| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anybody views my posts as attacks and attempts to perform psychological analysis of their childhood, I'd really suggest to dial the sensitivity a notch.
I can't help myself, this is just too funny. Allow me to paraphrase:
"Hey, if anyone thinks I'm too harsh, you're just too sensitive." :)
I love it. It's like those "I am sorry if anyone was so sensitive that my innocent remarks offended them" apologies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removed some posts. Step away from the keyboard and relax, people. It's a game.
So, a minor clarification on the new monk rules, to be sure I am correct:
A monk could flurry with a kama in one hand, as that is a weapon with the monk quality, but could not flurry with a longsword, because, despite being a weapon she could wield in one hand, it is not a weapon with the monk quality?
Paizo needs to get their horse archery in order!
Yeah, I really want more horse archery feats and options. Go beyond mounted archery, get to faster ride, give me some parthian shot type options (mounted archery spring attack with something cool on top). It might encourage more skirmishing, new tactics and less quick combats.
Correct. Spot-on.Unless my memory fails me, James not only states that he loves additional options, more stories, more world... he also states that he would love to give some more control back to the GM.
Gms can certainly take control back, or have more control, but some players see this as offensive and ragequit. Like if you come down on magic item crafting, or alter plenty of monsters so that the weaknesses the players expect aren't there, or add whole new monsters.
One that came up some months ago, a player wanted to always know exact distances. Well, it is in combat and you don't have a measuring tape, so I gave him average and rough distances. The player just had to deal with that, and make their decisions with what they had. They didn't get to know the exact distances of far off targets. They could make all their actions, but did not have absolute mastery of distance. The world is filled with unknowns again.
So, a minor clarification on the new monk rules, to be sure I am correct:
A monk could flurry with a kama in one hand, as that is a weapon with the monk quality, but could not flurry with a longsword, because, despite being a weapon she could wield in one hand, it is not a weapon with the monk quality?
Yes. And the monk may choose to make all of their attacks (normal iterative and the additional from flurry) with that one weapon.
MA
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo needs to get their horse archery in order!
Yeah, I really want more horse archery feats and options. Go beyond mounted archery, get to faster ride, give me some parthian shot type options (mounted archery spring attack with something cool on top). It might encourage more skirmishing, new tactics and less quick combats.
Rly? Mounted archery is already a pretty strong option, especially for small characters. Eats all your feats, though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly defined rules are what keeps everyone on the same page and I think that is what Paizo needs to continue to shoot for. I don't want to be told to just homebrew it because that is a pure fallacy. I want to be able to homebrew as an option not because something is broken.
I don't expect everything to be fixed but I do expect the obvious things to get that treatment.
Rly? Mounted archery is already a pretty strong option, especially for small characters. Eats all your feats, though.Paizo needs to get their horse archery in order!
Yeah, I really want more horse archery feats and options. Go beyond mounted archery, get to faster ride, give me some parthian shot type options (mounted archery spring attack with something cool on top). It might encourage more skirmishing, new tactics and less quick combats.
It is good stuff, I am just hoping for moar.
Clearly defined rules are what keeps everyone on the same page and I think that is what Paizo needs to continue to shoot for. I don't want to be told to just homebrew it because that is a pure fallacy. I want to be able to homebrew as an option not because something is broken.
I don't expect everything to be fixed but I do expect the obvious things to get that treatment.
If they want things to be clear, if they want clarity, they have to go top to bottom and clean up some of the classes. So messy, not everyone is on the same page in ability strength or number of abilities.
Then go through all the rules and edit the roc's teeth out of them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly defined rules are what keeps everyone on the same page and I think that is what Paizo needs to continue to shoot for. I don't want to be told to just homebrew it because that is a pure fallacy. I want to be able to homebrew as an option not because something is broken.
I don't expect everything to be fixed but I do expect the obvious things to get that treatment.
