|
I think, in part, it is WizKids that is driving this design scenario, and likely they as well that will eat the consequences, whatever those turn out to be. Human behavior being what it is, and taking into account variable reward ratios behaviors, the first set is almost certainly to be a good-enough money maker. I just don't see it as a viable business plan in the medium- to long-term. The themed encounter packs sound more interesting. I still prefer the Reaper plastics. They aren't works of art, but the price is right, and they have the vintage art look I prefer. If I could just get some pig-faced orcs in plastic, I would be in heaven...
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 09:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
That dragon looks pretty badass, I'd like to buy it. But what's this?paizo posted:Retailers who order one case (four "bricks") will have the opportunity to purchase the mighty Black Dragon, a special promotional miniature that towers over other figures in the set and sits on a 3-inch base. gently caress, what? A straight-to-eBay promo!  It's a Wizkids buy-the-brick promo where you must buy four bricks just to have the privilege of buying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 12:48
|
|
|
My friend got some modules (a trilogy) for a single rogue. He wants me to test them out (he DMs) and so I need to roll a level 7 rogue. I have literally no idea how to go about building one for a solo adventure. Any advice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 13:47
|
|
|
Roll an elf Solid Snake. edit to be useful: A module specifically for a rogue is going to, in my mind, involve some light combat, quite a bit of sneaking and several traps. It will probably also involve talking your way out of several bad situations and probably lying your way out of many more. Put ranks in bluff so you can feint in combat if you have an int bonus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:Roll an elf Solid Snake. Well this is what my friend sent, so I'm kind of going off that. "make certain to have skill points in Bluff, Disable Device and Perception, while points in Diplomacy, Linguistics, Profession (Gambler), Sleight of Hand, Stealth and Use Magic Device could also prove useful. also, when you make ur rogue, you will get a set of masterwork thieves’ tools, an arcane scroll inscribed with sleep (caster level 1st), and a potion of cure light wounds. so dont buy those"
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
I was reading the Ultimate Magic book, and I came across the Synthized Eidolon concept for the summoner. Combining this with alchemist (for mutagen, etc) would it be possible to make some sort of kid who's massively powered when his chems and his eidolon kick in?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
Not digging Ultimate Combat so much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
I want to like the Grit mechanic but it's just so bad. Like, the idea of nonmagical characters having a resource that allows them to pull badass stunts is a good one, and frankly should have been in the game from the start. But the execution is just awful, and the class it's attached to is likewise a mechanical failure. I mean, yeah, Pathfinder, the mechanics were never really good, but it's somehow more disappointing to see them true to create a cool, fresh idea and just fail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
I think I am definitely putting UC in the case-by-case category. On the one hand, some of the feats and stuff are pretty cool. On the other hand, there are so many archetypes and things it is literally confusing, and some of them are definitely overpowered. Gunslinger? Still sucks, just like it did in playtest. Also, the Pistolero can knock Gargantuan dragons prone by hitting them with two shots. Which is pretty easy, since gunnnns in Pathfinder use touch AC for the first range increment. Which was cited as being stupid in playtest, but made the cut anyway. I originally hated the Samurai because it was a Cavalier archetype, and samurai are pretty much Cavaliers. However, I don't hate it so much now, because the Samurai is perhaps more interesting than the vanilla Cavalier, and is perhaps a better version of the class, as a Cavalier. But then I hate it some more, because they made the freakin' katana and naginata exotic weapons, which means most Japanese-inspired armies of NPC warriors are probably not proficient in their own primary weapons. It's kind of disappointing that the Samurai archetype is not compatible with the Musketeer archetype, since samurai with guns are fairly awesome, and make twenty times as much sense as paladins using guns to holy smite. The Divine Hunter archetype (bow Paladin) has really sweet art. Pretty anime, but that's not a problem for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
