| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought worship did not give the deities power. Looking forwards to Occult mysteries, the Kinetist sounds cool. As long as you can do an Akira impression at 20th level it sounds like it should be fun.
Asking a question will any of the psychic mages draw from outside sources like divine casters?
That's what's so midirected about it!
@Occult--I'm not sure what specifically you mean by "psychic mages", but if you are referencing the 6 new classes, the spiritualist has been confirmed to have a strong connection to a phantom of echoed emotion left behind by a lost soul. And that won't be the only class that can potentially find connections with outside entities...
I thought worship did not give the deities power. Looking forwards to Occult mysteries, the Kinetist sounds cool. As long as you can do an Akira impression at 20th level it sounds like it should be fun.
Asking a question will any of the psychic mages draw from outside sources like divine casters?
That's what's so midirected about it!
@Occult--I'm not sure what specifically you mean by "psychic mages", but if you are referencing the 6 new classes, the spiritualist has been confirmed to have a strong connection to a phantom of echoed emotion left behind by a lost soul. And that won't be the only class that can potentially find connections with outside entities...
Whoopi Goldberg 'Ghost' class confirmed! :P
Sorry, not quite sure what to refer to the next set of classes as. I will hopefully get the nomenclature right by next summer. When everyone will hopefully be running around killing each other with mind bullets.
Maybe occult classes, for now. Kineticist, as revealed, isn't even a caster, and I would probably call only one of the six a "psychic mage" (though others would certainly assign that moniker to more or fewer).
|
Mark could you bring up some problems with the Bolt Ace arch type with the design team.
The bolt ace has the gun smithing ability but use cross bows and gun smithing gives a battered gun.
The Sharp Shot deed does not work with deadly aim because it lacks the paragraph from gunslinger
Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim.
the above should be replaced with this modified paragraph
Crossbows: When firing any crossbow, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim.
I have a question on Sharp Shot, Sharp shot says you have to spend 1 grit point to use the ability. Gunslinger the parent class ability does not cost 1 grit to use for shots in the first range increment. is this because a crossbow has a range of 120' opposed to 40' of a musket?
out side of kingmaker most combats occur with in 40' there are only 3 combats in PFS that I remember that did not take place within 40"
one in Ward stone patrol one in storval stairs. My point is that there is not enough grit points in most builds to use this ability more than twice. I think the 1 grit point per use needs to be removed to make it reflect the parent class's ability and does not unbalance the ability,
because of the ranges that combats take place at.
That isn't really a question. More of a few debating points. I'd recommend moving it to a thread on another subforum in this case.
We played PFS #5–25: Vengeance at Sundered Crag recently and we named one of the foes "Mark". Can you guess which one? :)
What is your favorite arcane school for wizards?
I hope you are enjoying your new job!
What APs have you played/Run?
I just had an odd one pop up in my game - never actually thought about it before.
Heavy Armor has a maximum dex bonus. Does the maximum dex bonus also limit the dexterity modifier for combat maneuver defense?
IE I'm a level 1 inquisitor with 16 dexterity wearing full plate, which I am proficient with. Assuming no other modifiers, would my CMD be 11 or 13?
What Core Rulebook feats would you never see yourself taking on any characters you design. Ever?
Heya, Mark!
I've been following Pathfinder design-talk where I can for about a year now, trying to see how pieces fit together and some of the general grooves of how things flow. The willingness of all you Paizofolk to wade in and discuss things with all of us has been hugely helpful in that and any number of other areas of the game (and is honestly one of the things that hooked me on PF specifically so quickly), so thanks for keeping to the standard and taking on that challenge so enthusiastically right from the get-go!
Also, speaking of the get-go, I was hoping that the freshness of your design tenure might make you a little more aware of something I've been curious about. Before I got into Pathfinder or TTRPGs at all, I was pretty big on MtG, and accordingly followed their design processes as best I could, too; not a difficult task, as their Lead Designer, Mark Rosewater, is a nigh-ceaseless source of game design insight. The thing that stuck with me the most were his discussions on how the MtG design team made a concerted effort to cater parts of their design to each of the different motivational drives that lay behind some of their major player groups (their theory of the Timmy/Johnny/Spike psychographics), knowing that what some of the groups barely find passably interesting might just be THE thing that kept another of the groups invested.
How highly emphasized is the idea of producing 'different material for different appetites' in Paizo design philosophy, have you found? If it's common, is it formalized at all, or is it more of a general notion? I love the wide range of ideas that see print, so I'm curious as to some of the framework behind it all. : )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We played PFS #5–25: Vengeance at Sundered Crag recently and we named one of the foes "Mark". Can you guess which one? :)
** spoiler omitted **
What is your favorite arcane school for wizards?
I hope you are enjoying your new job!
I can certainly guess which one you might mean!
My favorite arcane school for wizards is divination (foresight). Conjuration (teleportation), my second choice, has the superpower that is conjuration on its side, but I just love the out of combat uses of divinations.
