(Occult Adventures) Maybe It's Just Me, But...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Does everything in this book seem really complicated compared to other Paizo books? Don't get me wrong, I love the book and how it fits perfectly into my homebrew world, but it's taking me longer than usual to get the hang of much of it.

I know I'm taking a risk by asking this question, because the thread will likely end in flames and tears (and subsequent locking), but I was just curious to know if anyone else thought the same. And please try to keep answers civil.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It is a grimoire of esoteric and occulted knowledge, it's very fitting for it to be complex as all hell.


They are most assuredly more complex than previous classes. While it does fit thematically it feels almost not worth the complexity. To me at least im sure others will and already have taken a likeing to it.


Yes, the book is full of nice, juicy complexity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand what you mean and I agree that this book has more complex system than, for example the Core book.

This is actually something I've noticed for a while in other books as well, and I've experienced in play how players I consider quite rules-savy have misunderstood or fail to grasp the mechanics of some of the new classes. I've also noticed that some players have forgotten about many of their minor class abilities because there are so many of them.

as a comparison: consider the rogue, fighter and cleric compared to the alchemist, magus and inquisitor in terms of mechanics and you'll see a jump in the difficulty curve.

being a demi-grognard I am dreaming of a time where the classes were easier to wrap your head around and start playing, instead of studying them intensly - like preparing for an exam.

Understand me correctly though: I like a lot of the new ideas and systems shown in the latest books.

I just wish the standard minimum of complexity for class building was more like the rogue and wizard - not the bard or shaman.

Now a lot of these so-called problems might not be a challenge for many of the people that frequent these boards, but out in "the real world" a lot of the new classes have a higher system understanding requirement than the original Core classes.

In my opinion. :)

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a learning curve, but there usually is. This is just like what we've encountered many times before in the past 15 years, and seldom do we come out worse for installing the new ideas in our mind palaces. The really big thing here is the introduction of a third type of magic (fourth if you count alchemy), with its own distinct rules. Even so, it's far less of a departure from the familiar than psionics, Pact/Shadow/Truename magic, and Incarnum, innit? Part of me is even a little disappointed by that...:)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Damn Truenamer.

You kept sucking at it more, the higher level you got.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Medium seems pretty straightforward.

Chakras are straightforward. Utter, unadulterated S&!$ that I'd hope would get the author at least YELLED at for how piss-poorly written a system it is, but straightforward nonetheless.

The Mesmerist and Spiritualist are both pretty simple builds. Well, the Spiritualist is only "simple" because the Summoner has been out for years now and people understand how THAT works (kinda).

The Kineticist is very convoluted at first glance, the Occultist likewise, and I'm not sure what to make of the Psychic.

Auras aren't too dissimilar from what's come before it - just a little more elaboration on an already-established mechanic.

Rituals are actually pretty simple; they require a pretty substantial amount of "DM sits down for the weekend and pounds these out" effort, but aren't too bad, in all honesty. I actually really like them as a way to surgically remove broken spells from my games without COMPLETELY banning the effects.

Psychic Duels are... yeah, okay, they're convoluted, but Duels of any kind always were in PF.

And Possession may be a tiny bit complicated, but it's nice to have honest-to-god in-depth rules on Possession after trying to wing the effects for several years now.

---

So, the book is a bit on the complicated side, but I honestly don't think that's bad - this is an "Adventures" book, after all, which means the rules for the genre are gonna be pretty in-depth and potentially more complicated than basic "vanilla" Pathfinder rules.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Damn Truenamer.

You kept sucking at it more, the higher level you got.

Well... except for 20th level, where they apparently then become tier 0. Such a weird class.

Scarab Sages

It was pretty easy to fix, though - just change the formula for DC calculation. I tested the numbers once, and found that 15 + CR/HD works - even without magic, items, and feats that increase your Intelligence/skill check rolls, that gives you a steady 50-75% chance for your utterances to work against enemies on your level.


the Psychic is pretty straightforward like a Sorcerer or Oracle

Dark Archive

I remember loving truename and pact magic, but I also remember the former requiring me to delve through 7 books to get it to work correctly and the latter making many DM's question what type of character you were playing. Personally I don't find it that difficult, but I have a lot of experience. I'd say they are a bit higher in complexity, but nowhere near as complex as they could be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not just you, though it didn't start with Occult, the ACG was pretty bad about very complicated mechanics as well. It's quite disappointing.