If they want things to be clear, if they want clarity, they have to go top to bottom and clean up some of the classes. So messy, not everyone is on the same page in ability strength or number of abilities.
Then go through all the rules and edit the roc's teeth out of them.
⸮ It's a fact. Sweeping edits to the rule text always add clarity. ⸮
|
As for the Monk issue. We have decided to reverse our previous ruling on using Flurry with one weapon. You can now do so. This change has been in the works for a little while now, but I have not had the chance to announce it. There are a few other changes coming to the monk as well and I am investigating a good venue for making those announcements.
Can we PLEASE do something about the ruling on Reach weapons? Can we add that one line back in that I threaten someone 2 squares away?
I get really annoyed when DMs try to pull this one on me, I mean it basically means that if I have a longspear, and rotate the world on an arbitrary 45 degree access, someone can walk up to me without me threatening them (no AoO) and now I don't threaten them. Just because we abstracted the game into squares.
There was a reason there was a special caveat for Reach weapons.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I saw this thread when RD originally posted and made it a point to not comment on it with the hope that it would sail away quietly into the night.
But it hasn't, so I'll pitch in.
I'm a mathematician by trade and I can tell you guys that math (or more accurately logic itself) is the problem. There was a guy, G\"odel, that showed that for any reasonably complex set of rules you can find propositions that cannot be settled by those rules.
Also, it's really very difficult to come up with systems of rules that are everywhere consistent (G\"odel strikes again!). If you treat every statement by Paizo (say stat blocks of NPCs) as rulings on the system then you're pretty much done right from the start. The people writing for Paizo are writers, not lawyers. If they were lawyers they'd be off doing that and making a ton more money. Specifically these people are writers writing about a fantasy world and trying to breathe life and interactivity to this world by quantifying it in terms of a finite and incomplete and oftentimes arbitrary set of rules.
So when you see that some free-lancer has made a mistake cut him or her some slack. If you find something inconsistent home rule it or ask your PFS GM to make a ruling as best he or she can. And then get back to playing the game because collaboratively telling a story with a group of friends is more awesome than arguing about rules on the internet will ever be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fellow Boggard is the voice of reason and civility.
I can tell you from personal long time experience that a great quality product will always keep your customers begging for more faster than just pumping out product after product of less than stellar quantity.
Tell me, Shallowsoul, how many copies of the Core Rulebook do you own?
Or here's another one: if Paizo released a new version of the Core Rulebook with "fixes" and errata (but did not provide the fixes for free as a pdf), would you buy it? How many times?
That's the thing about this hobby, guys. You can have limitless adventure with just the core books (even less, since we have the PRD available for free). As with academia, so with the rpg world: publish or perish.
I own two 3E PHB, two 3.5 PHB but only 1 Pathfinder CRB (but I've had it for 3 years and am about ready for a new one).
Regarding the Pathfinder CRB: I've owned a 1st printing (since given to a friend), a 3rd printing (which I use) and a 5th printing (which the wife uses). Whenever a 6th printing comes out, I'll very likely be picking one up and passing my 3rd printing on to a friend.
I didn't realize they released softcover versions of the 3.5 PHB?
I didn't realize they released softcover versions of the 3.5 PHB?
It came near the end of 3.5 in the Player's Kit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can tell you from personal long time experience that a great quality product will always keep your customers begging for more faster than just pumping out product after product of less than stellar quantity.Tell me, Shallowsoul, how many copies of the Core Rulebook do you own?
The question should rather be: Do you own more Pathfinder books than those of other roleplaying games published at the same time?
I buy PF books - I play the PF system - because it's generally of great quality, especially the first books (core + GMG + APG), and because it's got developers that seem to care for the game and the customers that already are.
I only own a 3rd printing CRB, but had there never been a 2nd or 3rd printing I hadn't owned any of them because I'd kept to my houseruled 3.5; just like I don't own any books of several other game systems, because I don't feel the quality is as high nor that the crew makes an effort to make the game good for the customers rather than just pumping out more and more.
