>>Ask *Michael Sayre* ALL your Questions Here!<<


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:

In my opinion, Saint Seiya is better. I really like Toriyama's humor (when Goku shows his "dragon balls" to Bulma is comedy gold), but from Freezer on the fights are really boring. The Freezer fight lasted for months in Japan! Anyway, normally your first animes are your favorite animes, until something comes and shakes your world (Perfect Blue, Samurai Champloo, Black Lagoon, Death Note, Berserk, Gurren Lagan).

Shonen anime fights tend to repeat too many animations. The best animated fights I have seen are from Kazemakase Tsukikage Ran, Chevalier D'Eon, and Seirei no Moribito. If I were to recommend one obscure anime, it would be that one, Moribito ROCKS!

I've really been enjoying the fights in Demon Slayer, and My Hero Academia has had a couple spectacular fight scenes. Shura No Toki is one of my favorite anime, and I enjoyed Tiger Mask W. I really dig it when companies take the time to put a lot of detail into their fights and focus on keeping things moving instead of recycling animations to pad out an hour.

Tangential, I have all these action figures on my desk and I keep saying that at some point I'm going to do a tournament where people can vote on who would win in various matchups. Obviously, I stat up the tournament winner for use in one of our systems. I kind of want to say PF2, but I've got a lineup that includes characters like Adam Jensen from Deus Ex, All Might from My Hero, and Deacon St. John from Days Gone, so maybe I should leave that open until there's a winner, or pick the system I'd use for each character. I really need to get that going.


Tiger and Bunny?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

I'm required by law to ask:

- thoughts on Dragon Ball
Michael Sayre wrote:
I enjoyed it. There are a few ways in which it hasn't aged well.

I tend to agree with this. In some ways, I think the over-all conceit(s) has/have aged better, with specific elements that have aged more poorly. But that could just be nostalgia talking.

Quote:
- thoughts on Dragon Ball Z
Michael Sayre wrote:
It has a lot of great stories and cool fights, and a lot of painful filler. It's net good, but the way it handles power escalation throws away a lot of potentially interesting characters by making them irrelevant. Vegeta is my favorite character.

The filler really, really is painful. I always thought that exploring the characters after they become (effectively) irrelevant would make for good or fascinating stories, but that's definitely outside of the DBZ genre.

I loved the arcs, but the recontextualization of everyone as "just aliens" and the slow loss of various weird and magical creatures never really made sense - Kami (the position), Korin, Mr. Popo, dragon balls, and other magical elements never stopped existing, and it was always a little weird that it tried to step toward sci-fi without going there. (Though DBZ was always fantasy sci-fi, what with capsule tech, the dragon radar, and a whole host of other sci-like elements.)

That said, I am not against the incorporation of alien themes or other things, it's just... some things were weird.

Also the fact that Raditz never mattered, was rarely ever addressed (I think, like, twice in the saga after his death), and never redeemed bothers me. To some extent that's true in general - it feels like a missed opportunity to revitalize the Saiyan peoples.

Quote:
- thoughts on Dragon Ball Z Abridged
Michael Sayre wrote:
Kai or Team 4-Star? Kai was a desperately needed update that brought the series to a new generation with a lot of the unnecessary filler trimmed out. The parody seems funny, but I haven't watched enough to have an opinion.

I meant 4-star, but good to know about Kai! I've not had the opportunity to actually watch Kai, so I'll be interested in doing so at some point!

I will say that TFS has quite a hefty amount of swearing, so if that sort of thing bothers you, please beware (it can bother me, but the over-all product was well-made enough that I enjoyed it anyway).

Michael Sayre wrote:
Bonus Round: I really dislike GT and enjoy Super. Probably because I like Vegeta. GT didn't really do him justice but Super has treated him pretty well.

I never saw anything past Z, myself: no time or opportunity. I've always intended to watch the rest of it - even with GT's broadly panned everything, I'd at least like to see it - but I don't know when that will ever happen.

You know, because you like Vegeta, I honestly don't know if you'll love how DBZ:A treats him or hate how it treats him.

One of the simultaneously best and worst lines in the DBZA series concerning Vegeta:

"You know, Prince, a little advice for next time: you should know your place, like everybody else, and wAiT fOr gOkU."

It's simultaneously extremely painful and extremely well-deployed to get exactly the reaction wanted. Also, Vegeta is awesome.

To some extent, everyone "suffers" in DBZ:A from "parody decay" - and in Vegeta's case, it's all about his arrogance/pride. People who know him proceed to use that against him. Warning: Yamcha gets the absolute short end of the stick. Absolute. Short end. And I mean it gets baaaaaaaaaaad. But it's also good, in some ways, too.

Tacticslion wrote:
Tiger and Bunny?

This was very vague. What I meant was, "Have you seen Tiger & Bunny, and if so what did you think of it?"

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Tiger and Bunny?

Has been perpetually stuck in my "I should probably check that out at some point" folder.

