I've always considered the Ultimate and Advanced books to be both player and gm resource. I'm essentially getting the same resource as my players are, plus I've gotten some good mileage out of the firearms advice, called shots, wounds and vigor, dueling, advice on making spells, and words of power as a GM.
I don't like GM exclusive rulebooks, especially if it's just giving advice. I feel like if I wanted to get advice on worldbuilding or GMing, I'd go to Gnome Stew or Know Direction or The Alexandrian. It's free and great advice from experienced people. Rather, I want my GM books to be like Ultimate Campaign, where it blends DM advice with mechanics that help entrench players deeper into your setting and enhance your game. Which to me, it is much more valuable to have a rulebook for both players and GMs that entwines both sides into the setting and storytelling, rather than to have what is essentially something I can get for free from a blog. Especially things like Kingdom Building, which drastically change the way the game is played and opens up a great deal of story hooks and adventures for the GM to further their setting. Or Story Feats and Backgrounds, which give the GM NPCs and story hooks to further entrench their players in the cooperative storytelling of gaming. Saving the world from an evil dragon is fun, but adding little background things makes it more compelling. Like, what if that dragon is being paid to attack your nation by your older brother that wants to lay claim to your lands? Or, what if this was the dragon that attacked your home when you were a child and now, you have the chance for vengeance? Suddenly, the dragon fight becomes much more personal for the PCs and your players are much more invested in seeing it defeated. That's why I like Ultimate Campaign. It has rules and subsystems that create this cooperative story building conversation between players and GMs and really enhance the story and the setting. And I definitely plan on using UCamp much more in the future.
Although, to its credit, I did get the Kobold Guide to Worldbuilding and it was a very good GM read and I recommend it to all GMs, new and old. But I still felt that I paid a little too much for advice.
My only real exception to this are monster books, like the Bestiaries and Tome of series, template books, like the Advanced Bestiary, and setting books, like the Inner Sea World Guide. Toolkits are fun too. Can't go wrong with that. I just know that as far as GM resources go, I've used the Ultimate and Advanced series far more than the Gamemastery Guide. Especially now that I have the NPC Codex, I barely crack open that book for anything beyond rules for haunts. But hey, everyone is different and to each their own.
This is actually making me pretty wary, because PF's method of preventing "creep" has tended a bit to "new abilities are written so they can't interact with anything they aren't explicitly meant to interact with" (when they don't make you worse just by existing).
I know that many of you are wary of [...] creep
Not entirely on topic, but I'm curious how that makes you worse by existing?
Not entirely on topic, but I'm curious how that makes you worse by existing?This is actually making me pretty wary, because PF's method of preventing "creep" has tended a bit to "new abilities are written so they can't interact with anything they aren't explicitly meant to interact with" (when they don't make you worse just by existing).
I know that many of you are wary of [...] creep
Yeah, I'm a bit lost too. I've used that ability before as a rogue and it was very useful and helpful.
Yeah, I'm a bit lost too. I've used that ability before as a rogue and it was very useful and helpful.Not entirely on topic, but I'm curious how that makes you worse by existing?This is actually making me pretty wary, because PF's method of preventing "creep" has tended a bit to "new abilities are written so they can't interact with anything they aren't explicitly meant to interact with" (when they don't make you worse just by existing).
I know that many of you are wary of [...] creep
I mean I agree with his initial point, but I'm not sure how it relates to Convincing Lie.
|
If modules are for the whole table, then so is pretty much everything. Are there books that the GM is expected to buy and not use anything from during the game?
I mean, actual adventure content is pretty much stamped: GM Only. Players do not read. How much more targeted can you get?
That would be great if we established that APs/Modules = Core Rules and DM support mechanics, advice, rules... which they are not.
Also I like your "not use anything from during the game" comment.
I know people have a hard time divorcing DM-only content from everything else around here, but there was a time when guidebooks, supplements (not campaign focused) and campaign books were not directly tied to PC powers and growth or options.
Most of this material was used to help configure campaigns, game worlds from the top of the world cosmology down to a when the players start to interact with the game encounters, but without direct up-front manipulation by players/mini game mechanics (basically the opposite of 90% of Ultimate Campaign content). This is the material that I and (I think) gbonehead are talking about.
By Auxmaulous's definition, Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, and Savage Species would not be GM-exclusive resources. All three of those books contained character options for PCs, including races, classes, feats, and spells.
And he and I are not twins out of the same hive mind. He can qualify them as DM material while I may not.
The thing is, I do qualify them as mostly DM books (less so for Savage Species, would say that one is in the middle) since they were threat based (DM focused), with supporting PC material to run a campaign around those threats. Even much of the PC style support worked very well for NPC bad guys who were non-creature threats (evil Prcs, feats taken by villain NPCs) - aka, more support material.