"Grit" isn't a new mechanic, it's just a shittier version of the monk's "ki pool", Magus' "arcane pool", etc. It's called "we want to give this class some cool stuff they can do some but not all of the time but we don't want to have encounter powers so we'll give them a resource pool for X/day stuff". And yeah, the gunslinger is embarrassing. Ultimate Combat has some decent stuff in it, but a pretty low percentage. I mean look at this poo poo: Black Market Connections (Ex): A rogue with this talent gains better access to magic items from black market connections. She treats every settlement as one size greater (see Table 15–1 on page 461 of the Core Rulebook) for the purpose of determining the gp limit of the base value of items for sale, as well as the number of minor, medium, and major magic items for sale in the settlement. If the settlement is already a metropolis, all minor and medium magic items are for sale, as well as 3d8 major magic items. With a successful Diplomacy check, the rogue can treat the settlement as two sizes larger. If the settlement is already a metropolis and she succeeds at the check, all magic items are for sale. If the settlement is already a large city and she succeeds at the check, all minor and medium magic items are for sale, as well as 3d8 major magic items. With a successful check, the rogue can also sell stolen items on the black market. If the check fails by 5 or more, the rogue does something to spook the market, and treats the city as normal for 1 week. Furthermore, those in control of the black market may alert the authorities to the rogue’s presence in an act of reprisal for spooking the market or to divert attention away from their illicit activities. The DCs of the checks are by settlement size and are given in the table below. Magic item shops are now a class feature! "Convincing Lie (Ex): When a rogue with this talent lies, she creates fabrications so convincing that others treat them as truth. When a rogue with this talent successfully uses the Bluff skill to convince someone that what she is sayingis true, if that individual is questioned later about thestatement or story, that person uses the rogue’s Bluff skill modifier to convince the questioner, rather than his own. If his Bluff skill modifier is better than the rogue’s, the individual can use his own modifier and gain a +2 bonus on any check to convince others of the lie. This effect lasts for a number of days equal to 1/2 the rogue’s level + the rogue’s Charisma modifier." Just make up something people need to tell other people, and convince the entire city of anything. Compare those to this piece of poo poo: "Hold Breath (Ex): A rogue with this talent increases the number of rounds she can hold her breath by 2. She can take this talent multiple times." So, you can spread infectious lies, or make magic item shops appear. Or you can hold your loving breath two rounds longer. Game balance! It's for suckers, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:"Grit" isn't a new mechanic, it's just a shittier version of the monk's "ki pool", Magus' "arcane pool", etc. It's called "we want to give this class some cool stuff they can do some but not all of the time but we don't want to have encounter powers so we'll give them a resource pool for X/day stuff". I dunno, I at least thought that having Grit replenish when you do a "Daring Act" was kind of a cool idea. In that way it's a bit like Fate points from FATE because you spend them to do interesting things while simultaneously receiving them for doing interesting things. It mechanically rewards daring and exciting play, and I really like that. But the execution...ugghh, it's just soooo bad. Between requiring "Daring Act" to be something that is most likely to fail and the Deeds being seriously underpowered, it just utterly disappointing on every level. The concepts underpinning the class are just so cool, but it's just such a massive flop. It ends up being more disappointing than something I expected to be terrible (the unarmed fighter, for example).