I'm not sure what the general consensus on Super is, but I actually really like it once it starts warming up. The filler (if there is filler, I'm not as up on the manga, but at least the midpoint "this doesn't actually change anything in the setting" arcs) is pretty good, and while Goku still has to be "The Guy", it treats the others a lot better. Master Roshi, Tien, and to a lesser extent Krillin actually matter in the Tournament of Power, and all of the whacky magic of Dragon Ball gets an at least partial return to relevance.

It also does some good development between Goku and Vegeta and (keeping spoilers to a minimum) ends is such way that it's actually not clear whether or not Goku is stronger than Vegeta. The balance and rivalry between Goku and Vegeta is much more engaging and interesting overall in Super, compared to the kind of one-note dynamic they had in Z.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey Michael, I didn't know there was a Wanderer lost constelation in Co7S. Speaking of which, why the change to Expanded Cosmology? To avoid too much stacking?

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:
Hey Michael, I didn't know there was a Wanderer lost constelation in Co7S. Speaking of which, why the change to Expanded Cosmology? To avoid too much stacking?

Yeah, Expanded Cosmology was both overwriting Noble Astrologist in a way it wasn't supposed to and then creating some elemental imbalances that affected other class features, so it was updated to do what it was supposed to be doing originally, which was let you create a mix and match custom cosmology. The AR v1 version was supposed to be updated to match, though I'm not sure if that's happened yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Haven't seen anything in my Drivethrough downloads.

Speaking of ExpCos, I was making a Mayan cosmology with 20 signs and more elements, but I suppose it wouldn't be compatible with others. I want death signs with negative energy! Which got me thinking that, in a way similar to the Wanderer, could be done. Maybe with a feat tax.

I feel like the culprit a bit since my Vishkanya snake lancer was going to get extra water signs via ExpCos LOL, but maybe I will change a fire constelation for the wanderer to get 4 water.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:

Haven't seen anything in my Drivethrough downloads.

Speaking of ExpCos, I was making a Mayan cosmology with 20 signs and more elements, but I suppose it wouldn't be compatible with others. I want death signs with negative energy! Which got me thinking that, in a way similar to the Wanderer, could be done. Maybe with a feat tax.

I feel like the culprit a bit since my Vishkanya snake lancer was going to get extra water signs via ExpCos LOL, but maybe I will change a fire constelation for the wanderer to get 4 water.

You could totally do expanded element types. Christen and I were just talking about a South American themed cosmology (and not just because I'm always looking for opportunities for more luchador mechanics, lol)!

Positive/negative element constellations could be really cool and a great way to bring in yet another type of constellation/cosmology. We've been trying to make every cosmology really distinct from the others as we've been going along; the asymmetrical, offense oriented Material cosmology, the perfectly symmetrical Concordia cosmology, and the powerful but kind of capricious Quiet Lands cosmology. A cosmology that uses nonstandard elements would be extremely cool, though it would require a rules expansion covering how to handle the new energy types; probably don't want unlimited healing by whacking allies with a positive energy enhanced sap. Or at least, it's not a great idea balance-wise :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:


You could totally do expanded element types. Christen and I were just talking about a South American themed cosmology (and not just because I'm always looking for opportunities for more luchador mechanics, lol)!

Positive/negative element constellations could be really cool and a great way to bring in yet another type of constellation/cosmology. We've been trying to make every cosmology really distinct from the others as we've been going along; the asymmetrical, offense oriented Material cosmology, the perfectly symmetrical Concordia cosmology, and the powerful but kind of capricious Quiet Lands cosmology. A cosmology that uses nonstandard elements would be extremely cool, though it would require a rules expansion covering how to handle the new energy types; probably don't want unlimited healing by whacking allies with a positive energy enhanced sap. Or at least, it's not a great idea balance-wise :P

Is not that difficult. IIRC, the example is already in the rules. Clerics can use positive energy to heal allies or harm undead, but normally not both. So, a positive energy weapon would harm undead but not heal living characters. Same with negative energy. Or it could be like Chill Touch, where it works differently against undead.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:


You could totally do expanded element types. Christen and I were just talking about a South American themed cosmology (and not just because I'm always looking for opportunities for more luchador mechanics, lol)!

Positive/negative element constellations could be really cool and a great way to bring in yet another type of constellation/cosmology. We've been trying to make every cosmology really distinct from the others as we've been going along; the asymmetrical, offense oriented Material cosmology, the perfectly symmetrical Concordia cosmology, and the powerful but kind of capricious Quiet Lands cosmology. A cosmology that uses nonstandard elements would be extremely cool, though it would require a rules expansion covering how to handle the new energy types; probably don't want unlimited healing by whacking allies with a positive energy enhanced sap. Or at least, it's not a great idea balance-wise :P

Is not that difficult. IIRC, the example is already in the rules. Clerics can use positive energy to heal allies or harm undead, but normally not both. So, a positive energy weapon would harm undead but not heal living characters. Same with negative energy. Or it could be like Chill Touch, where it works differently against undead.