The problem for me is not that the classes are too complex for a player to use (though that could be an issue for less experienced players), and more that it tends to make the classes a nightmare for a GM to use, or to hand off as cohorts to a player.

The swashbuckler for example is a neat class that fits into many campaigns (especially the one I'm currently playing) but is a nightmare to casually drop into play. Pirate ship full of swashbucklers? Have fun with that combat.

Basically they are unusable for a GM. Which is a shame, especially since a GM needs to spend the time to learn about them all the same if any players want to use them.


Unless Your pirate ship os being boarded by pirate Awakened T-rrexes I dont see the problem with the swashy... at all....


Peter Stewart wrote:

The swashbuckler for example is a neat class that fits into many campaigns (especially the one I'm currently playing) but is a nightmare to casually drop into play. Pirate ship full of swashbucklers? Have fun with that combat.

Basically they are unusable for a GM. Which is a shame, especially since a GM needs to spend the time to learn about them all the same if any players want to use them.

I mean... if you think a Pirate Ship full of ANYTHING except cookie-cutter Fighters is manageable you're kidding yourself.

A Pirate Ship full of Sorcerers, Wizards, Druids, Clerics, or any other Fullcasters is a bookkeeping NIGHTMARE because of all the spells available. Druids get SPECIAL mention for having Wild Shape as well.

A Pirate Ship full of Monks and/or Ninjas is going to also be a bit of a gigantic pain because of keeping track of all that Ki.

A Pirate Ship full of Paladins (don't ask) is going to require you to keep track of Smite targets, of their Bonded Weapons, uses of Lay on Hands, etc.

...

You are SERIOUSLY living in a dream world if you think the ACG was the "too complicated." With the exception of the Shaman, no class was more complicated than any class yet printed (yes, even the Arcanist - that class is pretty straight forward, just with a lot of different options); fill a Pirate Ship with tons of individuals of practically ANY PC Class, even back to Core classes, and you're going to have a giant mess to deal with - the Fighter being probably the sole exception to this rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aside from the Kineticist.. I think the other 1/3rd of the book is pretty easy to follow.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

The swashbuckler for example is a neat class that fits into many campaigns (especially the one I'm currently playing) but is a nightmare to casually drop into play. Pirate ship full of swashbucklers? Have fun with that combat.

Basically they are unusable for a GM. Which is a shame, especially since a GM needs to spend the time to learn about them all the same if any players want to use them.

I mean... if you think a Pirate Ship full of ANYTHING except cookie-cutter Fighters is manageable you're kidding yourself.

A Pirate Ship full of Sorcerers, Wizards, Druids, Clerics, or any other Fullcasters is a bookkeeping NIGHTMARE because of all the spells available. Druids get SPECIAL mention for having Wild Shape as well.

A Pirate Ship full of Monks and/or Ninjas is going to also be a bit of a gigantic pain because of keeping track of all that Ki.

A Pirate Ship full of Paladins (don't ask) is going to require you to keep track of Smite targets, of their Bonded Weapons, uses of Lay on Hands, etc.

...

You are SERIOUSLY living in a dream world if you think the ACG was the "too complicated." With the exception of the Shaman, no class was more complicated than any class yet printed (yes, even the Arcanist - that class is pretty straight forward, just with a lot of different options); fill a Pirate Ship with tons of individuals of practically ANY PC Class, even back to Core classes, and you're going to have a giant mess to deal with - the Fighter being probably the sole exception to this rule.

A pirate ship full of Paladins ... now THAT sounds like a good story.

I would say that yes, you're right: any caster will need a spellist, or at least the resemblance of one - and that's extra homework for a GM.
But so is also Deeds, and most players/GM's have less experience with them.