It's why I never bought anything past the core rulebooks in 3.5, just reading my friends splatbooks, but have both GMG, APG, ultimate combat and ultimate magic.
In a hobby as small and nerdy as tabletop gaming, a lot of the new player recruitment is by mouth to mouth, gamer to soon-to-be-gamer, rather than through massive ads. I recommend my RPG friends to try out pathfinder (it's not very big in my country - there are several swedish RPG's that are much larger, as is WoD I think), and what is it I say? "They have great products, and good developer-customer relations compared to other high-fantasy RPGs". Would I have told them that if Paizo released more books at the expense of quality? Maybe. I already think there's a drop in quality after the APG and that has affected my opinion, but it's still generally very high-quality stuff (faaar better than 90% of 3.5 splat).
Regarding the Pathfinder CRB: I've owned a 1st printing (since given to a friend), a 3rd printing (which I use) and a 5th printing (which the wife uses). Whenever a 6th printing comes out, I'll very likely be picking one up and passing my 3rd printing on to a friend.
I own two first edition CRB's both of which are in the same shape, really crappy bindings and the only books from path finder where the binding has come completely apart.
I'm actually kinda peeved about it really.
Has this happened to a lot of 1st edition printings or only mine?
|
I can tell you from personal long time experience that a great quality product will always keep your customers begging for more faster than just pumping out product after product of less than stellar quantity.Tell me, Shallowsoul, how many copies of the Core Rulebook do you own?
Or here's another one: if Paizo released a new version of the Core Rulebook with "fixes" and errata (but did not provide the fixes for free as a pdf), would you buy it? How many times?
That's the thing about this hobby, guys. You can have limitless adventure with just the core books (even less, since we have the PRD available for free). As with academia, so with the rpg world: publish or perish.
One core rulebook + PDF ... plus five more copies of the core rulebook to my players + at least three PDF copies of the core rules to my players as well + three APGs (maybe 4) and at least one UC hardback as well. The PRD gets used as quick reference when a rule book or PDF isn't handy but I think I've done my share to sell Paizo's product. My experience would support Shadowsoul's statement rather than your insinuation.
Would I buy it again if it were fully cleaned up? Depends on what condition my book was in, and how extensive the changes were.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly defined rules are what keeps everyone on the same page and I think that is what Paizo needs to continue to shoot for. I don't want to be told to just homebrew it because that is a pure fallacy. I want to be able to homebrew as an option not because something is broken.
I don't expect everything to be fixed but I do expect the obvious things to get that treatment.
I think the main issue boils down to editing and timelines/dead lines.
Think about a product like Diablo III they promised it for YEARS. IT seemingly NEVER came, and then when it did it STILL sucked.
Paizo likely has tons more writers. developers, etc etc pumping out the product than they do editing staff. Then there is the difference between content editing and grammatical syntax editing.
What would be the statistical likelihood of employing enough editorial staff, that are total game gurus that know all the nuances of the game and could catch the contradictions, exclusions and screw ups, not over budget their payroll AND be able to get the product out in time?
I'm sure given enough time to comb the product, they could, in theory get it all, but then the product is delayed, and delayed and then again delayed.
Paizo also pumps out monthly product, which complicates things, they are a hybrid between a magazine publisher and a text publisher.
Text books guys can put it out when it's darn good and ready. The magazine publisher can put it out on time, but it doesn't need to have everything (or some times much at all) in that issue.
But for paizo A) references B) and three articles ago, where as a normal magazine the things aren't related.
In that way it's more like a comic book "wait how can spiderman do this, when that was specifically changed in issue 343 page 6 of the PPTSSP and here we are two months later in Amazing spider man? HMMMMM?"
You see that kind of fan boy stuff all the time in comic books, and the writers STILL get caught with ooops.