Oh yeah, for sure, just noting that the verbiage needs to be added since the rules so far only cover the 4 "primary" elements. Personally I'd rather it have one effect on living creatures and one effect on undead; you can usually use close to the same amount of word count to say "attacking a living creature with this weapon grants the target a new saving throw against a disease or poison effect currently affecting it" as it does to say "attacks enhanced with positive energy using the celestial lord class feature do not grant healing to living targets", or whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sidebars are your friends. You could add a sidebar explaining that a touch doesn't suffice and you can attack allies for the positive effect, although you need to attack for non lethal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

* could instead of need. Damned be the time for editing LOL

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:
* could instead of need. Damned be the time for editing LOL

Lol, no worries. The editing windows have caught me a time or two as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:

Yo! I'm Michael Sayre, Paizo developer and designer of various 3pp Pathfinder products like Akashic Mysteries by Dreamscarred Press, Classes of the Lost Spheres: The Zodiac by Lost Spheres Publishing, The Genius Guide to Bravery Feats by Rogue Genius Games, Ultimate Battle Lord by Amora Games, Spheres of Might by Drop Dead Studios, and a bunch of other stuff.

Do you have any questions about any of the projects I've worked on? Curious about what I do has a developer at Paizo or how I ended up here? Want recommendations on games I'm currently playing? Feel free to ask and I'm happy to answer!

Hello, I actually had a few questions, regarding Akashic Mysteries, a creation of yours that i absolutely adore. Here goes:

1. The Daevic class description state in the Passion feature that "Whenever a daevic invests essence into her passion the essence counts as being invested in all of the daevic’s passion veils (for example, a 9th level daevic could invest 2 points of essence into her passion and each of her 3 passion veils would count as having 2 essence invested)." As 9th level is when they would recieve their first dose of the Improved Passion Capacity class feature, this heavily implies that the Passion does not naturally benefit from the standard essence capacity increases for akashic receptacles, i.e. 1st–5th 1
6th–11th 2
12th–17th 3
18th–20th 4
If that chart were taken into account, and the Passion scaled its base with this, that would mean a 9th level Daevic could invest up to 3 points into their Passion, 2 for a veilweaving level between 6-11, and 1 from improved veil capacity. Which is the proper ruling, the charted progression, meaning up to 6 essence invested in the Passion at level 20, or the implied progression, meaning only 3 essence could be invested into the Passion at level 20? (Possibly 4 essence with Expanded Capacity, see below.)
Side Note: The above feature also states that at 9th level, a Daevic has 3 passion veils available to them, but according to the Progression Chart, they don't get their 3rd passion veil until level 10.

2. I have read on forums several suggestions that the wording "Because of the unusual nature of these veils, they cannot benefit from veil-specific feats or effects like Enhanced Capacity or akashic catalysts (though they can still be bound as normal).", which also derives from the Passion class feature, only implies that the veils themselves cannot be modified. Akashic Catalysts do not state that they can function with a Passion, so the obvious answer is no there, but are you able to take the Expanded Capacity feat targeting the Passion itself, thereby increasing the total available essence in a passion to 4 or 7, depending on the proper ruling from above?

3. Does Improved Essence Capacity, as the class feature for both Viziers and Radiants, apply to other veils and class features (such as Passion) from other classes in a multiclass/gestalt scenario, or does it only apply to the class that grants the Improved Essence Capacity class feature. The wording is different for each of those classes, so I am confused. the Vizier feature is worded:
"The vizier is particularly talented at investing essence. At 3rd, 11th, and 19th level the essence capacity of all the vizier’s essence receptacles increases by one. In addition, the DC for any of his veil abilities increases by +1 each time he gains this ability."
The wording "all of the VIZIER'S essence receptacles" seems to imply that this ability would only affect Essence receptacles belonging to the Vizier class, or an item, but wouldn't apply to veils from another class, or a Passion. However, the Radiant uses this wording instead:
"The radiant’s mastery of akasha and life energy has made her particularly talented at investing essence. At 3rd, 9th, and 15th level the maximum essence capacity of all her essence receptacles increases by 1."
This one states "her", which lends itself to the idea that it affects all essence receptacles of her character, including veils and features from other classes, such as Passions. Which is the correct interpretation? Are they class-dependent, global, or is it different for each class, hence the different wording? Is the "In addition, the DC for any of his veil abilities increases by +1 each time he gains this ability." effect also global, affecting veils from other classes?

4. If they are global, do the Improved Essence Capacity class features stack? for instance, a character that was a level 15 Radiant that took 3 levels in Vizier, would they receive all three max essence boosts from the Radiant class, in addition to the max essence boost from Vizier at level 3, for a total of +4 Maximum Essence Capacity for all of their essence receptacles? (Along with the +1 to veil save DCs?)
4b. Does Improved Essence Capacity effect items, such as a Suqur's Gift?