And Green Ronin’s Advanced Bestiary is spot on a DMs book, so much so that in the early AP days almost every installment had a creature modified by GR AB. And then - nothing.
So by their use Paizo admits that just a book of templates alone (I want much more) was critical to their early creative endeavors.
I mean I agree with his initial point, but I'm not sure how it relates to Convincing Lie.Because like most feats/talents, before it was published you could just do it whereas now only the people with the talent can do it.
Oh! I had no idea. I suppose in retrospect I could see how that would've applied, since if they believed your lie, then they wouldn't be detected as a lie later, yet at the same time I can see that convincing lie would be applicable in it's own way.
Guess I can see it both ways.
I mean I agree with his initial point, but I'm not sure how it relates to Convincing Lie.Because like most feats/talents, before it was published you could just do it whereas now only the people with the talent can do it.
Well, more accurately, you could just do it if your GM allowed you to. Making maneuvers a feat is a double-edged sword, as it allows you to do something without worrying about the GM saying no since it's official, but now it limits you because if anyone ever wants to do it, they HAVE to have a feat.
|
|
In all fairness I think both gbone, myself and several others would like just one or two mechnaics focused DM books.
One on threats and templates and more importantly (to me at least) - one focused on monster building/toolkit similar to what was in the ARG and possibly similar in the ACG (if it has a class builder).
If there is a toolkit in the ACG that is a good sign of things to come, just think it sort of sucks that if it does arrive (and at this point it is still a giant IF) it won't be for at least a few years from now (not likely in 2014, maybe at the end - or in 2015 - who knows).
In all fairness I think both gbone, myself and several others would like just one or two mechnaics focused DM books.
One on threats and templates and more importantly (to me at least) - one focused on monster building/toolkit similar to what was in the ARG and possibly similar in the ACG (if it has a class builder).If there is a toolkit in the ACG that is a good sign of things to come, just think it sort of sucks that if it does arrive (and at this point it is still a giant IF) it won't be for at least a few years from now (not likely in 2014, maybe at the end - or in 2015 - who knows).
I wouldnt be opposed to either of those things. But like you say, if it hasnt been announced the earliest it could show up is late 2014. Though perhaps something like this might sit nicely in the bestiary book spot for 2014 or 2015. I mean yes paizo is still coming up with interesting monsters, but I dont find myself very inclined to buy another bestiary.
I think they would have to be part of some larger book on monsters, though I wonder how managable a monster building toolkit would be. After all, designing monsters is a stage in the rpg superstar contest. If they could distill that down to a balanced point system, wouldnt they have done that by now?
Funnily enough, I've always ran it where if you tell someone a lie and they are asked about it by someone else, I always treated it as still a lie and requiring Bluff. Guess that's why Convincing Lie makes sense to me I suppose. But, everyone runs their game differently. Nothing wrong with that :D
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the case for a lot of them, but Convincing Lie is different. Someone who ate your lie and repeats it as fact IS NOT LYING to the point they could repeat it under a zone of truth. They don't need a bluff check in the first place (or didn't until that piece of trash was created).
I'm not going to rehash the arguement here. Suffice to say I subscribe to the stance that being fooled by someone and repeating what you were told is not a Bluff.
Well, I'm going to chime in on the lying bit. Have you ever been told something by someone that wasn't true, but they believed it to be true. You're first response is like "Wait, that doesn't make any sense." and then you poke holes in it, or whatever. I see the "convincing lie" situation to be like that. You tell a lie so convincing that it's even convincing when someone else tells it.
But I can definitely see where the problems lie.
I'm not going to rehash the argument here. Suffice to say I subscribe to the stance that being fooled by someone and repeating what you were told is not a Bluff.
There is an argument? I can't see how someone saying something they believe to be true could be bluffing. Is the concern that NPCs are unfamiliar with hearsay? Even if you flavor it as telling a lie so convincing that it creates false memories (and therefore removes the hearsay issue), in the absence of a separate persuasion skill that seems like a pretty clear application of diplomacy.
The alternative (that asserting something untrue is objectively a lie, irrespective of belief) turns the ability to detect lies into an infallible yes/no divination.
I guess it's just another example of there being people on the Internet willing to argue just about anything...
OTOH, it makes no sense for it to based on the dupes skill at lying. He isn't lying.Well, I'm going to chime in on the lying bit. Have you ever been told something by someone that wasn't true, but they believed it to be true. You're first response is like "Wait, that doesn't make any sense." and then you poke holes in it, or whatever. I see the "convincing lie" situation to be like that. You tell a lie so convincing that it's even convincing when someone else tells it.
But I can definitely see where the problems lie.
Yeah, it's all kinda confusing.