Long story short, these people have lives, they don't huddle in dark caves only talking with each other and obsessing over the sweat on a boggards nose. It's some times hard to talk to people who are seemingly in the same office but never available, always in a meeting, talking on the phone.
I know, I'm a designer too, just not a game designer. Last night I gave a presentation to a board of directors on a lighting scheme, only to find out that there is a magic playground that needs to be considered in this park. What? what playground? There is no playground on the plan. When was that memo printed? Or the fact there will be other uses for this park other than it's primary purpose as an outdoor historical museum? Like cross country skiing? When were you going to tell me that?! or a board member had a concern about ATV damage to in ground lights.
Huh? someone is going to be running ATVs all over the historical park? Really? Been working on this project three months, ALL new information last night.
Could there have been better communication? SURE. But people are out sick, or couldn't make it due to a doctor's appointment, or just plain forgot to mention something etc etc. The design process still has to go on, we can't just wait in case someone might remember something to convene a new meeting... or three or four meetings.
Paizo is even more fast paced, they are a publisher, there is an amazing time crunch going on there all the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw this thread when RD originally posted and made it a point to not I'm a mathematician by trade and I can tell you guys that math (or more accurately logic itself) is the problem. There was a guy, G\"odel, that showed that for any reasonably complex set of rules you can find propositions that cannot be settled by those rules.
Also, it's really very difficult to come up with systems of rules that are everywhere consistent (G\"odel strikes again!). If you treat every statement by Paizo (say stat blocks of NPCs) as rulings on the system then you're pretty much done right from the start. The people writing for Paizo are writers, not lawyers. If they were lawyers they'd be off doing that and making a ton more money. Specifically these people are writers writing about a fantasy world and trying to breathe life and interactivity to this world by quantifying it in terms of a finite and incomplete and oftentimes arbitrary set of rules.
So when you see that some free-lancer has made a mistake cut him or her some slack. If you find something inconsistent home rule it or ask your PFS GM to make a ruling as best he or she can. And then get back to playing the game because collaboratively telling a story with a group of friends is more awesome than arguing about rules on the internet will ever be.
True, and not only are they writers, but James Jacobs, the Creative Director has made it very clear he runs and plays PF by RAI, now RAW.
Look, Talmudic debates about rules and arguments which use phrases like “well according to the rules of English, the placement of a comma here CLEARLY means that…” are part of 3.5. Now, for some, using these loopholes to design super PC and debating the meaning of that comma is fun, and that’s fine. But that’s more 3.5 less PF.
Yes, the devs could step into every 20 page argument about some minor facet of the rules and make a FAQ. But they don’t and I don’t blame them. Why? Well, since when they do, the nitpickers attack them savagely (and our Op has been called out on this) and the nitpickers ignore the rulings anyway, since the rulings are mostly RAI not RAW. Or in some cases, they acknowledge there’s a goof, say they are working on it, but are then screamed at by impatient posters constantly. Sometimes I think we need to nominate SKR or JJ for sainthood.
And sure, sometimes some module writer doesn’t understand the rules fully and throws in a NPC which goes against either RAI or RAW (and even sometimes both). Meh. People make mistakes. (My own D&D supplement is so riddled with mistakes it’s legendary, we even misspelled my own name!).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of this assumes that that the intent behind a vague or contradictory rule is obvious. It often isn't. One of the reasons we have rules in the first place is to establish a basic understanding about how things work in the game world. As soon as we have to guess people's intentions, that understanding is lost.
This whole conversation would be vastly more productive if all the participants just took the time to understand and acknowledge that there is a difference between a reasonable expectation of clarity and nit-picking.
Complex systems are less complete than simple ones, and every system needs interpretation.
One of the major design choices that 3.0/3.5/PF made is that system mastery is to be rewarded not in playing the game, but in making the character.
Rather than say "Your fighter does XX damage per round, you describe how you get that XX", you have them trying to accommodate tactical options ranging from Monk Flurry to Raging Barbarians Beating People To Death With Beer Mugs.