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 07:06
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:I dunno, I at least thought that having Grit replenish when you do a "Daring Act" was kind of a cool idea. In that way it's a bit like Fate points from FATE because you spend them to do interesting things while simultaneously receiving them for doing interesting things. It mechanically rewards daring and exciting play, and I really like that. It doesn't work very well in conjuction with Hero Points from the APG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 07:12
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:It doesn't work very well in conjuction with Hero Points from the APG. While I like Hero Points, they a) are an optional, bolt-on system, and b) don't let you do anything new, just do more of what you do or do what you do better. The Gunslinger's Grit was exciting because it incorporated the idea of "do awesome, be awesome" into the core mechanics of a class, and gave players who did awesome things more new and exciting awesome things to do. I think the core mechanics encouraging players to be daring and adventurous instead of "I full attack it" over and over again is a really positive direction. I just wish they'd succeeded in doing that, instead of giving us what we got, which is "Intentionally do something likely to fail in order to do another thing that really isn't all that impressive or even very mechanically good." Also I was hoping that explicitly nonmagical classes could finally get a way to expend resources to do incredible things, but obviously that was a pipe dream given PF's target audience. Also also cowboys are really loving cool and I just recently read the Dark Tower series in comicbook format and it was awesome and I want to play that awesome. I guess I'll just have to get people interested in Deadlands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:I just wish they'd succeeded in doing that, instead of giving us what we got, which is "Intentionally do something likely to fail in order to do another thing that really isn't all that impressive or even very mechanically good." But... but... Pistol Whip!  quote:Also I was hoping that explicitly nonmagical classes could finally get a way to expend resources to do incredible things, but obviously that was a pipe dream given PF's target audience. I do like the Samurai in that respect. quote:Also also cowboys are really loving cool and I just recently read the Dark Tower series in comicbook format and it was awesome and I want to play that awesome. I guess I'll just have to get people interested in Deadlands. I think GURPS is pretty much the game for hardcore cowboy gunslinger action at this point. GURPS High-Tech, GURPS Gun Fu, GURPS Tactical Shooting...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 07:29
|
|
|
My new game idea: Everyone gets a feat at every level. Fighters get two feats at every level. Everyone may take one archetype for free (without trading class abilities). You may take another one, but must trade out the class abilities for it. Fighters can take two for free, then trade out as normal. Hit points begin at 30 at first level, then you add additional hit points according to race and class at each level. Anyone arguing about any rule for more than 3 minutes at the table is instantly killed in the game. There will be a miniature hourglass. Edit: Gunfighters can just be rangers with guns or something, I guess. They really blow. Just take a crossbow ranger and replace crossbow-optimal poo poo with 'firearm'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 07:59
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:But... but... Pistol Whip! It's Deadlands. Deadlands is amazing, albeit broken as gently caress. If you want more realistic/tactical Boot Hill or Aces and Eights. There's no need to use Gurps for a cowboy game when there are good to excellent systems to do the cowboy game the way you want to run it out of the box. (The best way to run it is using the 7th sea system, though. It's probably the best all around cinematic action system out there, and also allows you to play Zorro or other western archetypes within the same game. You just have to cut out the crazy sword schools and make up your own skill groups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 08:17
|
|
|
I mean, Deadlands owns, because drawing a poker hand to "deal with the devil" is objectively awesome. And it has that wild west + black magic feel that makes it perfect for a Dark Tower game. It's just, I'm already in a Pathfinder game, so I was hoping to import a little bit of that awesomeness into an otherwise pretty bland fantasy, so I really wanted the Gunslinger to be good. Sucks that it's not, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 10:18
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:But then I hate it some more, because they made the freakin' katana and naginata exotic weapons, which means most Japanese-inspired armies of NPC warriors are probably not proficient in their own primary weapons. I'm sorry, what? Are you loving joking? Is this some kind of dry grog-reference that I should be laughing with you about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