5. Multiclass/Gestalt Rules - I saw in a previous forum you said that, by gestalt rulings, Essence Pools don't stack, and instead accrue at the rate of the faster class. Is this the same with the Improved Essence Capacity class feature? Logically, I would expect that to accrue at the rate of the faster class as well, since they are the same class feature, but the Vizier and Radiant have different wordings AND effects (Viziers grant the bonus to save DCs of veils, the Radiant class feature of the same name does not grant this ability.)
5b. How do Veils shaped stack? Would a 20Daevic/20Vizier be able to shape 15+4 veils, or would it be 11+4. If the latter answer is correct, would a 20Vizier/20Radiant be stuck with just 11 Veils? I am assuming they do stack, as they are effectively different spell lists AND prepared spells, in the same way that a gestalted Wizard Cleric can still benefit from spell lists and Spell slots of both classes, but I would like to be certain.

That is all I can think of for now, and sorry for the ridiculous amount of text, but I have an upcoming campaign that is both gestalt and heavily influenced by Akashic Mysteries. Thank you so much for your time!

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amandus-Morand wrote:

Hello, I actually had a few questions, regarding Akashic Mysteries, a creation of yours that i absolutely adore. Here goes:

1. The Daevic class description state in the Passion feature that "Whenever a daevic invests essence into her passion the essence counts as being invested in all of the daevic’s passion veils (for example, a 9th level daevic could invest 2 points of essence into her passion and each of her 3 passion veils would count as having 2 essence invested)." As 9th level is when they would recieve their first dose of the Improved Passion Capacity class feature, this heavily implies that the Passion does not naturally benefit from the standard essence capacity increases for akashic receptacles, i.e. 1st–5th 1
6th–11th 2
12th–17th 3
18th–20th 4
If that chart were taken into account, and the Passion scaled its base with this, that would mean a 9th level Daevic could invest up to 3 points into their Passion, 2 for a veilweaving level between 6-11, and 1 from improved veil capacity. Which is the proper ruling, the charted progression, meaning up to 6 essence invested in the Passion at level 20, or the implied progression, meaning only 3 essence could be invested into the Passion at level 20? (Possibly 4 essence with Expanded Capacity, see below.)

Daevics gain both the standard progression for capacity and apply their improved capacity to that. So by 20th level a single-classed daevic would be able to invest up to 6 points of essence in their passion. The progression in the table is correct; the text entry is an old fragment from the playtest PDFs that was incorrectly copied into the final release.

Quote:


2. I have read on forums several suggestions that the wording "Because of the unusual nature of these veils, they cannot benefit from veil-specific feats or effects like Enhanced Capacity or akashic catalysts (though they can still be bound as normal).", which also derives from the Passion class feature, only implies that the veils themselves cannot be modified. Akashic Catalysts do not state that they can function with a Passion, so the obvious answer is no there, but are you able to take the Expanded Capacity feat targeting the Passion itself, thereby increasing the total available essence in a passion to 4 or 7, depending on the proper ruling from above?

Passions can't be modified by Enhanced Capacity. That was actually a change between the playtest and final version.

Quote:


3. Does Improved Essence Capacity, as the class feature for both Viziers and Radiants, apply to other veils and class features (such as Passion) from other classes in a multiclass/gestalt scenario, or does it only apply to the class that grants the Improved Essence Capacity class feature. The wording is different for each of those classes, so I am confused. the Vizier feature is worded:
"The vizier is particularly talented at investing essence. At 3rd, 11th, and 19th level the essence capacity of all the vizier’s essence receptacles increases by one. In addition, the DC for any of his veil abilities increases by +1 each time he gains this ability."
The wording "all of the VIZIER'S essence receptacles" seems to imply that this ability would only affect Essence receptacles belonging to the Vizier class, or an item, but wouldn't apply to veils from another class, or a Passion. However, the Radiant uses this wording instead:
"The radiant’s mastery of akasha and life energy has made her particularly talented at investing essence. At 3rd, 9th, and 15th level the maximum essence capacity of all her essence receptacles increases by 1."
This one states "her", which lends itself to the idea that it affects all essence receptacles of her character, including veils and features from other classes, such as Passions. Which is the correct interpretation? Are they class-dependent, global, or is it different for each class, hence the different wording? Is the "In addition, the DC for any of his veil abilities increases by +1 each time he gains this ability." effect also global, affecting veils from other classes?

Improved essence capacity class features apply to all of the character's essence receptacles. The radian just has cleaner wording because it's about 6 years more up to date than the vizier.

Quote:
4. If they are global, do the Improved Essence Capacity class features stack? for instance, a character that was a level 15 Radiant that took 3 levels in Vizier, would they receive all three max essence boosts from the Radiant class, in addition to the max essence boost from Vizier at level 3, for a total of +4 Maximum Essence Capacity for all of their essence receptacles? (Along with the +1 to veil save DCs?)

Normally yes, but they shouldn't if you're doing a gestalt game. You'd want to treat them like other shared class features where only the best progression applies.

Quote:


4b. Does Improved Essence Capacity effect items, such as a Suqur's Gift?