While also removing anything resembling tactical maneuver in combat.
Publishing is "get it out the door, we'll fix it later."
My own D&D supplement is so riddled with mistakes it’s legendary, we even misspelled my own name!So, it should be spelled, 'Doctor Death'?
Ha! No, it’s Daniel, not Danial.
I thought "Da Nial" was a river in Egypt...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it should be “I Thoth “Da Nial” was a river in Egypt…”. I was all Set for that one. Ptah, phooey, Nuts to you. Shu, go away. You guys are just Horusing around, you’re not being O Serious enough, you Bast…. oops.
;-)
One core rulebook + PDF ... plus five more copies of the core rulebook to my players + at least three PDF copies of the core rules to my players as well + three APGs (maybe 4) and at least one UC hardback as well. The PRD gets used as quick reference when a rule book or PDF isn't handy but I think I've done my share to sell Paizo's product. My experience would support Shadowsoul's statement rather than your insinuation.
Would I buy it again if it were fully cleaned up? Depends on what condition my book was in, and how extensive the changes were.
You purchased FIVE copies of the core rulebook for your players? And then three copies of the pdf? Wow, you're a pretty generous GM. I would've, y'know... made them buy it themselves. I mean, that's what - almost $300 on stuff for your players?
With my group (6 people), I think we have 2-3 copies of the core rulebook between us, and none of the supplemental material - we just use the PRD. Even back in the 3.5 days, a half-dozen of us would all share a single copy of each splatbook.
I guess you're making pretty good money to be able to drop that kind of bank. Grats to you, man.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of this assumes that that the intent behind a vague or contradictory rule is obvious. It often isn't. One of the reasons we have rules in the first place is to establish a basic understanding about how things work in the game world. As soon as we have to guess people's intentions, that understanding is lost.
This whole conversation would be vastly more productive if all the participants just took the time to understand and acknowledge that there is a difference between a reasonable expectation of clarity and nit-picking.
I actually find this an important point. When RAI is obvious, then that should be the call. When it isn't, then some clarification is required. The devs recognize this: they come on the boards all the time and try to help or at least acknowledge a problem when this happens.
My issue isn't with clarifying rules as much as the fact that a lot of the time, the intention of a rule or feat is fairly apparent and the GM won't rule because the letter of the rule is unclear.
I guess it is a grey area where the line between "the intention is clear—make a call" and "this is too muddied—I need help!" exists. For each GM that line may differ somewhat.
I saw this thread when RD originally posted and made it a point to not I'm a mathematician by trade and I can tell you guys that math (or more accurately logic itself) is the problem. There was a guy, G\"odel, that showed that for any reasonably complex set of rules you can find propositions that cannot be settled by those rules.
Also, it's really very difficult to come up with systems of rules that are everywhere consistent (G\"odel strikes again!). If you treat every statement by Paizo (say stat blocks of NPCs) as rulings on the system then you're pretty much done right from the start. The people writing for Paizo are writers, not lawyers. If they were lawyers they'd be off doing that and making a ton more money. Specifically these people are writers writing about a fantasy world and trying to breathe life and interactivity to this world by quantifying it in terms of a finite and incomplete and oftentimes arbitrary set of rules.
So when you see that some free-lancer has made a mistake cut him or her some slack. If you find something inconsistent home rule it or ask your PFS GM to make a ruling as best he or she can. And then get back to playing the game because collaboratively telling a story with a group of friends is more awesome than arguing about rules on the internet will ever be.
True, and not only are they writers, but James Jacobs, the Creative Director has made it very clear he runs and plays PF by RAI, now RAW.
Look, Talmudic debates about rules and arguments which use phrases like “well according to the rules of English, the placement of a comma here CLEARLY means that…” are part of 3.5. Now, for some, using these loopholes to design super PC and debating the meaning of that comma is fun, and that’s fine. But that’s more 3.5 less PF.