I am definitely enjoying my new job!
What APs have you played/Run?
Played:
Curse of the Crimson Throne (finished Book 5, long stall for Book 6)Council of Thieves (complete)
Kingmaker (finished most of Book 5 and much of Book 4 in a sandboxy out-of-order nature)
Skull and Shackles (just started--playtesting Occult Adventures alpha versions of the two classes I'm working on, including the kineticist)
Shattered Star (complete)
Run:
Rise of the Runelords (complete)
Jade Regent (on Book 5)
The GM running Kingmaker plans to run Carrion Crown next after that. It would also be cool if she ran Hell's Rebels since she ran Council of Thieves. I plan to run Wrath of the Righteous next after Jade Regent.
I just had an odd one pop up in my game - never actually thought about it before.
Heavy Armor has a maximum dex bonus. Does the maximum dex bonus also limit the dexterity modifier for combat maneuver defense?
IE I'm a level 1 inquisitor with 16 dexterity wearing full plate, which I am proficient with. Assuming no other modifiers, would my CMD be 11 or 13?
Interesting one, and it's definitely a grey area. For me, my rule of thumb is this (its also how I quick-calculate CMB and CMD when they aren't listed or when there are lots of temporary modifiers):
"combat maneuvery stuff" aka CMS is base attack bonus + Str (or Dex if it replaces Str for Agile Maneuvers or the like) + twice your size bonus
CMB = CMS + all other attack bonus stuff
CMD = CMS + touch AC
So using that rule of thumb, you would use the max dex bonus of the armor. However, that rule of thumb has been ruled not to apply universally by an obscure FAQ of one very particular ability, so it isn't conclusive. Still, it serves so well so often that I'll lean on it now in my personal ruling. In the same way that when you're flat-footed or feinted, you lose your Dex bonus to CMD, so too would I apply to CMD the actual Dex bonus you are getting to your touch AC.
What Core Rulebook feats would you never see yourself taking on any characters you design. Ever?
Channel Smite is pretty horrific. The mythic version is actually potentially useful, but the normal feat is really bad.
Also some of the critical feats are enough better than others that I would never take the bad ones.Martial weapon proficiency (and simple weapon proficiency to a lesser extent since at least it grants several weapons) is pretty pointless compared to exotic weapon proficiency.
Master Craftsman as written is pretty weird (in my home games, you can craft that one type of thing without taking another feat for it).
Pinpoint Targeting is pretty bad due to its single attack limitation and high BAB requirement.
Great Cleave is vanishingly useful, since the chances of a string of hits against completely consecutive foes is pretty slim.
Strike Back has a high requirement and is very niche.
Two-Weapon Defense is really bad.
Widen Spell is overcosted and should probably be a +2 metamagic, so I would also never take it (not that there aren't undercosted metamagics like Dazing and Persistent, but Widen is overcosted).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heya, Mark!
I've been following Pathfinder design-talk where I can for about a year now, trying to see how pieces fit together and some of the general grooves of how things flow. The willingness of all you Paizofolk to wade in and discuss things with all of us has been hugely helpful in that and any number of other areas of the game (and is honestly one of the things that hooked me on PF specifically so quickly), so thanks for keeping to the standard and taking on that challenge so enthusiastically right from the get-go!
Also, speaking of the get-go, I was hoping that the freshness of your design tenure might make you a little more aware of something I've been curious about. Before I got into Pathfinder or TTRPGs at all, I was pretty big on MtG, and accordingly followed their design processes as best I could, too; not a difficult task, as their Lead Designer, Mark Rosewater, is a nigh-ceaseless source of game design insight. The thing that stuck with me the most were his discussions on how the MtG design team made a concerted effort to cater parts of their design to each of the different motivational drives that lay behind some of their major player groups (their theory of the Timmy/Johnny/Spike psychographics), knowing that what some of the groups barely find passably interesting might just be THE thing that kept another of the groups invested.
How highly emphasized is the idea of producing 'different material for different appetites' in Paizo design philosophy, have you found? If it's common, is it formalized at all, or is it more of a general notion? I love the wide range of ideas that see print, so I'm curious as to some of the framework behind it all. : )
One interesting thing about the Pathfinder RPG line (and indeed most Paizo products) is that a lot of the initial turnovers are written by a variety of freelancers. This lets us designers (or the developers, for other lines) mine creative ideas of a variety of different gamer styles represented among the freelancers. Then each of us alters and fits what we receive, combining it with in-house awesomeness to produce your next book. As to the different playstyles, I think they each have a home in different product lines. If we want to do it in the MtG way, let's add Vorthos and Melvin in too. Vorthos obviously devours the campaign setting line, with its detailed backstory, cool lore, and relatively small amount of rules material. Melvin and Johnny are big fans of the Pathfinder RPG books, since they often have the densest rules for Melvin and the most interesting rules-system to set up like dominoes for Johnny. Timmy doesn't usually have Vorthos's attention span, but he likes the Player Companion line for its quick accessible information with cool facts and powers that lets him get right into the action. Spike also likes the Player Companion line because there are lots of them coming out fast, so it is most likely that he'll find something in there to let him do something degenerate when combined with two other Player Companions from years past; he also likes the Pathfinder RPG books because they're huge and offer him a lot of options to use in conjunction with the Player Companion abilities he found. Often the RPG books can provide him a chassis while the PComps have some crucial lynchpin option.