And maybe that's the core of it: experience.
I mean; I don't like building Casters, I hate choosing spells for a npc - but I've been doing it for some years now.
Ask me to add a swashbuckler or a kineticist and (I will first call you a rude name and tell you to get lost, and then )I'll admit I have no experience with any of them and it will take me AGES reading up on them, understanding them, and then choosing what bits to use.

siderant: And is it just me or is there more things to choose in the new classes than the old? It's fun for customizers, but not for Gm's that want a fast opponent to drop into a lvl 10 game. (high level also makes that worse, of course)


LuxuriantOak wrote:

...

siderant: And is it just me or is there more things to choose in the new classes than the old? It's fun for customizers, but not for Gm's that want a fast opponent to drop into a lvl 10 game. (high level also makes that worse, of course)

I think for the most part that it is less that classes are more complex and more that there are fewer classes that can be slapped together in a really cookie cutter way because there are actually serious decisions to be made. Compare a Barbarian, Rogue or Ranger to a Bloodrager, Investigator or Slayer. There isn't a lot of difference. Even look at a Swashbuckler compared to a Fighter. The Swashbuckler has less build choice.

There is a tendency for newer classes to have more moving parts in play, and they *tend* to be less cookie cutter. That's probably why they feel more complex, because core classes tend to have a set of power options that are straight up better than the alternatives. This doesn't happen as much with later classes. Slayer can do TWF or Archery like a ranger can, but it isn't forced into it by a lack of decent alternate ranger feat choices. Investigator isn't pigeon holed into TWF like the Rogue is. Bloodrager is actually simpler than Barbarian unless you take that archetype that lets you swap out parts of your bloodline for rage powers (which you should, because it has no mandatory trades and is awesome). Swashbuckler is far simpler than a Fighter in terms of the number of choices you need to make, and theoretically it could be simpler in play too, but in reality fighters end up going for really cookie cutter builds unless you make an effort to deviate(which you won't if you are throwing together an NPC), so it feels simple despite there being hundreds of options to choose from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the biggest problem with the Kineticist was that it was too much rules in general... a new class feature every other level. Everything after "Kinetic Blast" should have, in my opinion, been a Utility Wild Talent, and Wild Talents granted every level like spells (a spell-progression chart even). Imagine the ease if it had been handled a bit more like spell progression...

1st level, 3 talents (don't worry if they're utility/infusion/other).

People would quickly buy Gather Power early on as well as an Infusion like Extended Range and the Elemental Defense of their element. Elemental Overflow would be a 2nd level utility, infusion specialization would likely be a feat (or tier of feats) instead of class feature, metakinesis a 3rd level infusion of the type: Meta, etc, etc... you wouldn't feel so much like you have a ton of rules, as you'd feel that you had a ton of options (similar to spells).

I think each book tends to do even more rules for a class than the previous book(s). Any way that simplifies would be much better.

I love the Kineticist, my all time favorite class ever, but it could have been a lot cleaner with a ton-less in class features, and had the same basic results.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

The swashbuckler for example is a neat class that fits into many campaigns (especially the one I'm currently playing) but is a nightmare to casually drop into play. Pirate ship full of swashbucklers? Have fun with that combat.

Basically they are unusable for a GM. Which is a shame, especially since a GM needs to spend the time to learn about them all the same if any players want to use them.

I mean... if you think a Pirate Ship full of ANYTHING except cookie-cutter Fighters is manageable you're kidding yourself.

A Pirate Ship full of Sorcerers, Wizards, Druids, Clerics, or any other Fullcasters is a bookkeeping NIGHTMARE because of all the spells available. Druids get SPECIAL mention for having Wild Shape as well.

A Pirate Ship full of Monks and/or Ninjas is going to also be a bit of a gigantic pain because of keeping track of all that Ki.

A Pirate Ship full of Paladins (don't ask) is going to require you to keep track of Smite targets, of their Bonded Weapons, uses of Lay on Hands, etc.

...

You are SERIOUSLY living in a dream world if you think the ACG was the "too complicated." With the exception of the Shaman, no class was more complicated than any class yet printed (yes, even the Arcanist - that class is pretty straight forward, just with a lot of different options); fill a Pirate Ship with tons of individuals of practically ANY PC Class, even back to Core classes, and you're going to have a giant mess to deal with - the Fighter being probably the sole exception to this rule.

Not surprisingly, I completely disagree. Resource management for the average NPC is of marginal concern. It's no more difficult than tracking hit points. You mark off a given resource for a given enemy. What makes the swashbuckler (in particular) so difficult to manage is an array of immediate actions and fiddly modifiers that have to be remembered for the class to function as intended.

Whether it's bonuses on saves, moves in responses to attacks, parrys, or what not, the class is a bogging down nightmare not only on its own turn, but on others as well.