Yes, the devs could step into every 20 page argument about some minor facet of the rules and make a FAQ. But they don’t and I don’t blame them. Why? Well, since when they do, the nitpickers attack them...
If I made a rules system, I wouldn't really care about the complaints or arguments over meaning. You try to do what is best, you try to make something fun, if all manner of strange folk bring their neurosis and pedantry to complain and manipulate the rules, well, this was always inevitable with success.
I remember one guy saying dnd is shit because he could at level 1 summon a whale to crush someone. In the edition he was talking about, you could not summon a whale at level 1 and you could not summon sea creatures outside of a water environment. Guy thought he saw something that was not there. It was not the original intention of the summoning rules to summon whale mortars at level 1.
Mmmmm whale mortars.
Complex systems are less complete than simple ones, and every system needs interpretation.
One of the major design choices that 3.0/3.5/PF made is that system mastery is to be rewarded not in playing the game, but in making the character.
Rather than say "Your fighter does XX damage per round, you describe how you get that XX", you have them trying to accommodate tactical options ranging from Monk Flurry to Raging Barbarians Beating People To Death With Beer Mugs.
While also removing anything resembling tactical maneuver in combat.
Publishing is "get it out the door, we'll fix it later."
Yeah. DPR is not tactics, and I love when it is lessened in importance and tactics and teamwork becomes far more necessary.
|
|
One core rulebook + PDF ... plus five more copies of the core rulebook to my players + at least three PDF copies of the core rules to my players as well + three APGs (maybe 4) and at least one UC hardback as well. The PRD gets used as quick reference when a rule book or PDF isn't handy but I think I've done my share to sell Paizo's product. My experience would support Shadowsoul's statement rather than your insinuation.
Would I buy it again if it were fully cleaned up? Depends on what condition my book was in, and how extensive the changes were.
You purchased FIVE copies of the core rulebook for your players? And then three copies of the pdf? Wow, you're a pretty generous GM. I would've, y'know... made them buy it themselves. I mean, that's what - almost $300 on stuff for your players?
With my group (6 people), I think we have 2-3 copies of the core rulebook between us, and none of the supplemental material - we just use the PRD. Even back in the 3.5 days, a half-dozen of us would all share a single copy of each splatbook.
I guess you're making pretty good money to be able to drop that kind of bank. Grats to you, man.
No, no... sorry that wasn't clear. Me, I just have subs for the core books, player companions, and campaign settings books. My players bought their own books. I was just trying to establish that my players have in fact bought multiple books of their own rather than using the PFSRD even though they could do so. I think the only player in my game that has not bought the books for themselves is my wife, for fairly obvious reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. DPR is not tactics, and I love when it is lessened in importance and tactics and teamwork becomes far more necessary.
+1. but the game still rewards real tactics and not just full attack DPR focus, even if some players don't want to see that.
Yes, a spy I had in a pathfinder game recently reported something strange. In the past we had some powerful characters, and they did well mostly due to teamwork. What he saw was a whole group of optimised power gamers with crazy stats, but they were dropping like flies because they just couldn't get their teamwork down, so they would die alone their allies nearby but not helping.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, a spy I had in a pathfinder game recently reported something strange. In the past we had some powerful characters, and they did well mostly due to teamwork. What he saw was a whole group of optimised power gamers with crazy stats, but they were dropping like flies because they just couldn't get their teamwork down, so they would die alone their allies nearby but not helping.
Yeah, it started with the whole "It's never a good idea to heal during combat" craziness. Or that a Cleric should spend all his spells buffing HIMSELF into a CoDzilla, or that a tank should focus on DPR rather than stopping the bad guys from smearing the wizard...or any of another dozen really selfish things, rather than acting as a TEAM.
Indulging in personal stories here, but I've got one. Started a party off as 1st level commoners. I have never seen such fine teamwork right off the bat. They saved eachother over and over, and then made it to the class levels.