I personally like to try to include awesome stuff for all types of players under multiple player division schemes, and that includes the MtG division. I discovered when my friend Alex (who humorously enough also read all of Mark Rosewater's explanations without having owned a MtG card in his life) explained those types to me that I am atypical in that I am pretty strong on all five axes (probably Vorthos first, then Johnny, but still high on all five), so in some ways it's easy for me to think about what things appeal to me in each of those ways.
Would you say not the non-proficiency penalty with a weapon is the same as being proficient? This would mean feats like Throw Anything or Catch Off Guard and a trait like Rough and Ready would make you proficient with something like improvised weapons or niche weapons.
The reason I ask is because of a 'technical wording' issue. The proficiency feats, like Martial Weapon proficiency, don't actually state you become proficient with the weapon; only that you "make attack rolls with the weapon normally".
Since both the improvised weapon feats, Rough and Ready trait and Proficiency feats all remove the non-proficiency penalty, would that mean taking the two improvised weapon feats or the trait make you proficient?
Should this possibly be a FAQ? Because I could see some issues with Rough and Ready being used to gain free proficiencies. Such as taking something like a hypothetical Profession (guard) would make you proficient in basically all weapons. I know (guard) is not a listed profession, but profession is one of those 'open ended' skills like Craft that has more than what is listed in the core rule book.
Perhaps an FAQrrata to Rough and Ready along with a FAQ for weapon proficiency to close off that little loop hole? Rough and Read appears in Adventurer's Armory, by the way.
|
|
Surprised yesterday when <this> was brought out in a discussion. Are there many hidden/forgotten rulings like this floating around? Is part of the promised effort to make a regularly functioning FAQ system (hope that's going well!) going to deal with these?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing "one size smaller" in Bestiary 4, so looks like grab is normally for one size smaller again.
That was a copy-paste error, actually--it wasn't intentional... whoever pulled the earlier Bestiary text for use in B4 probably forgot the text got updated, and didn't double-check it.
I was watching Know Direction, and saw the Gen Con panel you were on. It was nice to see your energy on the new stuff you are working on. However I was just curious why you were a tad late? Obviously it was not intentional because you looked like you had run to get there, since you seemed a little winded.
It was a little funny because you are in the photo for the panel, but were not at the start of the video.
Our breaks from the booth were in general very short, and I spent almost all of them going to the Sagamore to say hi to PFSers and cheer them on. On my journey that day, I discovered that the quest tables had people waiting and no GMs. So I picked up the only quest that the waiting group of seven could play and just ran it. I was told it would easily fit in the time I had, and that would have been true for sure, except the player of Crowe just kept rolling between 1 and 4 on attack rolls against the main villain, for 3 or 4 rounds in a row (while Oloch continued to fail both the Acrobatics check and the Reflex save to move out of a grease spell). When he finally did hit, it did more than the baddie's full hp (he had been on the ropes anyway from some nickle-and-diming courtesy of Jirelle). With a 7-player table where most players did not have fight-ending moves to take (or kept falling in grease), whenever Crowe missed and Oloch fell again, it added several precious minutes as the rest of them made their moves. In the end, I managed to finish the adventure and arrive at around the time after the hour that the panels usually started in earnest anyway. And apparently, clever HQers used the fact that a "
blue shirt" had needed to fill the hole as a way to convince bunches of GMs whose tables didn't muster to head over and GM the quests, so soon after, the quests always had GMs ready to go. Yay!
Would you say not the non-proficiency penalty with a weapon is the same as being proficient? This would mean feats like Throw Anything or Catch Off Guard and a trait like Rough and Ready would make you proficient with something like improvised weapons or niche weapons.
The reason I ask is because of a 'technical wording' issue. The proficiency feats, like Martial Weapon proficiency, don't actually state you become proficient with the weapon; only that you "make attack rolls with the weapon normally".
Since both the improvised weapon feats, Rough and Ready trait and Proficiency feats all remove the non-proficiency penalty, would that mean taking the two improvised weapon feats or the trait make you proficient?
Should this possibly be a FAQ? Because I could see some issues with Rough and Ready being used to gain free proficiencies. Such as taking something like a hypothetical Profession (guard) would make you proficient in basically all weapons. I know (guard) is not a listed profession, but profession is one of those 'open ended' skills like Craft that has more than what is listed in the core rule book.
Perhaps an FAQrrata to Rough and Ready along with a FAQ for weapon proficiency to close off that little loop hole? Rough and Read appears in Adventurer's Armory, by the way.