Yes.

Quote:
5. Multiclass/Gestalt Rules - I saw in a previous forum you said that, by gestalt rulings, Essence Pools don't stack, and instead accrue at the rate of the faster class. Is this the same with the Improved Essence Capacity class feature? Logically, I would expect that to accrue at the rate of the faster class as well, since they are the same class feature, but the Vizier and Radiant have different wordings AND effects (Viziers grant the bonus to save DCs of veils, the Radiant class feature of the same name does not grant this ability.)

Use the best. In the case of e.g. a gestalt vizier//radiant, you'd use the vizier's progression, including the DC bumps.

Quote:


5b. How do Veils shaped stack? Would a 20Daevic/20Vizier be able to shape 15+4 veils, or would it be 11+4. If the latter answer is correct, would a 20Vizier/20Radiant be stuck with just 11 Veils? I am assuming they do stack, as they are effectively different spell lists AND prepared spells, in the same way that a gestalted Wizard Cleric can still benefit from spell lists and Spell slots of both classes, but I would like to be certain.

You'd have 11+4 as a daevic//vizier or 11 as a radiant//vizier. There's a few reasons for that, including the fact that there's a hard cap on the number of chakra a character can shape veils in and how it affects power curve across levels. For example, a cleric//wizard 2 would have the spells of a cleric 2 and wizard 2, but would still be limited to one (maybe one plus a swift action) spells per round. A radiant//vizier 2, if you added the veils shaped together, would be able to have 5 veils shaped simultaneously, benefiting from all of them and able to max any of them out with essence as necessary. That would mean that while the cleric//wizard got more options per day and better saves but pretty similar round to round power, the veilweaver would have about doubled their number of constant buffs in addition to standard gestalt improvements. So veils shaped needs to fall under the "take the best progression" category for usability and balance.

Note that this also applies to binds; you wouldn't get double binds since being able to bind to a chakra is a binary state outside of twin veil options (you either can bind to a slot or you can't, you don't gain binds for that slot). That still works out really well for most gestalt veilweavers though; a radiant//vizier would gain body binds 2 levels earlier than a standard vizier with the vizier's DC bumps applied and the ability to bind any Body veil from either list.

Quote:
That is all I can think of for now, and sorry for the ridiculous amount of text, but I have an upcoming campaign that is both gestalt and heavily influenced by Akashic Mysteries. Thank you so much for your time!

Hope that helps!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, thank you so much Michael for the quick and excellent reply. I just have two more questions for you, after conferring with my GM.

1. To clarify, does Improved Essence Capacity affect Passions, or does the line "Because of the unusual nature of these veils, they cannot benefit from veil-specific feats or effects like Enhanced Capacity or akashic catalysts (though they can still be bound as normal)." include those veils benefiting indirectly via the passion, and therefore the Improved Essence Capacity feature would NOT affect Passions?

2. Does Veilshifting and Chakra Rebirth affect all veils the character possesses from all classes, or can it only affect veils granted by the class that grants those class features, such as the Vizier. I am asuming it is global, otherwise the Veilshifter class doesn't make as much sense, but I wanted to be sure.

Thank you again for your time, and for all the work that you do. Akashic magic is a great system that is actually easier for new players to learn than many traditional casters in the base class. It is a welcome breath of fresh air.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Top 3 and top bottom 3 favorite/least favorite aspects of Pathfinder 1st edition. What about 2nd edition?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amandus-Morand wrote:


2. Does Veilshifting and Chakra Rebirth affect all veils the character possesses from all classes, or can it only affect veils granted by the class that grants those class features, such as the Vizier. I am asuming it is global, otherwise the Veilshifter class doesn't make as much sense, but I wanted to be sure.

Just note that the Veilshifter wasn't designed by Michael.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
the xiao wrote:
* could instead of need. Damned be the time for editing LOL
Lol, no worries. The editing windows have caught me a time or two as well.

Hey, do you still have to deal with that now that you’re with Paizo?

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:
Top 3 and top bottom 3 favorite/least favorite aspects of Pathfinder 1st edition. What about 2nd edition?

Pathfinder First Edition- Favorite Aspects

  • 1) Customization- There's so many potential combinations of options that it's unlikely any one person will ever run out of things to play.
  • 2) Robust Storytelling Tools- With rules for siege engines, vehicles, chase scenes, verbal duels, kingdom building, etc. PF1 has what I need to tell just about any story I might want to.
  • 3) Massive 3pp Support- I made the jump to Pathfinder from D&D because of a 3pp product and the massive community of people who have carved out unique and enjoyable niches that open up stories and characters not supported by core is a significant contributor to why PF1 was my preferred game system for the better part of a decade.