This probably isn't the thread to be hashing this argument. Perhaps we should make our own topic.
This probably isn't the thread to be hashing this argument. Perhaps we should make our own topic.
Not that interested, but point otherwise taken. :)
Sorry about the delay in the blog post folks, I am hoping to get it up this week.
Jason
Revenge of the Kon Krud?
Psionics would be nice!
Sorry about the delay in the blog post folks, I am hoping to get it up this week.
Jason
Looking forward to it. :)
Psionics/Psychic magic would be nice, but Mr. James Jacobs has already said that it will not be in this book.
Psionics/Psychic magic would be nice, but Mr. James Jacobs has already said that it will not be in this book.
I am predicting spring or summer of 2015. James has started mentioning it a lot and the same sort of thing happened when he started coining "mythic" in posts and on panels.
|
I'm hoping for an alchemist style sort of "non caster" tinkerer or engineer class. we've gotten sort of close with gunsmith and alchemist, but there's no real class that makes clockwork inventions, minions and or traps doable.Already been done, to a fairly high standard reportedly:
Not Paizo.
I have nothing against 3PPs, but just because they made something does not mean I don't want to see the Paizo interpretation of the concept.
That and PFS does not, and will likely never, allow 3rd party products for players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zombie Ninja: Do you have the Magnimar, City of Monuments book? There is an NPC in there that might be of interest.
...there's not really any excuse for why the new Iconics couldn't be Hobgoblins or Tieflings or whatever. (Although it might be better to stick to Bestiary 1 races, rather than make assumptions that purchasers of the Advanced Class Guide will own Bestiary 2 or 3.) No reason not to take advantage of the fact that the core books are setting-independent, and not Golarion-restricted.
Yeah. I think it would be great to see some iconics of non-core/main 6 races. If I had my druthers, I'd really really love Paizo to take a crack at an effective gnome or halfling (or other Small race) full BAB martial/melee-er. Also, while I'd love to see a catfolk iconic (especially by Carolina Eade), I'm too tired to watch another prolonged battle of Catfolk Wars erupt on the boards. :)
And yeah, add me to the list as wanting an Advanced Monster Guide with an ARG-style monster builder rules. I'd use it much more than I ever will anything Mythic.
A multi role class would be cool.
Like a melee class that heals as it deals damage, or something like that. These are advanced classes, let's think outside the box a bit.
Revenge of the Kon Krud?Sorry about the delay in the blog post folks, I am hoping to get it up this week.
Jason
No, he has to be very careful in his office, lest he injure himself on the spiked everything. (via)
A multi role class would be cool.
Like a melee class that heals as it deals damage, or something like that. These are advanced classes, let's think outside the box a bit.
You mean something that operates outside the normal action economy? I mean there is precedent for that (magus) but I would imagine it would still need to conform to standards. Advanced class doesnt mean 'ignores the need for consistency within the system. THough a divine magus might be interesting.
|
You mean something that operates outside the normal action economy? I mean there is precedent for that (magus) but I would imagine it would still need to conform to standards. Advanced class doesnt mean 'ignores the need for consistency within the system. THough a divine magus might be interesting.A multi role class would be cool.
Like a melee class that heals as it deals damage, or something like that. These are advanced classes, let's think outside the box a bit.
If only they were to redefine spell combat as a full-attack action and then share the mechanic with few new hybrid classes.
If only they were to redefine spell combat as a full-attack action and then share the mechanic with few new hybrid classes.You mean something that operates outside the normal action economy? I mean there is precedent for that (magus) but I would imagine it would still need to conform to standards. Advanced class doesnt mean 'ignores the need for consistency within the system. THough a divine magus might be interesting.A multi role class would be cool.
Like a melee class that heals as it deals damage, or something like that. These are advanced classes, let's think outside the box a bit.
Might be good, I think all of the mixed classes could use something like that, I happen to really like spell combat. And divine casting has lots of interesting touch spells to go with spell strike.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of partial spell casters. I wish they would avoid the pitfalls of classes such as the Magus and Summoner as related to spell lists. Instead of each hybrid receiving a tailored spell list, give them access to the generic caster's list with which they are associated.
For example: a full BAB 4 level arcane caster with access to wizard spells.
This reduces the print required and eliminates having to tailor future spell support for 20+ unique classes. Any future updates to the wizard spell list become accessible to any classes based upon the wizard (or relevant class).
It also eliminates the one of the biggest complaints associated with the summoner, atypical spell access. How many people would complain about summoner spell casting abilities if they did not access Haste until 7th level?
On the topic of partial spell casters. I wish they would avoid the pitfalls of classes such as the Magus and Summoner as related to spell lists. Instead of each hybrid receiving a tailored spell list, give them access to the generic caster's list with which they are associated.