It's definitely a tricky situation. I would say that unless a feat had the word proficiency somewhere in it, for instance in its name, it wouldn't technically count as proficiency by RAW. That said, it may not be a bad idea to conflate eliminating the nonproficiency penalty with proficiency some time in the future, as you suggest.
I think Rough and Ready is safe either way--Profession (soldier) would let you improvisedly use "tools" of the trade (perhaps bags of hard tack, pointy figures used on maps to represent troop movement, or the like) rather than soldier's weapons, which are not tools. For instance, a fisherman with Rough and Ready would get to use fishing poles as improvised weapons, but they wouldn't eliminate the penalty when using, say, the weapon harpoon, even though it is used in fishing.
Surprised yesterday when <this> was brought out in a discussion. Are there many hidden/forgotten rulings like this floating around? Is part of the promised effort to make a regularly functioning FAQ system (hope that's going well!) going to deal with these?
There may be other hidden FAQs floating around in the ether.
You and I (and many others) are passionate about getting out more FAQs, but I think it's important for us both to manage our expectations and remember the scope of the promised effort. I have promised to bring up FAQs as a priority item and try to get out as many FAQs as I can in a more timely fashion. However, I don't think anyone has promised a totally new system (I may have missed someone other than me promising this, in which case, neat, and please link!), just the same system with a scrappy new advocate working to raise our rate of FAQage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, I don't think anyone has promised a totally new system (I may have missed someone other than me promising this, in which case, neat, and please link!), just the same system with a scrappy new advocate working to raise our rate of FAQage.
"Lemme at'em! Lemme at'em!"
"Da-da-da-da-da! Seifter ... power!"
Would you say not the non-proficiency penalty with a weapon is the same as being proficient? This would mean feats like Throw Anything or Catch Off Guard and a trait like Rough and Ready would make you proficient with something like improvised weapons or niche weapons.
The reason I ask is because of a 'technical wording' issue. The proficiency feats, like Martial Weapon proficiency, don't actually state you become proficient with the weapon; only that you "make attack rolls with the weapon normally".
Since both the improvised weapon feats, Rough and Ready trait and Proficiency feats all remove the non-proficiency penalty, would that mean taking the two improvised weapon feats or the trait make you proficient?
Should this possibly be a FAQ? Because I could see some issues with Rough and Ready being used to gain free proficiencies. Such as taking something like a hypothetical Profession (guard) would make you proficient in basically all weapons. I know (guard) is not a listed profession, but profession is one of those 'open ended' skills like Craft that has more than what is listed in the core rule book.
Perhaps an FAQrrata to Rough and Ready along with a FAQ for weapon proficiency to close off that little loop hole? Rough and Read appears in Adventurer's Armory, by the way.
It's definitely a tricky situation. I would say that unless a feat had the word proficiency somewhere in it, for instance in its name, it wouldn't technically count as proficiency by RAW. That said, it may not be a bad idea to conflate eliminating the nonproficiency penalty with proficiency some time in the future, as you suggest.
I think Rough and Ready is safe either way--Profession (soldier) would let you improvisedly use "tools" of the trade (perhaps bags of hard tack, pointy figures used on maps to represent troop movement, or the like) rather than soldier's weapons, which are not tools. For instance, a fisherman with Rough and Ready would get to use fishing poles as improvised weapons, but...
I'd be hesitant to go with something like that because it kinds of sets a precedent of none-rules language determining rules.
Personally, I'm fine with them being proficient, because, outside of some really niche builds (like Cao Phans' rock thrower) they, by and large, suck.
Although, it would be funny to see someone try and argue that, because they have Rough and Ready and Profession (magician), they get to wield a 'Lovely Assistant' as a weapon :P
|
|
Surprised yesterday when <this> was brought out in a discussion. Are there many hidden/forgotten rulings like this floating around? Is part of the promised effort to make a regularly functioning FAQ system (hope that's going well!) going to deal with these?There may be other hidden FAQs floating around in the ether.
You and I (and many others) are passionate about getting out more FAQs, but I think it's important for us both to manage our expectations and remember the scope of the promised effort. I have promised to bring up FAQs as a priority item and try to get out as many FAQs as I can in a more timely fashion. However, I don't think anyone has promised a totally new system (I may have missed someone other than me promising this, in which case, neat, and please link!), just the same system with a scrappy new advocate working to raise our rate of FAQage.
I must have been thinking of posts like:
* <this one> (June 26) and
* <this one> (July 26) and
* <this one> (August 4) and
* <this one> (August 6).
I believe I saw some things from Jason and maybe Vic as well, but James, being most prolific, is easiest to find relevant quotations from. Given the drop of a new hardcover bursting with rules, there are naturally a bunch of new questions bubbling up. Especially given first-run text problems. So, like many folks, I'm eager to see the FAQ system back in action after several months inoperative.
:-)
It's not the most frustrating aspect of Paizo to me, but I can see how it could be for some folks.