Pathfinder First Edition- Least Favorite Aspects

  • 1) Opaqueness of Rules Interactions- While PF1 had a lot of depth and customization, this was accompanied by a certain amount of excess complexity and fiddly interactions. There's a 3pp book I own called "Companions of the Firmament" which, while it includes a lot of great original content, I bought primarily because it collected all the flying and falling rules for PF1 into one cohesive chapter at the start of the book.
  • 2) Inaccessibility- PF1 is a great game, but it can be extremely difficult to teach to new players compared to modern gaming systems like PF2, D&D 5E, Cypher System, etc. Much as I love PF1, it was getting really hard to field and keep full groups for it when other systems were so readily available.
  • 3) Lack of Consistency Across Characters- Something I used to say about PF1 is that if you've learned how to play a fighter, you've learned how to play a fighter and that's about it. Since PF1 isn't really one cohesive game system but rather numerous subsystems layered across each other, learning how to play one type of character or class isn't as transferrable a skill as it is in other gaming systems. Playing a fighter might teach you how to roll the dice and what a feat tree is, but it won't really help you understand the nuances and mechanics of playing e.g. a wizard.

Pathfinder Second Edition- Favorite Aspects

  • 1) Ancestries Affect Tactics- YMMV, but for me races in PF1 were pretty bland (which is why I tended to like 3pp or somewhat more obscure APG races). Most of the time it felt like if you weren't a dwarf or a half-orc, you didn't really interact with your race at all after you added the bonuses in at 1st level. In PF2 my goblin monk gets fire resistance, boosted fire damage with ki spells, and the ability to use flurry of blows with flaming spit wads because those are things that goblins get. When we played the Unforgiving Fire quest with 1st level characters, my ancestry still directly affected the way we decided to tackle the scenario and how we prioritized our tactics, and I think that's awesome.
  • 2) Accessibility- Towards the "final days" of PF1, it was really hard to get a table together. I could find folks for Cypher System games or D&D, but when I mentioned that I wanted to play Pathfinder people started getting squirrely and discovering they had previous commitments. When PF2 came out, people were calling me to ask when we were starting a new game and telling me about the character they wanted to play. It was an energy I hadn't seen in a long time and the first time in awhile I'd got to play Pathfinder without getting stuck building everyone's characters for them.
  • 3) Customization- I have yet to see two people build the same character in PF2, despite it having a more defined character creation system. The numerous pivot points of ancestry, background, class, ancestry feats, class feats, dedications, etc. mean there's so many viable options. You'd need three or four PF1 books to have the same array of viable options and each new PF2 book really explodes those options outwards. I'm going to have a legitimately solid monk / hellknight signifier for one of our home games in the not too distant future and that's pretty cool.

Pathfinder Second Edition- Least Favorite Aspects

  • 1) Limited 3pp Support- So, I've already got the ball rolling on doing my part to address this, but there's a lot of stuff out there that Paizo might not ever do, and some of that is my favorite PF1 stuff. Psionics, akashic, spheres, monster trainers, etc. are all common parts of my PF1 game and I'm eager for the day that PF2 has similar options and outside support.
  • 2) Limited 1pp Options- It's a new system, and despite being one of the most robust systems I've ever interacted with, there's still components missing. I need my full orcs, my warleaders, my nagaji, my summoners!
  • 3) I'm going to be honest, I'm not sure what to put here. I genuinely enjoy the vast majority of PF2 and I think any blemishes it might currently have are of the "easily sanded off with minor errata when it goes off for the next printing" variety. My issues are primarily that I want more. I wrote up an encounter recently that was literally just following the core rules for what happens when you try to walk across a mossy log over a rushing river and those rules were actually really straightforward and pretty fun to run, which has been my experience with pretty every aspect of the game I've interacted with.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
the xiao wrote:
* could instead of need. Damned be the time for editing LOL
Lol, no worries. The editing windows have caught me a time or two as well.
Hey, do you still have to deal with that now that you’re with Paizo?

I actually do, yeah.


the xiao wrote:
* could instead of need. Damned be the time for editing LOL
Michael Sayre wrote:
Lol, no worries. The editing windows have caught me a time or two as well.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Hey, do you still have to deal with that now that you’re with Paizo?
Michael Sayre wrote:
I actually do, yeah.

It looks like you've suffered a terrible fate...


I know what you are talking about... in 2ed there were tons of options, and when 3rd edition came out, it was just core... but then the bloat happened. Very few things were really good, the rest werw from meh to horrible.

Very few 3pp dared to do something different...whereas in PF.

My favorite new stuff company is Interjection games, which has created so many systems that it is difficult to remember them all. His momentum system is right up my alley.

My favorite "improve to perfection what has been do or with what is already there" designer is someone who I don't want to mention, don't want to inflate his ego LOL. And the Dreamscarred Duo, from humble beginnings to where they are.


Tacticslion wrote:
the xiao wrote:
* could instead of need. Damned be the time for editing LOL
Michael Sayre wrote:
Lol, no worries. The editing windows have caught me a time or two as well.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Hey, do you still have to deal with that now that you’re with Paizo?
Michael Sayre wrote:
I actually do, yeah.
It looks like you've suffered a terrible fate...