Riidi WW posted:I'm sorry, what? Are you loving joking? Is this some kind of dry grog-reference that I should be laughing with you about? Ok, first, my bad, the naginata is not an exotic weapon. I was confused by the Eastern Martial Weapons chart, and the fact that the samurai has it listed as a proficiency, even though they are already proficient in martial weapons. Moving along... Ultimate Combat, in its infinite wisdom, made the katana and wakisazhi into exotic weapons. That means in a "fantasy Japan," only samurai are, by default, proficient with what is the conventional types of sword. So NPC warriors, plus rangers, fighters, rogues, and everybody else, even the Sohei (Monk) have to take EWP to be able to use either weapon. A fighter "samurai" has to spend two feats just to be proficient with both. Or you can say, "Ok, this is stupid, katanas and wakizashis are really just longswords and shortswords," and pretend you didn't see anything. I'm not sure whether it's better or worse that the gladius isn't an "exotic Roman weapon," although it looks pretty racist from where I sit. Plus, it's already stupid that Weapon Focus (shortsword) and Weapon Focus (gladius) are two different things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:Ultimate Combat, in its infinite wisdom, made the katana and wakisazhi into exotic weapons. That means in a "fantasy Japan," only samurai are, by default, proficient with what is the conventional types of sword. Why the hell would you use that to determine what weapons NPCs can use?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:Why the hell would you use that to determine what weapons NPCs can use? Well, the simplest answer would be, "Because I'm writing up an NPC for a published work." Obviously, then, it's best to use the RAW when possible. It doesn't really matter so much for anyone's home campaign. I'm basically criticizing the designers for saying NPC warriors aren't proficient with wakizashis. Ninjas are, but pseudo-Japanese rogues aren't. It's a shortsword. Seriously. I don't like that samurai and ninja characters are proficient with weapons that are basically better version of standard weapons. Because they're, you know, Eastern.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
I am asking for your advice. I am a self-publishers of RPG products. My debut product was a Pathfinder-compatible book of classes, focusing especially on non-magical character types. When I started writing for Pathfinder, I viewed it as writing for a more refined and modern version of the 3e rules. One of the things I liked about the 3e rules was the variety of campaign styles it inspired. Third party products included Testament, The Scarred Lands, and more. Some of my favorite, if rarely used, products were Nyambe and Love & War. About a month ago, I announced I would be writing a sequel to my previous Pathfinder book, called For a Few Denarii More, adding another cohort of base classes. As before, the goal is to cover ground that has not already been covered as well in the core books, this time including characters focused on intrigue, exploration, and amazing (non-magical) stunts. I have produced very raw drafts of a couple of the classes. The work is familiar to me, and seems to be going well enough, but I'm feeling hesitation. If anyone is willing, I'd love to hear their full and honest answers to two questions that have been on my mind. First, what do you think about third-party books in relation to the huge number of character types available in the core book, APG, UC, and so forth? Are you interested in looking at variations? Do you guy third party class books, and if so, what do you look for? Given the large number of magic-themed character concepts, do you think non-magical classes are a potential selling point? Second, what do you see as the future of Pathfinder as a more generic fantasy vehicle? Is it tied very closely to Golarion and the published 3e settings? Or would you be willing to see books that take the game system and take it to places it hasn't gone before? Are you interested in campaign settings? What about class books with a particular focus, such as non-magical characters or social intrigue? At this point, I already have some written concepts in-hand, and it would seem wasteful not to use them. So For a Few Denarii More is probably destined to come out, regardless. However, it makes a big difference to me how to approach the project, depending on whether Pathfinder fans are interested in subtantial additions to the Pathfinder playstyle. I also don't want to patronize people with yet another Assassin design, if people are really and truly satisifed with what's out there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 08:39
|
|
|