The reason for the slowness is because the people who we've decided are the ones who can/should answer the rules questions are also the same people who create our rulebooks, and creating rulebooks is pretty much a full time job that leaves very little time to do other things. We've just hired a new designer and the hope is that we'll be able to answer those questions more quickly... but the fact is that losing Sean from the team slowed things down on that front as well, since training up and learning the ropes is ALSO a drain on a designer's time, and a drain on other designer's time since they're doing the training. In the long run, we DO hope to be able to answer the FAQ stuff faster, and hiring up to meet demand is the solution. It's not gonna be an instant fix though.
I'm not involved in the FAQ process. But part of the hiring of an additional employee for the Design Team is "Get the FAQ process running smoothly." So yes... there's hope.
These types of questions are best served being asked, FAQed, and answered in the rules forums. Getting the FAQ back up and running is a big part of why we hired up from 3 to 4 designers, but that process, as far as I understand it, isn't kicking into high gear until after the convention season is over.
I'm aware that, historically, the FAQ system has been slow and inefficient. That's something we are hoping to address soon, and hiring up from 3 to 4 designers is, as is my understanding, part of the way we're getting ready to address it. With Gen Con and the convention season hitting us hard, though, it will be a little longer before we can turn our attentions to the FAQ system.
Me providing answers that may or may not sync up with the way the design team rules on things has, in the past, caused more problems than it's solved, and so I don't answer rules questions if I can help it on this thread.
Surprised yesterday when <this> was brought out in a discussion. Are there many hidden/forgotten rulings like this floating around? Is part of the promised effort to make a regularly functioning FAQ system (hope that's going well!) going to deal with these?There may be other hidden FAQs floating around in the ether.
You and I (and many others) are passionate about getting out more FAQs, but I think it's important for us both to manage our expectations and remember the scope of the promised effort. I have promised to bring up FAQs as a priority item and try to get out as many FAQs as I can in a more timely fashion. However, I don't think anyone has promised a totally new system (I may have missed someone other than me promising this, in which case, neat, and please link!), just the same system with a scrappy new advocate working to raise our rate of FAQage.
I must have been thinking of posts like:
* <this one> (June 26) and
* <this one> (July 26) and
* <this one> (August 4) and
* <this one> (August 6).
Thanks! My takeaway from those posts is still that the intent is to do more FAQs, with a faster turnaround, rather than necessarily revamp the system as it currently stands. I'm not saying I'm sure we won't, but I wouldn't expect it. That said, in the end if we increase FAQage by X%, it probably won't matter much to most people whether that's X% more through go-gettiveness or through system adjustments, but rather moreso that it's X%.
I will say that I'm putting down my FAQ pompoms for now in exchange for trying to get you guys as long a playtest as possible with the new occult classes, preemptive playtest in my mind being something more time-critical than the FAQs. If the FAQs wait a week, they'll still be there, but if the playtest does, that's a week less playtest.
|
|
Thanks! My takeaway from those posts is still that the intent is to do more FAQs, with a faster turnaround, rather than necessarily revamp the system as it currently stands. I'm not saying I'm sure we won't, but I wouldn't expect it. That said, in the end if we increase FAQage by X%, it probably won't matter much to most people whether that's X% more through go-gettiveness or through system adjustments, but rather moreso that it's X%.
I will say that I'm putting down my FAQ pompoms for now in exchange for trying to get you guys as long a playtest as possible with the new occult classes, preemptive playtest in my mind being something more time-critical than the FAQs. If the FAQs wait a week, they'll still be there, but if the playtest does, that's a week less playtest.
We're talking past each other a bit here, I think, since I didn't specify what I meant by "a regularly functioning FAQ system" in the first post. I didn't mean to suggest that I'm looking forward to a system radically different than the one we have now.
Rather, what I want to emphasize is the goal of a regularly functioning FAQ system. It's the uncertainty that drives folks crazy, I think. Or at least that's what does it for me. Even if the FAQ output doesn't increase much, knowing, say, that there will be an FAQ release on the 1st of every month (and then seeing that in action regularly) would do a lot to quiet the discontent.
(This is a pretty normal human reaction I'd say. Ancient historians, for example, abound with tales of tyrants messing with their subjects minds by deliberately making punishments/rewards uncertain. Heck, I'd bet there are plenty of lab-rat studies in the last 50 years to the same effect since psych departments became a thing ...)
Adding to Joe's post, could it be an idea to have "preliminary" and "final" FAQs with a few weeks or a month for the message board users to try and poke holes in it? I was thinking about the (imo fantastic) way the team handled the Paragon Surge FAQ and actively encouraged the fan base to find the niche cases that the FAQ breaks - the only thing I'd change there was to let the users hunt for loopholes before the FAQ was finalized so that if a major issue was discovered, it could be fixed straight away.
That way you'd be able to post the "work in progress" preliminary FAQs and have the customer base search for holes rather than making absolutely there are no unintended side effects the first time round.