Grand Lodge

To me, it feels like the book was really padded out with options and complexity because Paizo wanted to sell us a longer, more expensive product. You know, sort of like how the patch to fix the design mistakes of the summoner, rogue, barbarian, etc, somehow turned into a whole new book called "Unchained" instead of what it needed to be: a blog post with a few bits of errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They are all pretty balanced, solid classes overall though. It might be that the complexity is what creates classes that don't break themselves or the game. Except summoner, which is usually broken by its simpler bits like standard-action summoning instead of super-complex eidolon min-maxing, it seems pretty often that the less moving parts a class has the more likely it is to snap something. Maybe it's no coincidence that the Core classes are usually touted as the most powerful ones?

Feels like a good direction for the company and the game, honestly. The classes are gated a bit by system mastery, but if I had brand-new players I would probably have them practice with a CRB class first to get the hang of it before I hand them a Medium. And I've been fiddling with them and haven't noticed anything ridiculous; either way too powerful or way too weak.

Kineticist is complex on paper, but in practice I've noticed it's really straightforward, though from what Mark's been saying it seems like it got hit pretty hard with copyfitting, so there's that. But you have things that add burn, you have things that subtract burn, and you have a total allotment of burn you can spend in a round. And you're handed only one or two things each level, so in play there's lots of time to go over what you can do and how you do it.


Peter Stewart wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

The swashbuckler for example is a neat class that fits into many campaigns (especially the one I'm currently playing) but is a nightmare to casually drop into play. Pirate ship full of swashbucklers? Have fun with that combat.

Basically they are unusable for a GM. Which is a shame, especially since a GM needs to spend the time to learn about them all the same if any players want to use them.

I mean... if you think a Pirate Ship full of ANYTHING except cookie-cutter Fighters is manageable you're kidding yourself.

A Pirate Ship full of Sorcerers, Wizards, Druids, Clerics, or any other Fullcasters is a bookkeeping NIGHTMARE because of all the spells available. Druids get SPECIAL mention for having Wild Shape as well.

A Pirate Ship full of Monks and/or Ninjas is going to also be a bit of a gigantic pain because of keeping track of all that Ki.

A Pirate Ship full of Paladins (don't ask) is going to require you to keep track of Smite targets, of their Bonded Weapons, uses of Lay on Hands, etc.

...

You are SERIOUSLY living in a dream world if you think the ACG was the "too complicated." With the exception of the Shaman, no class was more complicated than any class yet printed (yes, even the Arcanist - that class is pretty straight forward, just with a lot of different options); fill a Pirate Ship with tons of individuals of practically ANY PC Class, even back to Core classes, and you're going to have a giant mess to deal with - the Fighter being probably the sole exception to this rule.

Not surprisingly, I completely disagree. Resource management for the average NPC is of marginal concern. It's no more difficult than tracking hit points. You mark off a given resource for a given enemy. What makes the swashbuckler (in particular) so difficult to manage is an array of immediate actions and fiddly modifiers that have to be remembered for the class to function as intended.

Whether it's bonuses on saves, moves in responses to...

Lol what?

The swashbuckler is stupid easy... the only time you are really "fiddling with numbers" is if you have a panache pool or not and how many points you have left.

And immediate actions are too conplex for you? I mean... really? Your stretching hard... i mean, maybe i could understand if you had said like Shaman or or something, but Swashy is pretty straight forward...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DungeonmasterCal wrote:

Does everything in this book seem really complicated compared to other Paizo books? Don't get me wrong, I love the book and how it fits perfectly into my homebrew world, but it's taking me longer than usual to get the hang of much of it.

I know I'm taking a risk by asking this question, because the thread will likely end in flames and tears (and subsequent locking), but I was just curious to know if anyone else thought the same. And please try to keep answers civil.

Yes it is more complicated. It should be considered an advanced book. No it is not broken. No it is not badly written, regardless of what some people may want you to believe. It is great for people who want to add new and complex things to their game, and fine for those who don't.

Except the mindblade which has an absolutely ridicules penalty. Still not badly written, but someone should have noted that and made some changes.


Headfirst wrote:
To me, it feels like the book was really padded out with options and complexity because Paizo wanted to sell us a longer, more expensive product.

That is blatantly untrue. If it was true, then paizo would not have removed the largest class in the game (original medium) and make Mark create a smaller and simpler version to reduce page-count of the book.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Lol what?