Okay, so that's a pretty dense post, but as a dude currently playing in a PF game, I'll try to comment on it. First, I'll say that third party material has a seriously bad reputation, largely due to the glut of terrible 3p stuff published during the 3e, d20-does-everything, push. So to earn trust as a 3p publisher you really have to offer things that the core rules cannot possibly cover, AND do so in a way that is significantly better than any DM could come up with via houserules. So you're already scaling Everest, before you even begin. Second, to be completely and totally honest, Pathfinder players by-and-large DO NOT want non-magical classes to do exceptional things. Maybe, maybe this is a stereotype, but it is true of probably 90% of PF players I've encountered. Seriously, look at your very own objections to the Gunslinger ("It can knock anything prone!") as proof. If you want to sell a PF supplement, you don't make mundane characters able to do more than magical characters. UM and UC indicate that Paizo is well aware of this. I mean, we've got people crowing that the UC ninja is broken because it can turn invisible for a handful of rounds a day while ignoring the fact that a spellcaster can do the same for infinitely longer with one or two spell slots. At some point, you've got to fess up and own your audience. The people buying PF books are the same folks who thought the Bo9S was "weabboo overpowered bullshit" and if you don't cater to them you're probably not going to sell anything. Third, I don't think Pathfinder is much tied to Golarion at all. Most of the PF groups I know are still playing in 3.x setting (particularly Forgotten Realms). They are really invested in one setting and hate the changes that WotC has made (either in altering the Realms or totally ignoring Greyhawk or Planescape). I don't actually know of any PF games set in Golarion, and our gaming community is fairly small (we all know who is playing what). I'm really not trying to tear into your system of choice; I know it sounds like that, and that we've butted heads before. But the PF fanbase is pretty niche and isn't growing much, so if you want to move product, you have to appeal to that niche base. The loudest proponents of the system are, unfortunately, folks who want everything to be the same as it was when they first started playing in 3.x. You have to play along with the (often restrictive) tropes in order to appeal to them. You also can't do the things 4e does because everyone who wants those things has already moved on to 4e. Personally, I would totally dig a Pathfinder supplement that lets non-magical characters do really extraordinary things. It's why I was so excited and so disappointed with the Gunslinger class. But I find that most PF fans DON'T want this, and that most of the people who DO want this have already moved on to 4e or FATE or whatever. I mean, I don't even play PF because I like the system (I don't), only because I like the GM and the other players. If you want to sell books, you've got to know your audience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 09:46
|
|
|
I have to say that I love non-magical characters that can do extraordinary things. I also like the classes and new systems that aren't "well, a Witch is a wizard, but with curses." Things like incarnum are neat ideas, usually with pretty crappy fluff, same as Bo9S, but neat ideas. Binders and Truenamers and Shadowmages are also neat ideas, even if somewhere in there most of them really started sucking. I think non-magical classes that can do cool things are fun to play, and honestly, I prefer them. In most (early) fantasy books, the main character was not some gish that could do anything he wanted, he was a reluctant knight with a sword fighting great evil. I think the problem with a lot of those concepts, though, is that Pathfinder is really, really set on its magical system, and a lot of classes will only see their abilities shine in a non- or low-magic game. Seriously, if you have a sorcerer with a bunch of rays, why use a Gunslinger? Non-magic characters need more options, but more importantly, they need more access to those options. This was something Iron Heroes really did well. I guess what I'm saying, is that if you're just going to introduce a system along the lines of grit/rage/ki/etc., which are all essentially the same system, then what does yours have that the other ones don't? Swags fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Aug 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 10:32
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:Roll an elf Solid Snake. Indiana Jones also works, a solo rogue is great for dungeon diving, and since you don't have any big clompy folks with you you can indeed bypass encounters entirely by sneaking, while having fun with traps. pawsplay posted:Ultimate Combat, in its infinite wisdom, made the katana and wakisazhi into exotic weapons. That means in a "fantasy Japan," only samurai are, by default, proficient with what is the conventional types of sword. So NPC warriors, plus rangers, fighters, rogues, and everybody else, even the Sohei (Monk) have to take EWP to be able to use either weapon. A fighter "samurai" has to spend two feats just to be proficient with both. Granted I'm more annoyed with the completely ridiculous weapons like the seven-prong sword, but eh, its a fantasy game. War Parasols are not unheard of in the genre. quote:First, what do you think about third-party books in relation to the huge number of character types available in the core book, APG, UC, and so forth? Are you interested in looking at variations? Do you guy third party class books, and if so, what do you look for? Given the large number of magic-themed character concepts, do you think non-magical classes are a potential selling point? Simple variations, it depends on how well the particular variant is supported in the core material and