom.

Hospitaler: You're not actually replacing any abilities with the Hospitaler. You're altering core class features and shuffling the mechanics of the class to be more healing-centric. If a player went down that path, they'd absolutely have to follow the Hospitaler's Smite. As for the Channel Positive energy feature, when said player hits fourth level, it could elect to take that Channel positive energy, or it could keep the original one, or, for all I care, it could gain a domain as per the Sacred Servant's Spell's ability at fourth level. Same goes for the Aura of Healing.
That said, I do see your point in your example. I never provided a specific example of what I meant, so it makes sense you'd jump to that conclusion. If I let them choose things willy-nilly, It'd be a lopsided experience; luckily, I don't, so it's a moot point.

Crossblooded: that's an all or nothin', since, once again, it's altering core class features. When a player decides to play a Crossblooded, it's an all or nothing modification; the drawbacks are inherent from lvl 1.

When I was thinking about switching out abilities, the Barbarian archetype "superstitious" came to mind. I like the first ability, Sixth Sense (replaces trap sense), just fine, but the Keen Senses ability is not worth Damage Reduction to me. Not electing to take Keen Senses doesn't make my barbarian suddenly overpowered, or the Sixth Sense so good as to be unbalanced, so mechanically, what problem is there with only switching out the one class feature?

As for Rage Prophet: Let's say you take Rage Prophet to 10 using the system I allow. You can absolutely branch out and multiclass, with your whopping one revelation and one rage power. You might have more, if you wanted to spend all your feats that way; you'd have 7 (8 for you human folk) feats at your disposal to do with what you'd like as a level 13 (2 barb, 1 oracle, 10 rage) character. And, the way I go about it, you could multiclass a little more freely, since you don't have to worry about pumping up your BAB from the get-go. You miss out on class features that could play to your strengths in the process, but, like you pointed out, the alchemical bonuses you could get from becoming an alchemist could really help you out. You'd never make it to Master Chymist in a 20th level progression, but if that throws you too far off, there is always those seven feats Fighter could give you. Either way, you're still just as strong as you would be if you followed Paizo's original BAB and Skill prereqs. It's no different than if you did it their way.
Following the standard rules, you only need to take 2 levels of barbarian, and one level of oracle to get the appropriate casting prereqs and rage power prereq. The minimum level you can get into Rage Prophet is lvl 7, so that leaves four levels where you can take a Full BAB class of your choice, and 3 levels left to multiclass before lvl 20; alternatively, you could get in at lvl 8 and take another 3/4's BAB class up to lvl 4, leaving you with 2 levels left to multiclass before lvl 20; or, if you're feeling particularly keen on multiclassing, you could saunter your way into rage prophet your 9th lvl, after spending the last 6 in a 1/2 BAB class, leaving you one level left to multiclass before lvl 20. In each case, you have seven levels which you can use to multiclass, assuming you're not just taking lvl 1 in a whole bunch of 3/4's and 1/2's.

...I suppose it was too much for me to hope that I wouldn't return to that dead horse, our old friend assumption, but I assure you that my decision to make a hypocrite of myself is only to continue along that same trend of postulation we've established, where we put words in each other's posts. Right now, I can only assume that you're saying to yourself:

"Self, I really do have seven levels to multiclass according to the normal progression of Rage Prophet. Why does that seem so fam--by Jove! FePriest, in his mathematical GENIUS, his unparalled skill at basic arithmetic, has come onto something. Capital! Capital! His rarefied system of prestige classing is mechanically no different than Paizo's own! If we followed that beautiful system FePriest graced us with, we would end up with the exact same number of mutliclassing opportunities! 7! My God. He balanced the books. Here is a man that can balance the books. Capital! If only we could find a way to place such a humble man in a position of authority, perhaps our international markets would thrive and boom, and I wouldn't have to neglect the children their meals in order to purchase my Pathfinder materials in this ghoulish economy!"

But in all serious. We're all DM's. We all know that it comes down to our determination of what's fair, which mean's it's all arbitrary. The books have some pretty smart rules, but they're ultimately guidelines. If I fudge two or three, it isn't hurting the overall experience so long as I weigh the numbers. My parties still fear appropriate challenge ratings, cry when they find out they've activated a pressure plate in a dungeon, and try their hardest to avoid my villains when they pillage the cities they're hiding in.

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, what?

I thought this was a thread about the future of Paizo.

Let's take all non-future-of-Paizo talk somewhere else, please.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So how about that Paizo? What a future!

I'm really intrigued by the direction of the RPG books. It seems like the plan is to cover one fundamental are at a time to its extreme.

Liberty's Edge

I'd really like to see Paizo produce some basic support for other genres using the Pathfinder rules, especially a Sword & Planet source book.


I would love more material. The thought would probably make the creative side of the business wince and perhaps make the editors slit their wrists, but I'd love it if the modules/companion/campaign setting lines were all monthly releases as well. Or if the page count on each were boosted. There are a number of released products which felt just a little too crowded to me - the Absalom sourcebook being the most significant but I also think the 'lost cities/megadungeons/etcetera' line of products would benefit from having a few extra pages per city/megadungeon/empire/whatever.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I would love more material... I'd love it if the modules/companion/campaign setting lines were all monthly releases as well.

I'm about tapped out, myself. I can't even keep up w/ all the stuff I get now through my subscriptions. If Paizo upped the releases, I'd have to reconsider said subscriptions. Just speaking as a sole customer; not for anyone else.