The swashbuckler is stupid easy... the only time you are really "fiddling with numbers" is if you have a panache pool or not and how many points you have left.

And immediate actions are too conplex for you? I mean... really? Your stretching hard... i mean, maybe i could understand if you had said like Shaman or or something, but Swashy is pretty straight forward...

You know what, you've completely changed my mind with your laughter, snark, and declarations. Wait... no you didn't. I stand completely by my statements.

1. Many ACG and Occult classes are extremely complex, especially relative to existing classes. They have large numbers of fiddly mechanics in addition to existing ones, rather than more static bonus. They make more complex use of the action economy, especially with interrupts.
2. That complexity presents a minor barrier for an individual player both in creation and play, but a larger barrier to a GM in use and integration into the game world.

The swashbuckler is endemic of this, at least most clearly in my mind. Within my long running game we have a history of handing off NPCs for players to run in combat – you might call them cohorts. It has never presented an issue, but two swashbucklers recently used proved troublesome even for very experienced and mechanically competent players. This is a difficulty echoed by the GM, because of the action economy options they have, and the array of often changing modifiers across multiple attacks.

If they ran these same characters day in and day out many times it would likely present no difficulty. You are accustomed to what you can do over time, but for a GM that simply wishes to drop one in as a short term NPC / foe, they can be a headache. This is especially true in larger combats involving numerous foes. Again, the swashbuckler is only foremost in my mind. Many of these classes are filled with brand new mechanics, or abilities that are specific to them, which make them unsuitable for casual use. A high level arcanist for instance, relative to a wizard or sorcerer, has not only spells, but also a dozen or more exploits that all interact in their own way, often with varying option types, with many of them being quite fiddly (+1 DC, +1 CL, arcane barrier, etc).

In addition, many of these abilities do not quickly or easily translate to a character sheet, and instead require reference to the text as well. As someone that plays online, that is already juggling multiple programs such as maptool and mIRC, it breaks into the game for me. It’s an added barrier to use.

Again, it’s less that I see these classes as too complicated for a player to use, and more that the increasingly fiddly design and floating changing numbers and actions tend to complicate the game in ways that I think the designers do not always consider.


Peter Stewart wrote:


1. Many ACG and Occult classes are extremely complex, especially relative to existing classes. They have large numbers of fiddly mechanics in addition to existing ones, rather than more static bonus. They make more complex use of the action economy, especially with interrupts.

Arcanist - 7 Page has lots of Exploits, yes, but as far as the number goes, no worse than a Rogue with Rogue Talents. Spellcasting is a little funky, but adapting to preparing your "Spells Known" is pretty easy. Far more simple than the Oracle; no worse than the Witch, or Sorcerer; slightly more complex than the Wizard and Cleric (which are arguably 2 of the simplest classes in the game).

Bloodrager - 8 Pages Total; 6 Pages for Bloodlines, 1 Page for Spells Is identical to the Barbarian, but adding on a Sorcerer's Bloodline and 4th-level spellcasting. Actually far simpler than both the Paladin and Ranger - its divine counterparts.

Brawler - 3 Pages Has a slightly different Flurry than the Monk, but somewhat simpler. Identical scaling damage to a Monk. Martial Flexibility is the most "complex" aspect of the class, and really just requires good knowledge of Combat Feats to be very effective. Less total "moving parts" than a core Monk honestly.

Hunter - 4 Pages Focuses on having an Animal Companion, so no worse than a Ranger or Druid; far simpler than a Summoner.

Investigator - 4 Pages Has Alchemy identical to an Alchemist, plus has Studied Strike; no more complex than a base Rogue or even an Alchemist.

Shaman - 13 Pages Total; 10 Pages of Spirits, 1 Page of Spirit Animal VERY complex class; probably most complex in the game.

Skald - 4 Pages A Bard by another name & shtick. Completely lacks the Bard's various "Inspire" and "Performance" abilities and instead has a few Barbarian Rage Powers it can grant (so familiarity with the Barbarian at all prepares you for a Skald). Either AS complex as a Bard or possibly simpler.

Slayer - 3 Pages Has as many Feats options as a Ranger but lacks several extraneous abilities like Favored Terrain or Favored Enemy. Slightly more complex than the Fighter but FAR less complex than the Ranger.