what special approach is used. However, for the most part, variations will probably not make me go out to buy a whole new book(oh heres an assassin, hes evil and kills people for money, theres another one, he kills because its sacred, and that other one, she seduces people into bed and assassinates them there), since well, I'm wholly capable of cooking up something like that. I do a bit of homebrew in my own time though, so I'm probably biased. That said, some classes are poorly implemented in consideration of players(e.g. assassin studying for several rounds, followed by an insta-kill is cool, but does not consider the reality of player combat not taking that long to begin with), those could use a different take. Purely non-magical classes alone, it depends on execution, but one thing that I might buy a book for is if it has classes making use of their own 'casting mechanic'(that is, an array of options comparable to casting in breadth, such as the Summoner's mutations, 3.5's Binders, Truenamers and Warlocks), though it has to be tied to credible fluff. This sort of thing is particularly exhausting to homebrew, and then you have to talk people into reading the whole thing. Published makes it easier, provided its appealing of course. Complexity is a turnoff, which makes that a double edged sword. Another thing to note is that while there is a significant amount of Caster Superiority in the game, a lot of publishers(third party or otherwise) confuse this with bigger, more hax numbers. That is never the problem to begin with, and only feeds the grognards. In any given scenario, every character type has a number of applicable options, Fighters tend to have 2(move/hit something), Skill types might have a half dozen depending on their focus, full Casters have easily a dozen options. quote:Second, what do you see as the future of Pathfinder as a more generic fantasy vehicle? Is it tied very closely to Golarion and the published 3e settings? Or would you be willing to see books that take the game system and take it to places it hasn't gone before? Are you interested in campaign settings? What about class books with a particular focus, such as non-magical characters or social intrigue? Warforged and Artificers wouldn't have taken off as they did if they didn't come with Eberron, worked into the setting itself. Focus books...as a player they are hell on wheels for referencing, but JUST a class-book might be hard to justify to buy. On the other hand all the big publishers do it so theres probably something to it. BUT, with one caveat, you'd probably see a better response to effective nonmagical classes when delivered alongside magical classes of the same power level. Better to go along with some loosely defined theme you can fit a variety of classes into. quote:Personally, I would totally dig a Pathfinder supplement that lets non-magical characters do really extraordinary things. It's why I was so excited and so disappointed with the Gunslinger class. But I find that most PF fans DON'T want this, and that most of the people who DO want this have already moved on to 4e or FATE or whatever. I mean, I don't even play PF because I like the system (I don't), only because I like the GM and the other players. If you want to sell books, you've got to know your audience. However, you have the Caster Superiority grognards, Mundane Must Be Weak grognards and the Monk Is Overpowered grognards. They are very vocal. And very common. 
veekie fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Aug 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 12:45
|
|
|
Something worth mentioning about Grit is that it is better than ki pool/arcane pool in one major regard: you recover a point of it whenever you crit or take down an enemy (using a gun). Some of the grit abilities are pretty bad (spend a per-day resource to pistol whip? really?) but the fact that it has a recharge mechanic you might ever actually get to use is a step up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
I've only played in one game that allowed 3rd party supplements and they were outlawed after the first session when we took some pretty broken feats from a book simply called "Feats." Since then my group has had a pretty sour view of 3rd party material, but that was in 3.5 so we haven't looked at anything from Pathfinder yet, mostly due to that incident. Mainly I view most of the 3rd party stuff, whether I'm wrong or not as I haven't looked it over, as most likely imbalanced in some way. For that reason, I don't buy 3rd party material or honestly even look at the 3rd party options on the SRD. So I'm not your demographic, but I'll admit that I don't know who that is, so maybe if you have an idea of who you're trying to cater to we could help you out through the magic of stereotypes. As for where Pathfinder is going, I really love the Kingmaker setting, but it's such a small part of the world that I don't really have much of an idea about what's happening elsewhere, or even what's out there. I do know of some groups in the area that are still playing 3.5 Forgotten Realms using Pathfinder now, but they're pretty grog so I'm not sure if they're satisfied with the old fluff or looking for something new. I will say that when I'm designing a character I think about the story I want to be involved in first and then work back to why and what class would best show that. I don't tend to read the fluff for classes, just the crunch and then make up my own reasons for why I get certain abilities. The Core Classes are pretty iconic, so for an alternate class to catch my eye they usually have to have an interesting name that generally informs me of what they do and a cool base mechanic that is different from swinging/get flanking/pure vancian spell casting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