You'd also be in a better position to pick out the bad apples straight away based on the customer feedback instead of publishing them and then recanting them down the line - the free action limitation example, crane riposte not working after the crane wing FAQ and so on.
Are we allowed to re-flavor the source of the +X to FAQs? Or would that be a houserule?
It's encouraged in a home game, but in PFS, reskinning is not usually allowed, sorry!
Thanks! My takeaway from those posts is still that the intent is to do more FAQs, with a faster turnaround, rather than necessarily revamp the system as it currently stands. I'm not saying I'm sure we won't, but I wouldn't expect it. That said, in the end if we increase FAQage by X%, it probably won't matter much to most people whether that's X% more through go-gettiveness or through system adjustments, but rather moreso that it's X%.
I will say that I'm putting down my FAQ pompoms for now in exchange for trying to get you guys as long a playtest as possible with the new occult classes, preemptive playtest in my mind being something more time-critical than the FAQs. If the FAQs wait a week, they'll still be there, but if the playtest does, that's a week less playtest.
We're talking past each other a bit here, I think, since I didn't specify what I meant by "a regularly functioning FAQ system" in the first post. I didn't mean to suggest that I'm looking forward to a system radically different than the one we have now.
Rather, what I want to emphasize is the goal of a regularly functioning FAQ system. It's the uncertainty that drives folks crazy, I think. Or at least that's what does it for me. Even if the FAQ output doesn't increase much, knowing, say, that there will be an FAQ release on the 1st of every month (and then seeing that in action regularly) would do a lot to quiet the discontent.
(This is a pretty normal human reaction I'd say. Ancient historians, for example, abound with tales of tyrants messing with their subjects minds by deliberately making punishments/rewards uncertain. Heck, I'd bet there are plenty of lab-rat studies in the last 50 years to the same effect since psych departments became a thing ...)
For now, whenever I've seen consensus, I've pushed for a FAQ right away, but you may very well be right that it would be a good idea to build up a surplus and then release them steadily. I can certainly bring this up as an option. Since it doesn't force more meetings and consensus gathering than the current way, I think that's definitely more feasible than most other changes.
Adding to Joe's post, could it be an idea to have "preliminary" and "final" FAQs with a few weeks or a month for the message board users to try and poke holes in it? I was thinking about the (imo fantastic) way the team handled the Paragon Surge FAQ and actively encouraged the fan base to find the niche cases that the FAQ breaks - the only thing I'd change there was to let the users hunt for loopholes before the FAQ was finalized so that if a major issue was discovered, it could be fixed straight away.
That way you'd be able to post the "work in progress" preliminary FAQs and have the customer base search for holes rather than making absolutely there are no unintended side effects the first time round.
You'd also be in a better position to pick out the bad apples straight away based on the customer feedback instead of publishing them and then recanting them down the line - the free action limitation example, crane riposte not working after the crane wing FAQ and so on.
This is also a solid idea. That doesn't mean there isn't a logistical problem that makes it infeasible that I'm too inexperienced to spot, but I'll certainly suggest it. As is, some FAQs are already something of beta errata, so there's that element to it. I'd definitely be willing to listen to ideas and feedback and consider changing the FAQ wording, though the weird thing is that some people had a negative response to the idea with the last few FAQs, in the vein of "Look how half-baked these FAQs are, that they have to consider amending them based on feedback". My opinion is the opposite and mirrors yours, that there is wisdom in crowd-sourcing the nuances and corner-cases to lead to a refined wording, rather than forcing ourselves to be chained to whatever our first wording might be.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, speaking of the get-go, I was hoping that the freshness of your design tenure might make you a little more aware of something I've been curious about. Before I got into Pathfinder or TTRPGs at all, I was pretty big on MtG, and accordingly followed their design processes as best I could, too; not a difficult task, as their Lead Designer, Mark Rosewater, is a nigh-ceaseless source of game design insight. The thing that stuck with me the most were his discussions on how the MtG design team made a concerted effort to cater parts of their design to each of the different motivational drives that lay behind some of their major player groups (their theory of the Timmy/Johnny/Spike psychographics), knowing that what some of the groups barely find passably interesting might just be THE thing that kept another of the groups invested.
How highly emphasized is the idea of producing 'different material for different appetites' in Paizo design philosophy, have you found? If it's common, is it formalized at all, or is it more of a general notion? I love the wide range of ideas that see print, so I'm curious as to some of the framework behind it all. : )
I know this is an Ask Mark thread and not an Ask Vic thread, but this is a topic on which I can't stay silent: I have always abhorred categorization of players into groups like that. It seriously pisses me off. Mostly, it's because I think any such categorization relies on gross oversimplification, and when you allow oversimplifications to drive design, the result is that it directly affects how people play, and not always in a good way. It becomes a case of "you get what you measure." Worst case, when people don't fit into your neat little boxes, you end up not having a place for them, and they go away. I resist putting people into boxes even more than I personally resist *fitting* into boxes.