BenS wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I would love more material... I'd love it if the modules/companion/campaign setting lines were all monthly releases as well.
I'm about tapped out, myself. I can't even keep up w/ all the stuff I get now through my subscriptions. If Paizo upped the releases, I'd have to reconsider said subscriptions. Just speaking as a sole customer; not for anyone else.

I suspect there's considerably more customers in your camp than in mine. Nonetheless, we addicts can hope... :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Oterisk wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
Heymitch wrote:


Lisa Stevens wrote:

It is very unlikely that they would end up in the booster packs, since they are rather large. But they might end up as case incentives or even released on their own. We don't know exactly how the gargantuans will be released, but we are going to try our darndest to get them made.

-Lisa

I've heard that WizKids is hard at work designing packaging that's much larger on the inside than on the outside, thus allowing a Gargantuan figure to easily fit into a booster pack. Is there any truth to this?
Woah!! They got their hands on the Tartus Technology??
Thats TARDIS, and yes they did. Because Lisa is a Time Lord.

Not just any Time Lord.. Lisa is The Master. :)

Dark Archive

a bright, intrastelar future for paizo...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fepriest wrote:
Perhaps I'm just a young buck in the gaming world, but Paizo's open playtests, wherein they take the time to consider the feedback from their whole player basis, is a particularly sharp business tactic I've never seen in the gaming world.

WotC announced at GenCon that they were bringing back prepainted plastic minis, and were designing a new miniatures skirmish game to go with it. The playtest for the skirmish game will be open to all members of the D&D fanbase. So not only has the open playtest model worked for Paizo, its set a new standard for how games are developed by other major publishers.


Ryan. Costello wrote:
Fepriest wrote:
Perhaps I'm just a young buck in the gaming world, but Paizo's open playtests, wherein they take the time to consider the feedback from their whole player basis, is a particularly sharp business tactic I've never seen in the gaming world.
WotC announced at GenCon that they were bringing back prepainted plastic minis, and were designing a new miniatures skirmish game to go with it. The playtest for the skirmish game will be open to all members of the D&D fanbase. So not only has the open playtest model worked for Paizo, its set a new standard for how games are developed by other major publishers.

Democracies > Oligarchies, baby.


Aazen wrote:


Im good with that. Provided they /Old Argument: Increase the Monk Weapon list. /End Old Argument

I'm against that. I'd say to hell with it and let them flurry with all weapons they're proficient in, which would be all simple plus some other niceties.

Problem solved forever and I once again rock! :)


Steve Geddes wrote:

I would love [...] make the editors slit their wrists

Wow, that's harsh! ;P

Steve Geddes wrote:


I'd love it if the modules/companion/campaign setting lines were all monthly releases as well.

How would that work if they all slit their wrists?

I think the current schedule for things is a nice, wrist and wallet/bank account conserving method of giving us new things.

Steve Geddes wrote:


There are a number of released products which felt just a little too crowded to me - the Absalom sourcebook being the most significant

Yeah, but that's more a case of "Absalom deserves a big fat hardcover" thing, not a general "not enough space in most books" thing.


Gary Teter wrote:

Wait, what?

I thought this was a thread about the future of Paizo.

Let's take all non-future-of-Paizo talk somewhere else, please.

The future of Paizo, I believe, is the introduction of a legit method to allow one to take only some of an archetype's features instead of the whole package.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Razz wrote:
Gary Teter wrote:

Wait, what?

I thought this was a thread about the future of Paizo.

Let's take all non-future-of-Paizo talk somewhere else, please.

The future of Paizo, I believe, is the introduction of a legit method to allow one to take only some of an archetype's features instead of the whole package.

I believe that the future of Paizo is about having less PrCs and more archetypes.

See? Two can play this game ;-)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
drkfathr1 wrote:
Serendipity wrote:
Ultimate equipment? I thought the other poster was joking.
Nope, it's true. They want to pull in all the various equipment, weapons, armor, etc. from the other books so that it's all in one place, while adding new armor, weapons, etc. They want it to be the definitive volume on gear. And it will have lots of new magic items, organized by slot. With new magical properites for weapons and armor too.

Hopefully they will then fix the starknife. Kinda rediculuous that it does d4 damage while the chacram does d6.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Come on now, folks. Teter's already politely asked us to stay on topic.

This is supposed to be a thread where people discuss the products that were announced in the Future of Paizo seminar. Not rules arguments or wish lists. There are already plenty of other threads for discussing that kind of thing.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


There are a number of released products which felt just a little too crowded to me - the Absalom sourcebook being the most significant

Yeah, but that's more a case of "Absalom deserves a big fat hardcover" thing, not a general "not enough space in most books" thing.

Absalom deserves an Adventure Path! That will give it the support it needs.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Epic Meepo wrote:

Come on now, folks. Teter's already politely asked us to stay on topic.

This is supposed to be a thread where people discuss the products that were announced in the Future of Paizo seminar. Not rules arguments or wish lists. There are already plenty of other threads for discussing that kind of thing.

Hope you are not refering to me! Ultimate equipment being a compilation of "equipment, weapons, armor, etc...". I would think a comment about "equipment, weaons, armor, etc..." would be on topic.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Heymitch wrote:
I'd really like to see Paizo produce some basic support for other genres using the Pathfinder rules, especially a Sword & Planet source book.

We're going to keep our focus on the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. However, we have designed our setting so that it encompasses close relatives of heroic fantasy—you'll want to check out Distant Worlds.

As for genres further afield than that, we expect third parties will be picking up that ball.

151 to 159 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / What is the future of Paizo? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.