Aw, man, got my reference a bit off! That's what I get for posting without re-watching, first!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everybody has used houserules. What were/are the most important ones in your games? Of any system.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:
Everybody has used houserules. What were/are the most important ones in your games? Of any system.

My main "house rule" is- Nothing in the game is more important than keeping the story moving. If there's a rules dispute, GM makes a call and we look up the specifics after the session (so if there's two ways to read something and whatever you want to do wouldn't work with one of the interpretations, it's a really good idea to ask before the session starts).

That actually applies to a lot of things and is usually part of my general "treat it like improv" policy where I try to never say no when I can say "yes but..."

When I'm running a game I want everyone at the table to have fun and I'm pretty disinclined to make any ruling that makes the game less fun for the folks at the table. Sometimes that can mean telling someone "no" because whatever they're doing can sap the fun out of the game for the rest of the group or otherwise create an unfun environment, but my goal for a game is to have everyone leave glad that they showed up to play and excited for the next game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What classes do you prefer to play? Are/were you allowed akashic classes when you play at Paizo?

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:
What classes do you prefer to play? Are/were you allowed akashic classes when you play at Paizo?

I played a zodiac through most of book 2 of Return of the Runelords! Now I'm back to my leshy luchador.

Monk is probably one of my favorite classes, though in general I like characters who are a fusion of magical and martial might.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mmhhh... that explains champions of the spheres. You had a hand in there? Or I'm just wildguessing

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:
Mmhhh... that explains champions of the spheres. You had a hand in there? Or I'm just wildguessing

I may have written a few things for that, yeah, lol! Most notably the sage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
the xiao wrote:
Everybody has used houserules. What were/are the most important ones in your games? Of any system.

My main "house rule" is- Nothing in the game is more important than keeping the story moving. If there's a rules dispute, GM makes a call and we look up the specifics after the session (so if there's two ways to read something and whatever you want to do wouldn't work with one of the interpretations, it's a really good idea to ask before the session starts).

That actually applies to a lot of things and is usually part of my general "treat it like improv" policy where I try to never say no when I can say "yes but..."

When I'm running a game I want everyone at the table to have fun and I'm pretty disinclined to make any ruling that makes the game less fun for the folks at the table. Sometimes that can mean telling someone "no" because whatever they're doing can sap the fun out of the game for the rest of the group or otherwise create an unfun environment, but my goal for a game is to have everyone leave glad that they showed up to play and excited for the next game.

I gotta enforce this more often. I tend to try to let people sway me, but it can become too much of a time drain. I'm working on it, though!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Akashic Bestiary when?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What does it take to get a head around here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Y'dersius wrote:
What does it take to get a head around here?

Pretty sure I'm a-head of you, in terms of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey Michael! I think you already answered but I'm not sure... Why does the Radiant get 8 veils at 20th level, when they only have six chakra slots and binds in their list?

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:
Akashic Bestiary when?

It's on my list, but right now I've been focused on the 5E conversion of Akashic Mysteries. Speaking of which, you can check out our playtest game livestreaming tomorrow at 2pm CST on Twitch! Edit I'm getting a weird result when I use the hyperlink function, so here's the url just in case-

www.twitch.tv/cloud9tabletop

the xiao wrote:
Hey Michael! I think you already answered but I'm not sure... Why does the Radiant get 8 veils at 20th level, when they only have six chakra slots and binds in their list?

The 2 veils they can't bind are essentially "cantrips" for the radiant. From a design perspective, veils should all have a basic effect that sits roughly between a cantrip and a 1st level spell, while each of the binds corresponds to a particular power level. You can see some of the design standards I have for the system here. So the radiant has a couple extra veils that they don't get the inherent ability to bind (though they can buy the binds with the appropriate Access Chakra feats) to give them some more flexibility without actually increasing their power ceiling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
the radiant has a couple extra veils that they don't get the inherent ability to bind (though they can buy the binds with the appropriate Access Chakra feats) to give them some more flexibility without actually increasing their power ceiling.

Yeah, but their veil list only includes veils for the 6 slots they can bind.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
the radiant has a couple extra veils that they don't get the inherent ability to bind (though they can buy the binds with the appropriate Access Chakra feats) to give them some more flexibility without actually increasing their power ceiling.
Yeah, but their veil list only includes veils for the 6 slots they can bind.

That's actually not true (and intentionally so)! While every veil on their veil list does have at least one slot that the radiant has, they also have veils like Ceradon's Eternity, Cloak of Thorns, Heart of Yggdrasil, and Cardinal's Cape that can be shaped in slots they don't get binds for (generally Chest and Shoulders).

They also get a little more "oomph" out of feats like Twin Veil and Shape Veil since they're the only class that has more veils shaped than binds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh nice! And speaking about the akashic design notes...
OH
MY
GOD
!

I will design a couple of stuff for my old campaign setting. The cosmology and a guru veil set! Thanks for the notes! I have newfound respect for your design and rule polishing abilities!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait a minute... in your notes you mention an max essence cap of 11? How can you do that?!? To my knowledge, a normal progression gets to 4, +3 for class features, +1 for feat for a total of 8... where do the other 3 come from?