For example: a full BAB 4 level arcane caster with access to wizard spells.
This reduces the print required and eliminates having to tailor future spell support for 20+ unique classes. Any future updates to the wizard spell list become accessible to any classes based upon the wizard (or relevant class).
It also eliminates the one of the biggest complaints associated with the summoner, atypical spell access. How many people would complain about summoner spell casting abilities if they did not access Haste until 7th level?
People would probably still complain, but there is still a reason for the tailored list. Some spells are critical to a certain role. The tailored spell list means the character still has them at the level the game expects so they can actually fill the role if needed.
I also think sometimes hybrids need unique spell lists because of what they combine. For instance, the summoner couldnt have just had the wizard spell list as he then couldnt effectively buff his eidolon. Magic fang, bark skin etc are on the druid list, not on the wizard/sorc list.
|
|
I'm normally not a fan of specialized spell lists as a general rule for all the reasons mentioned above (adds to the word count necessary and creates the need to tailor future spell support).
However, Kolokotroni is correct - sometimes a class simply must have a customized spell list. As an example, when I was creating the Shaman and Battle Scion for Kobold Press's New Paths line, I gave those classes full access to the druid spell list and sorcerer/wizard spell list respectively (although, in the case of the Battle Scion, he only gets up to 4th level sorcerer/wizard spells)
When I was creating the White Necromancer, however, I needed his spells to be very thematically focused on life, death, the undead and also on healing, so a custom spell list that included a subset of both sorcerer/wizard and cleric spells was essential.
I suspect Paizo will follow a similar design philosophy when it comes to class spell lists
I'm normally not a fan of specialized spell lists as a general rule for all the reasons mentioned above (adds to the word count necessary and creates the need to tailor future spell support).
However, Kolokotroni is correct - sometimes a class simply must have a customized spell list. As an example, when I was creating the Shaman and Battle Scion for Kobold Press's New Paths line, I gave those classes full access to the druid spell list and sorcerer/wizard spell list respectively (although, in the case of the Battle Scion, he only gets up to 4th level sorcerer/wizard spells)
When I was creating the White Necromancer, however, I needed his spells to be very thematically focused on life, death, the undead and also on healing, so a custom spell list that included a subset of both sorcerer/wizard and cleric spells was essential.
I suspect Paizo will follow a similar design philosophy when it comes to class spell lists
I am not sure they will follow it. All of their partial casters have unique spell lists. It would surprise me if they dont create special lists for classes that dont have a neat fit of another spell list (like the oracle using the cleric list)
Whelp, if you haven't heard (or didn't read my title), I'll be the one to spoil it for you.
Next year's GenCon release is called .
What We Know:
--It has 10 new classes, which are hybrid classes stylized after the Magus.
--UPDATE: Playtest this Fall.
--War Priest (Cleric / Fighter)
--Slayer (Ranger / Rogue)
--Hunter (Druid / Ranger)
--Shaman (Oracle / Witch)What We Can Guess:
--Probably 256 pages.
--If Core Rulebook is an example, there will likely be well over 200 pages of content not accounted for.
--Possibility of a Swashbuckler? (James is notably into the idea and mentioned before that it would have to happen as part of a book with a broad scope.)
--Psychic Magic? (Hints that it would use same system as Vanician Magic means that it might not need its own set of new rules. Would help possibility of Vuldra support.)What We Don't Know:
--Support for the Core / Base classes?
--Archetypes?
--Modular Build-A-Class system a la Advanced Race Guide?
--Will the new classes have a new Iconic?So, what's everyone hoping for out of this product?
Personally, I'm hoping we get some more archetypes for the classes that didn't see much love during the Ultimate cycle or that simply don't have a lot of choices in them. Namely Ninja (no archetypes), Cavalier/Samurai (virtually no choices and few archetypes), and Gunslinger (few archetypes, absolutely no customization in the class). Also really want that Swashbuckler ....
What I want most is a full BAB Swashbuckler.
and some more Bard love ;-)
Is there any reason that you can't have a custom spell list that also references existing spell lists?
For example: A white necromancer casts arcane spells drawn from all necromancy spells on the wizard spell list and all conjuration (healing) spells on the cleric spell list. Existing spells that meet these criteria are listed on Table X.
If you do it that way, you have your custom white necromancer spell list (Table X). You can also add newly-published spells to that list without explicitly calling them out as white necromancer spells (since every new cleric healing spell and wizard necromancy spell is automatically a white necromancer spell).
Agreed. Tyler Beck's new Saint Base class for Fat Goblin Games has a specialised spell list but it does call out what kind of spells (buff, debuff etc) the list is based on and does so to indicate how to import new spells as they are released. This would be welcome and advisable for any new class with its own spell list.