Swashbuckler - 4 Pages Mechanically parallel/identical to the Gunslinger; if you can handle a Gunslinger, you can handle a Swashbuckler - if you can't handle a Gunslinger, you're in trouble as a DM.

Warpriest - 8 Pages Total; 6 Pages Blessings Boils down to a Fighter with Magic and Scaling damage; Fervor basically fuels 4 different abilities - Swift-casting spells on itself, healing itself or acting as Lay on Hands, activating Sacred Weapon's and Sacred Armor's temporary Enhancement Bonus abilities. No more complex/simpler than a Paladin.

For comparison:

Barbarian - 3 Pages
Bard - 4 Pages
Cleric - 9 Pages
Druid - 7 Pages
Fighter - 1-2 Pages
Monk - 4 Pages
Paladin - 3 Pages
Ranger - 3 Pages
Rogue - 3 Pages
Sorcerer - 6 Pages
Wizard - 9 Pages

So... yeah. No worse than any of the Core classes.

cont. wrote:
2. That complexity presents a minor barrier for an individual player both in creation and play, but a larger barrier to a GM in use and integration into the game world.

Again, this is something even DMs using the Core Rulebook face.

You're confusing "new and scary" with "overly complex" - Had you been playing with the ACG & APG classes since 2009 and never seen the Core 11 until just last year, you'd be declaring the Core 11 to be "too complex" because you're unfamiliar with them.

Most competent DMs will allow a class in the game and learn its strength and weaknesses through example.

cont. wrote:
The swashbuckler is endemic of this, at least most clearly in my mind. Within my long running game we have a history of handing off NPCs for players to run in combat – you might call them cohorts. It has never presented an issue, but two swashbucklers recently used proved troublesome even for very experienced and mechanically competent players. This is a difficulty echoed by the GM, because of the action economy options they have, and the array of often changing modifiers across multiple attacks.

So your anecdote is that "mechanically competent" players had trouble figuring out how an unfamiliar class worked.

I ask whether or not these players have ever used a Gunslinger, because a Swashbuckler is, in play terms, really no different than a Gunslinger but using a Sword instead of a Gun.

cont. wrote:
If they ran these same characters day in and day out many times it would likely present no difficulty. You are accustomed to what you can do over time, but for a GM that simply wishes to drop one in as a short term NPC / foe, they can be a headache.

This is true for ANY class that players are unfamiliar with.

The reason the Fighter is the most user-friendly Class to pick up and play with no experience is that it generally just does one thing: runs up and hits things until they die.

Everything else, whether they be Classes from the APG, ACG, or Core Rulebook, requires a little bit of experience to get used to how they work.


Hell if anything the APG summoner is one of the most complex classes inbthe game... with the Synthesist bwing the moat conplex archetypes.


Peter Stewart wrote:
cbgraphicarts wrote:
You are SERIOUSLY living in a dream world if you think the ACG was the "too complicated." With the exception of the Shaman, no class was more complicated than any class yet printed (yes, even the Arcanist - that class is pretty straight forward, just with a lot of different options); fill a Pirate Ship with tons of individuals of practically ANY PC Class, even back to Core classes, and you're going to have a giant mess to deal with - the Fighter being probably the sole exception to this rule.
Not surprisingly, I completely disagree. Resource management for the average NPC is of marginal concern. It's no more difficult than tracking hit points. You mark off a given resource for a given enemy. What makes the swashbuckler (in particular) so difficult to manage is an array of immediate actions and fiddly modifiers that have to be remembered for the class to function as intended.

I agree with Peter that the latest books have seen another uptick in rules complexity. But I'm commenting because just this very adventure we had actually had an encounter against a pirate ship crewed by thirty-one sorcerers.

Running the encounter seemed to go just fine for our DM.

The Exchange

I'm just going to comment that I have seen this complexity prove an issue for me as a GM and for my players who look to me for rules clarifications. At least 3 of my 4 players have an aversion for forums and message boards.

This issue of complexity, however, is greatly increased by our combat standards. That is, each player including the GM, only has 30 seconds to state their actions or they lose their turn. The only time this 30 second timing is changed for the GM is in the case of special events, such as terrain features changing. (Battle on the side of volcano and a new lava flow begins.)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / (Occult Adventures) Maybe It's Just Me, But... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.