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:
Wait a minute... in your notes you mention an max essence cap of 11? How can you do that?!? To my knowledge, a normal progression gets to 4, +3 for class features, +1 for feat for a total of 8... where do the other 3 come from?

Akashic catalysts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Duh! I thought you actually invested the essence. But with Akashic Catalysts... man, a top level Vizier sure can get powerful effects AND DC! For an 11 Vizier essence veil you would get a DC of 24, plus Int bonus! That can surely match 9th level spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What are the more memorable akashic characters you have had? On both sides of the table.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
the xiao wrote:
What are the more memorable akashic characters you have had? On both sides of the table.

So, the most recent addition to that list is definitely Owen's guru from last weekend's playtest game. He did a great job of living the character and bringing it to life, and it hit all the notes you'd want that kind of character to hit both in his dialogue and in his actions during combat.

Sir Brekius Buzzknecht is my morphbear zodiac who's totally not a moogle knight on a chocobo mount, and I absolutely love him. Even after our last session where he was knocked unconscious, causing his mount, armor, and weapon to all disappear and leave him laid out practically defenseless and wearing nothing but his underbritches and shield.

I had an NPC in a campaign a couple months ago who was basically an anime super-villain: multiclass sage (Spheres of Might) / guru who could walk on clouds while containing the heroes of deadly webs before throwing bombs of destructive energy at them. He was trying to kill the constellation Sky King so he could claim all of its power for himself before challenging the evil dragon god Dahak. The PCs defeated him and their cleric was blessed by Sky King, giving her the ability to call on Sky King's champion form 1/week as a zodiac of her level. Everyone loves a pet Bahamut.


the xiao wrote:
What are the more memorable akashic characters you have had? On both sides of the table.
Michael Sayre wrote:
So, the most recent addition to that list is definitely Owen's guru from last weekend's playtest game. He did a great job of living the character and bringing it to life, and it hit all the notes you'd want that kind of character to hit both in his dialogue and in his actions during combat.

That is aaaaaaaaawesome!

Michael Sayre wrote:
Sir Brekius Buzzknecht is my morphbear zodiac who's totally not a moogle knight on a chocobo mount, and I absolutely love him. Even after our last session where he was knocked unconscious, causing his mount, armor, and weapon to all disappear and leave him laid out practically defenseless and wearing nothing but his underbritches and shield.

Now, I'm not saying our RotR cleric-alike was a chocobo farm girl with a chocobo mount from a chocobo farm village in the Varisian hinterlands. I mean. That would be ridiculous.

(Incidentally, under Fort Rannick, to the north of Sandpoint in Varisia, there live a strange species of rodentia who make the sound "raii-choo" as their calling-card.)

Michael Sayre wrote:
I had an NPC in a campaign a couple months ago who was basically an anime super-villain: multiclass sage (Spheres of Might) / guru who could walk on clouds while containing the heroes of deadly webs before throwing bombs of destructive energy at them. He was trying to kill the constellation Sky King so he could claim all of its power for himself before challenging the evil dragon god Dahak. The PCs defeated him and their cleric was blessed by Sky King, giving her the ability to call on Sky King's champion form 1/week as a zodiac of her level. Everyone loves a pet Bahamut.

SO DAGGUM COOL

EDIT: as I do. (Added a link and a couple more words.)

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
the xiao wrote:
What are the more memorable akashic characters you have had? On both sides of the table.
Michael Sayre wrote:
So, the most recent addition to that list is definitely Owen's guru from last weekend's playtest game. He did a great job of living the character and bringing it to life, and it hit all the notes you'd want that kind of character to hit both in his dialogue and in his actions during combat.

That is aaaaaaaaawesome!

His character was a buquat, which are a race of bipedal toadfolk we created for the Akashic Mysteries 5E conversion who can hibernate for decades buried under the sand while waiting for the desert rains. When he was forced to resort to violence, it always involved him smacking someone in the face with his tongue, and he spent most of his turn during the boss fight chastising the BBEG for their foolishness and cruelty. It was really great and I think helped draw the rest of the group into the roleplay for their characters. Everyone did a great job and we had a really fun time.


That sounds truly lovely!

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
That sounds truly lovely!

You can actually watch the recording of the game here, though it hasn't been edited and the actual broadcast doesn't start until about the 0:09:35 marker. We'll have an edited highlight reel from the game associated with the Aka5hic MystEries Kickstarter when it goes live in mid-February.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We-heh-heh-heh'll~!

*Watches* (but distractedly, 'cause family and chores and stuff)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm an honored guest!
Also, loving Artie's dromedary... heheh. SO MANY QUESTIONS!

EDITed: for adding a note


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow... I have never bought a 5ed 3rd party book, and I have never kickstarted anything. Will this be my first? Depends on price and my economy at the time LOL

101 to 150 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *Michael Sayre* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.