I know this is an Ask Mark thread and not an Ask Vic thread, but this is a topic on which I can't stay silent: I have always abhorred categorization of players into groups like that. It seriously pisses me off. Mostly, it's because I think any such categorization relies on gross oversimplification, and when you allow oversimplifications to drive design, the result is—as you said—it directly affects how people play, and not always in a good way. It becomes a case of "you get what you measure." I resist putting people into boxes even more than I personally resist *fitting* into boxes.Also, speaking of the get-go, I was hoping that the freshness of your design tenure might make you a little more aware of something I've been curious about. Before I got into Pathfinder or TTRPGs at all, I was pretty big on MtG, and accordingly followed their design processes as best I could, too; not a difficult task, as their Lead Designer, Mark Rosewater, is a nigh-ceaseless source of game design insight. The thing that stuck with me the most were his discussions on how the MtG design team made a concerted effort to cater parts of their design to each of the different motivational drives that lay behind some of their major player groups (their theory of the Timmy/Johnny/Spike psychographics), knowing that what some of the groups barely find passably interesting might just be THE thing that kept another of the groups invested.
How highly emphasized is the idea of producing 'different material for different appetites' in Paizo design philosophy, have you found? If it's common, is it formalized at all, or is it more of a general notion? I love the wide range of ideas that see print, so I'm curious as to some of the framework behind it all. : )
Vic, I agree with you completely on the pitfalls of those categorizations and the potential for serious negative outcomes from over-reliance on them—I'll explain why I still do like to think about these taxonomies (although only from the perspective of considering many of them briefly, rather than allowing one such scheme or even several to dominate design).
Usually when I see classification taxonomies like that, I mine the useful content from them—for me, that's the idea that you may want to think about the individual components of the taxonomy as sorts of different perspectives. I definitely agree that it's ineffective and problematic to literally lump people into those categories—after all, I'm high on all five of the MtG categorical types, so what would that even make me if I did? I've found that's sometimes helpful, but only as long as you don't think that any given scheme is painting a complete picture but rather an abstraction that necessarily smooths away important features in return for simplification. There will always always always be subcategorizations lost that way, so focusing for long on any one taxonomy blinds you to those empty spaces between, as you've said.
Still, the idea of prototypes/archetypes as a way of building concepts, modeling things, and sharing ideas efficiently is one that's a part of human nature in a lot of ways. As you've pointed out, they can be a huge problem when people don't recognize them as the abstraction that they are and start to think of them as the whole picture. I'm with you there. I still like to read about these different taxonomies because they can challenge me to consider whether my own world model accounted for all the components in that particular taxonomy, so in that way, I find value in more of a hodgepodge amalgmation of a lot of those taxonomies rather than "subscribing" to one of them completely, trying to classify everything in their little boxes, and losing sight of everything else out there, the perspective that you need to see the bigger picture.
Basically to summarize in brief—I agree, but I still find having a variety of them in my toolbox useful in small doses, dangerous in large.
i may have missed someone asking this, but what are some of your favorite houserules?
I know this is an Ask Mark thread and not an Ask Vic thread, but this is a topic on which I can't stay silent: I have always abhorred categorization of players into groups like that. It seriously pisses me off. Mostly, it's because I think any such categorization relies on gross oversimplification, and when you allow oversimplifications to drive design, the result is that it directly affects how people play, and not always in a good way. It becomes a case of "you get what you measure." Worst case, when people don't fit into your neat little boxes, you end up not having a place for them, and they go away. I resist putting people into boxes even more than I personally resist *fitting* into boxes.Also, speaking of the get-go, I was hoping that the freshness of your design tenure might make you a little more aware of something I've been curious about. Before I got into Pathfinder or TTRPGs at all, I was pretty big on MtG, and accordingly followed their design processes as best I could, too; not a difficult task, as their Lead Designer, Mark Rosewater, is a nigh-ceaseless source of game design insight. The thing that stuck with me the most were his discussions on how the MtG design team made a concerted effort to cater parts of their design to each of the different motivational drives that lay behind some of their major player groups (their theory of the Timmy/Johnny/Spike psychographics), knowing that what some of the groups barely find passably interesting might just be THE thing that kept another of the groups invested.
How highly emphasized is the idea of producing 'different material for different appetites' in Paizo design philosophy, have you found? If it's common, is it formalized at all, or is it more of a general notion? I love the wide range of ideas that see print, so I'm curious as to some of the framework behind it all. : )
Basically, some people like being labelled but others resist the practise. You need to find a way to cater to both....no, wait. :o
i may have missed someone asking this, but what are some of your favorite houserules?
My favorite houserule, and my players' too, is one to affect the meta of killing unconscious characters (making it a bad option to take if you expect to win the fight, in order to increase survival by minimizing attacks against unconscious folks). Basically, healing magic takes a while to wake you up, unless it's a spell that brings you back from the dead anyway, like breath of life (since at that point, there's still no point killing you). In exchange, you remain staggered or disabled until negative your con modifier (the other half of the Arcana Unearthed houserule to the dying rules that wasn't adopted full cloth into Pathfinder—its more privileged sister being death at negative Con score instead of -10).
