|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
After reading roll for combats intelligent weapon ancestry, it makes me convinced we need one as an official ancestry.
And it needs to be official because... You want to play it in PFS?
Due to the lack of a dislike, downvote, or other mechanism to silently disagree with a topic I'm going to opt for the good old-fashioned:
-2
I respect your opinion, I just think it's wrong and also more than a bit silly.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I wouldn't hate for there to be some Soul Eater vibes up in here. Don't necessarily see any good way to implement it, but then I haven't read any of this Roll for Combat design.
How do intelligent weapons reproduce?
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I don't think reproduction is what constitutes a playable ancestry though.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Yeah poppets, Automatons (and maybe androids, can't remember), skeletons and leshies don't.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Weird life created by wizards with too much time on their hands has always been a part of Golarion.
"Intelligent weapon that obtained a body" doesn't really sound stranger than Wyrwood or Shabti.
Isn't that Battlezoo content? (Flagging to be moved)
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote: I wouldn't hate for there to be some Soul Eater vibes up in here. Don't necessarily see any good way to implement it, but then I haven't read any of this Roll for Combat design. You can't really do the soul eater thing RAW. You have the choice of:
1. manifest your own avatar wielder. Probably the closest thing you can do to soul eater.
2.Be wielded by a random mostly useless person, who you make good at wielding just you. They also happen to be good at one skill, so...
3. Be basically a permanently dancing weapon and dance the fights away.
4. Be like soul edge and possess someone.
Which is all neat enough.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: How do intelligent weapons reproduce? One of the example cultural groups of intelligent weapons, the Smiths, are trying to make more of their kind. There's also all the accidental ways that a weapon could become self-aware.
Personally, while I absolutely love the intelligent weapon--it was the ancestry I was looking forward to most, and it didn't disappoint--I don't think we need an official version. PFS wouldn't be likely to sanction them even if we had one, so I'm not really sure what sort of space an official intelligent weapon ancestry would fill that the current one doesn't already. I'm also not super confident that there'd be enough of an audience who'd want one who wouldn't grab the extant one from Roll for Combat.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote: And it needs to be official because... You want to play it in PFS? You're picking up what im throwing down. =)
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: How do intelligent weapons reproduce? They are forged by other intelligent weapons.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote: Due to the lack of a dislike, downvote, or other mechanism to silently disagree with a topic I'm going to opt for the good old-fashioned:
-2
I respect your opinion, I just think it's wrong and also more than a bit silly.
We have poppets, androids, and automatons.
How is this sillier than them?
Verzen wrote: Finoan wrote: And it needs to be official because... You want to play it in PFS? You're picking up what im throwing down. =) I'm just not sure that it is enough of a valid reason to request Paizo to scrape it from a different content creator.
You might be better off requesting the PFS organizers provide boons that allow certain 3rd party content.
Finoan wrote: Verzen wrote: Finoan wrote: And it needs to be official because... You want to play it in PFS? You're picking up what im throwing down. =) I'm just not sure that it is enough of a valid reason to request Paizo to scrape it from a different content creator.
You might be better off requesting the PFS organizers provide boons that allow certain 3rd party content. I find the idea of them sanctioning third party content LESS likely than them making their own take on it, if anything.
You have a very good option from a designer who used to be Paizo staff - that's better than a lot of ideas get.
Perpdepog wrote: Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: How do intelligent weapons reproduce? One of the example cultural groups of intelligent weapons, the Smiths, are trying to make more of their kind. So they don't reproduce, yet, but they're trying. That's different than wyrwoods, for instance, who have a specific creation ritual that they discovered and now keep to themselves. That's the kind of information I was looking for, thank you. Is there a lot of TK among them? Or other substitute for hands?
Corwin Icewolf wrote: Finoan wrote: You might be better off requesting the PFS organizers provide boons that allow certain 3rd party content. I find the idea of them sanctioning third party content LESS likely than them making their own take on it, if anything. It might be less likely, but I still think it is a better solution overall.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: Perpdepog wrote: Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: How do intelligent weapons reproduce? One of the example cultural groups of intelligent weapons, the Smiths, are trying to make more of their kind. So they don't reproduce, yet, but they're trying. That's different than wyrwoods, for instance, who have a specific creation ritual that they discovered and now keep to themselves. That's the kind of information I was looking for, thank you. Is there a lot of TK among them? Or other substitute for hands? Most heritages have hands by default. Possessed intelligent weapons are wielded by an empty shell, projected ones manifest their own body to hold themselves, and symbiotic weapons have some scrub carrying them who is aware, but garbo in a fight by themselves. The only heritage that isn't wielded somehow is the animated weapon, and they don't actually have hands to hold items with; it's a trade off for being able to float and ignore pretty much all ground hazards, as well as one or two other goodies.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Themetricsystem wrote: Due to the lack of a dislike, downvote, or other mechanism to silently disagree with a topic I'm going to opt for the good old-fashioned:
-2
I respect your opinion, I just think it's wrong and also more than a bit silly.
-2 to this post for the same reason lol.
I'd love to play it in PFS. But, PFS isn't going to sanction third party content. I mean they don't even sanction most of the first party content that is available or leave uncommon/rare tags as essentially unscalable walls.
Hell for just over a year, I and many others (one of the most popular asked for things on the pinned PFS forums thread) have asked for the Impossible Lands Jalmeri Heaven Seeker (i.e., the revised one). It was made legal but there is no way to access the uncommon archetype. So please, will Hao Jin or someone from the House of Perfection please come to Absalom (maybe they want to touch the star stone for good luck?) and give those pathfinder's a way to train!