Personally, and for most of the people I've played with, 3rd party stuff is met with deep suspicion. I'll simply ignore anything like a classbook or players guide 2, something that's just new crunch. On the other hand, the two things I do like are setting books and modules. Setting books full of random stuff, and a small handful of crunchy bits that specifically pertain to that setting (like a prestige class for some group or a feat about a local combat style), are great. Even if the group doesn't use it, a DM can still mine interesting ideas from it. The second, and better idea, is doing modules, pregenerated adventures. Creative modules that go in interesting directions are wonderful, even if it's just for mining ideas. I would personally suggest that you work on making modules, perhaps a series with a shared world, followed by a setting book for that world, or something along those lines. Once you're established as a person or company that makes reasonable and interesting products, then you could do a book of classes. What I mean by that is, the only reason I would consider buying a 3rd party book with basic core crunch like classes would be if I knew that they made good products beforehand, and the only way I'd really get into a company that I don't otherwise know about would be from picking up one of their modules. All of this isn't to say that I'm not interested in new crunch--I am. However, things like classes are incredibly hard to get right. Even Paizo can't seem to get things right, really. The only way I'll consider a 3rd party's stuff is if I know they can handle balance, and the only way I can get that is familiarity with their other, cheaper products.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 16:23
|
|
|
I've pretty much got the cheap thing and the "how to write crunch" thing down. This is my book: http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/tripodMachine/v5748btpy8bu5 What I'm really wondering, I guess, is how different things are now than they were a year and a half ago. Other than a few city books, I haven't seen much in the way of campaign settings in which strong non-magical classes would be a welcome addition, although it's possible I've missed some. It may be that there is nothing to do but try one more go and see if there's still water in the well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:I've pretty much got the cheap thing and the "how to write crunch" thing down. This is my book: quote:What I'm really wondering, I guess, is how different things are now than they were a year and a half ago. Other than a few city books, I haven't seen much in the way of campaign settings in which strong non-magical classes would be a welcome addition, although it's possible I've missed some. It may be that there is nothing to do but try one more go and see if there's still water in the well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:I've pretty much got the cheap thing and the "how to write crunch" thing down. This is my book: Okay, so I've actually read this one (DM has it) so I can give you some specific criticism. I would probably not buy that book if it cost anything more than a one-way bus ride. Not because the content is bad, just because it's nothing really inspired; that is, it's nothing I couldn't do on my own. A lot of the classes read like "hey, what if we gave the fighter talents instead of bonus feats". I remember wondering why they were classes and not archetypes. I did think the scholar was cool but IIRC it took a while to get going so playing one from low levels looked really boring. Also, and this is a big thing, nothing in there was as strong as even, like the paladin, and certainly couldn't compare to the Big Three. Animal Lord? Yeah, I'll play a druid and get my full spellcasting, plus wild shape, thank you very much. If you want to make an interesting noncasting class, here are some things you should try to do: 1) Have a unified resource, ki pool, grit points, whatever. Grit is actually (almost) a good example because it (almost) has a cool recharge mechanic. 2) Make the character able to spend the resource to accomplish interesting things. This is where Grit fails, because the Deeds all suck. I do think the Ninja actually does sort of a good job here, the tricks are very flavorful. 