Other than that, most of our houserules are modifications to or eliminations of particular rules elements rather than changes to the core of the system. So something more like "The summon eidolon spell does not exist" or "Simulacrum still requires a piece of the creature in question" or "Favored class bonuses that let you count as being higher level in your class for the purpose of your most important ability don't exist".
EDIT: I just thought of something else—subsystems. I suppose I'm also a big fan of Linda's major houseruled adjustments of awesomeness for kingdom building and mass combat and of my revamped relationship and caravan combat systems.
Mark, I know this relates to a previously-asked question, but how do you feel about the fact that you've now reached 10% of Ask JJ? ;)
That's only 1%, actually. But my thread is half way to some of the shorter ones!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, I know this relates to a previously-asked question, but how do you feel about the fact that you've now reached 10% of Ask JJ? ;)That's only 1%, actually.
math hard!!1!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is an Ask Mark thread and not an Ask Vic thread
Can we ... can we HAVE one of those?!
I know this is an Ask Mark thread and not an Ask Vic threadCan we ... can we HAVE one of those?!
Well that's up to you guys, isn't it? All of these threads have popped up when someone started them. You won't find out until you try!
What is the best way to bribe you?
What is the best way to bribe you?
I have never really been properly bribed before, but if someone were to bribe me, my guess is that I am probably most easily bribed with large amounts of money in nonsequential bills; price would really depend on the bribe. Money aside, I know food bribes are pretty common. If you want to send those, keep in mind not to send me meat.
|
|
Do any classes/spells/items start out as things you just happen to bring to a table when you play on your own? As in, not a formal design process in the early stages, just something someone came up with and you thought should be fleshed out.
Looking at the Advanced Class Guide's spell list gave me a couple instances of "... who would think of that?" I.E. Curse of Burning Sleep...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do any classes/spells/items start out as things you just happen to bring to a table when you play on your own? As in, not a formal design process in the early stages, just something someone came up with and you thought should be fleshed out.
Looking at the Advanced Class Guide's spell list gave me a couple instances of "... who would think of that?" I.E. Curse of Burning Sleep...
Well, that's the advantage of having freelancers of all stripes. Each has great talents in different areas, and in some cases, that talent is for cool off-the-wall ideas. I know I could be accused of having some pretty off-the-wall ideas myself. Pretty much everything I did for Paizo is still NDA, but look at my 3pp stuff—a barbarian archetype tied to fey masquerades and the evershifting nature of the fey, potentially allowing for viable skill-monkey, debuff, utility, or bag-of-tricks contingency builds seems like not the first thing one would think of!
|
Well, that's the advantage of having freelancers of all stripes. Each has great talents in different areas, and in some cases, that talent is for cool off-the-wall ideas. I know I could be accused of having some pretty off-the-wall ideas myself. Pretty much everything I did for Paizo is still NDA, but look at my 3pp stuff—a barbarian archetype tied to fey masquerades and the evershifting nature of the fey, potentially allowing for viable skill-monkey, debuff, utility, or bag-of-tricks contingency builds seems like not the first thing one would think of!Do any classes/spells/items start out as things you just happen to bring to a table when you play on your own? As in, not a formal design process in the early stages, just something someone came up with and you thought should be fleshed out.
Looking at the Advanced Class Guide's spell list gave me a couple instances of "... who would think of that?" I.E. Curse of Burning Sleep...
Yeah, going to be putting one of those through the Tomb of Horrors in a month or so. Wish me luck. =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the best way to bribe you?I have never really been properly bribed before, but if someone were to bribe me, my guess is that I am probably most easily bribed with large amounts of money in nonsequential bills; price would really depend on the bribe. Money aside, I know food bribes are pretty common. If you want to send those, keep in mind not to send me meat.
Disregard this. He accepts salt shakers. Don't ask me why, he just does.
Yeah, going to be putting one of those through the Tomb of Horrors in a month or so. Wish me luck. =)Well, that's the advantage of having freelancers of all stripes. Each has great talents in different areas, and in some cases, that talent is for cool off-the-wall ideas. I know I could be accused of having some pretty off-the-wall ideas myself. Pretty much everything I did for Paizo is still NDA, but look at my 3pp stuff—a barbarian archetype tied to fey masquerades and the evershifting nature of the fey, potentially allowing for viable skill-monkey, debuff, utility, or bag-of-tricks contingency builds seems like not the first thing one would think of!Do any classes/spells/items start out as things you just happen to bring to a table when you play on your own? As in, not a formal design process in the early stages, just something someone came up with and you thought should be fleshed out.
Looking at the Advanced Class Guide's spell list gave me a couple instances of "... who would think of that?" I.E. Curse of Burning Sleep...
Awesome! Good luck. And you owe it to yourself (and your ill-fated team going into the tomb) to make sure you check out the new evolutions by then!