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Maybe the Battlezoo folks (or some other 3rd party) need to set up a PFS+ group that serves the same role as PFS for folks that love Battlezoo's work.
In general though, I see enough of these kinds of frustrated, semi-frustrated, or pseudo-frustrated posts here and elsewhere (e.g., Reddit) to think that there needs to be broader-scoped society.
Personally, I use Battlezoo's stuff. It's neat and inventive and resembles the crazy we used to do with D&D3.5. It helps that the lead designer for Battlezoo was one of the lead devs for PF2.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Isn't the reason that PFS is oriented around low level play with a limited set of options is to make it easy to onboard less experienced players to this hobby and Pathfinder in particular? If that's the case, I think there's value in reserving anything that's really unusual for people's home games.
I don't know. PFS+ with battlezoo and the + team's stuff and a baseline free archetype rule. Just sounds wonderful. The key difference between home game and PFS is the GM overhead gets more evenly distributed and the scenarios are nice 4-5 hour snippets. Most campaigns I've joined are massive GM investment slogs and that is ultimately what kills them. The other main issue is you need a large enough critical mass of GMs/players that things fire consistently. There is really a miniature army of both paid and unpaid folks behind PFS making it all work. But conceptually the idea sounds great.
Red Griffyn wrote: I don't know. PFS+ with battlezoo and the + team's stuff and a baseline free archetype rule. Just sounds wonderful. The key difference between home game and PFS is the GM overhead gets more evenly distributed and the scenarios are nice 4-5 hour snippets. Most campaigns I've joined are massive GM investment slogs and that is ultimately what kills them. The other main issue is you need a large enough critical mass of GMs/players that things fire consistently. There is really a miniature army of both paid and unpaid folks behind PFS making it all work. But conceptually the idea sounds great. You can play the PFS scenarios with your home group.
The Raven Black wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: I don't know. PFS+ with battlezoo and the + team's stuff and a baseline free archetype rule. Just sounds wonderful. The key difference between home game and PFS is the GM overhead gets more evenly distributed and the scenarios are nice 4-5 hour snippets. Most campaigns I've joined are massive GM investment slogs and that is ultimately what kills them. The other main issue is you need a large enough critical mass of GMs/players that things fire consistently. There is really a miniature army of both paid and unpaid folks behind PFS making it all work. But conceptually the idea sounds great. You can play the PFS scenarios with your home group. That is generally what I do because I'm not willing to spend time home-brewing content. So I'll offer to relief pitch 2-3 scenarios for a month or a book of a AP or a module to mitigate GM burnout. But my home groups are far more interested in DND5e than PF2e. The ones that are interested in PF2e ones havne't been able to get together routinely for a while. So a pick up game of PFS with rando's on a day that aligns with family commitments is the missing link. PFS fills a very useful niche. It definitely doesn't replace running a PC from L1 to L20 through a full campaign, but is a nice caffeine shot of TTRPG.
But I'd definitely be down for a PFS+ that adds some whip cream on that caffeine shot like vetted 3rd party content or heavily favoured variant rules (e.g., free archetype, automatic bonus progression, etc.).
Red Griffyn wrote: The Raven Black wrote: Red Griffyn wrote: I don't know. PFS+ with battlezoo and the + team's stuff and a baseline free archetype rule. Just sounds wonderful. The key difference between home game and PFS is the GM overhead gets more evenly distributed and the scenarios are nice 4-5 hour snippets. Most campaigns I've joined are massive GM investment slogs and that is ultimately what kills them. The other main issue is you need a large enough critical mass of GMs/players that things fire consistently. There is really a miniature army of both paid and unpaid folks behind PFS making it all work. But conceptually the idea sounds great. You can play the PFS scenarios with your home group. That is generally what I do because I'm not willing to spend time home-brewing content. So I'll offer to relief pitch 2-3 scenarios for a month or a book of a AP or a module to mitigate GM burnout. But my home groups are far more interested in DND5e than PF2e. The ones that are interested in PF2e ones havne't been able to get together routinely for a while. So a pick up game of PFS with rando's on a day that aligns with family commitments is the missing link. PFS fills a very useful niche. It definitely doesn't replace running a PC from L1 to L20 through a full campaign, but is a nice caffeine shot of TTRPG.
But I'd definitely be down for a PFS+ that adds some whip cream on that caffeine shot like vetted 3rd party content or heavily favoured variant rules (e.g., free archetype, automatic bonus progression, etc.). I think I was not clear.
I meant that you can perfectly play PFS scenarios with a home group while using all the variant rules and 3pp content you wish for.
They just will not count for PFS play.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Raven Black wrote: I meant that you can perfectly play PFS scenarios with a home group while using all the variant rules and 3pp content you wish for.
They just will not count for PFS play.
Yeah, you won't earn ACP for playing them.
But you won't need ACP anyway since you don't have to spend ACP to get boons to play the options that you want.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A big issue I see with letting in some 3P content is that Paizo would need to create some system for letting other 3P publishers bring their content in, too. If you only let in certain stuff from certain companies that's going to lead to some sticky situations and accusations of favoritism.
Then Paizo would either have to allow all 3P material, which would be a nightmare, or they'd have to create some kind of system for vetting 3P material. That latter option is the one I'd expect, but setting up such a system would require more overhead in order to find the people to actually fill those positions, or the time for people to fit that kind of thing in around all their other duties, and somewhere in there someone would also need to be paid more, as well.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