3) Make those things about as powerful as spells. This is where the Ninja and Monk fall short. Oh, I can spend a ki point to turn invisible for one round, meanwhile the wizard spends one of his resource points (prepared spells) to turn invisible for the whole fight. Oh, I can spend a ki point to dimension door at the level the wizard is spending a resource point to teleport. The problem you're looking at is that if you actually do make, say, a Fighting Man that's as good as a Druid, the Pathfinder fanbase will probably denounce it as horribly broken poo poo, just like they generally do with the Bo9S. One idea is to try to do, like, a remake of some old 2e kits or 3.x paragon paths. I mean, you're selling to a fanbase that's mostly held together by nostalgia, so try to appeal to that nostalgia I guess. They might be more accepting of interesting and effective noncasting classes if those classes paint themselves as revamped, PF-compatible versions of things they've seen before, since that would fall more into their comfort zone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:One idea is to try to do, like, a remake of some old 2e kits or 3.x paragon paths. I mean, you're selling to a fanbase that's mostly held together by nostalgia, so try to appeal to that nostalgia I guess. They might be more accepting of interesting and effective noncasting classes if those classes paint themselves as revamped, PF-compatible versions of things they've seen before, since that would fall more into their comfort zone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
It's a bit sad that Ultimate Combat is such a mixed bag, I mean it was obvious the Gunslinger wouldn't ever work when they refused to budge on their firearm rules for some reason. I was hoping it might just be a bum class and the rest would be good enough to warrant a purchase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
Mojo Jojo posted:It's a bit sad that Ultimate Combat is such a mixed bag, I mean it was obvious the Gunslinger wouldn't ever work when they refused to budge on their firearm rules for some reason. I was hoping it might just be a bum class and the rest would be good enough to warrant a purchase. The gunslinger isn't that bad. We have one in our group, and with the feats to reload faster and not provoke AoO he is not only holding his own, but often has superior DPS to the rest of the group. His ammunition does get expensive...but past a certain level, what else are you going to do with the money? Sure, he doesn't do as many tricks as some classes, but it's definitely not a "bum class".
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
Devorum posted:The gunslinger isn't that bad. We have one in our group, and with the feats to reload faster and not provoke AoO he is not only holding his own, but often has superior DPS to the rest of the group. His ammunition does get expensive...but past a certain level, what else are you going to do with the money? What the heck is the rest of the group playing? An archer with like a couple of feats outdamages the gunslinger easily, and as for melee dudes... yeesh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
Frankly, you'd be better off with a Rogue or Ninja with Amateur Gunslinger. TWF, sneak attack, using touched attacks to deliver special sneak attack effects, it could be alright.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
Devorum posted:The gunslinger isn't that bad. We have one in our group, and with the feats to reload faster and not provoke AoO he is not only holding his own, but often has superior DPS to the rest of the group. His ammunition does get expensive...but past a certain level, what else are you going to do with the money? More and better magic items? There's always something more and super expensive that's worth getting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:What the heck is the rest of the group playing? An archer with like a couple of feats outdamages the gunslinger easily, and as for melee dudes... yeesh. We have a two-hand fighter, a bow inquisitor, a specialty mage...one of the evocation subschools, can't remember which, a rogue/Alchemist(me), and a support cleric of Desna. With the ability to touch attack basically anything, he almost never misses and does a fair bit of damage. The inquisitor shoots more often, but also hits less often...especially against highly armored targets. I do high burst damage, but can't sustain like he can unless I'm constantly getting SA. EDIT: I'm not saying he is superman and can one shot everything...but it's not a bum class, in my opinion. If it were me, yeah, I'd be a rogue type with Amateur Gunslinger. Devorum fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Aug 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
Devorum posted:a specialty mage...one of the evocation subschools This just made me die a little inside.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
The damage isn't the problem, I mean, fighters can do good damage and they still suck. It's that a) the damage race is a losing race, and b) it's pretty much all the Gunslinger can do well, since the Deeds that do anything else are generally mediocre and rely on the extremely limited Grit pool (since recharging Grit is pretty much based on luck). If the Gunslinger got more interesting Deeds, or even if the Deeds they do get were just better then it would be a very cool class. E: I mean poo poo, they get fear, a 4th-level spell, at level 15. Wizards get it at level 7. Ah oh boy oh boy, they can stun a monster (but not one immune to crits, of course) for one round, at level 19, for 2 grit. That's a loving joke. J. Alfred Prufrock fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Aug 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 22:46
|
|