|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The game is pretty balanced when given the proper setting. It is NOT made to be a battle royal, all of the classes have a purpose and they all fulfill their purpose very well. I find that when people say this they tend to lack an imagination. I think the problem here is that 'the proper setting' involves either robbing casters of their powers or creating a game world where Craft (Pottery) is as important as exploding poo poo with magical lightning. Then prohibiting casting classes from learning Craft (Pottery).
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2010 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
mixitwithblop posted:*cough*cough*errrwarhammererrrr*cough* Even though warhams have gigantic money-sink potential, you can play for cheap with second-hand models and proxies. You can also get just about anything new in the lineup (excepting forgeworld and package deals) forabout $40 with discounters. You can be un/minimally employed and still maintain a warhammer habit. I've seen it. I've done it. Expecting a whole table to have iPhones is expecting too much. I've gamed with some tech-savvy career-having friends, and at best there's been a blackberry, some verizon thing, an iPhone, two iPod touches, and a $20 disposable cell. This is just idiocy. The only way it would work is if they scrap the PF setting and retool lazer-focusing at Apple fanboys. The demographic using current and next-gen tech is not the same as the holdouts investing in last edition +.25 rules.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
Mikan posted:You guys are getting awfully mad about a neat optional thing that some groups are gonna love I didn't realize we could opt out of having paizo resources diverted into this effort waste.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2010 04:08
|
|
|
Having an app's functionality hinge on the entire table having/using it is poor design. I'm not mad about it, it's just obviously stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
You're probably right and it won't suck. I got hung up on the part about it updating everybody's iPhones from your iPhone.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
happyelf posted:It required them to clear their OGL stock and abandon the OGL, if they were going to publish GSL products. This wasn't the case. The original licence was that a product had to be one system or the other. Ie: You couldn't sell a 3e adventure that also had 4e stats in the back, or vice versa. If you wanted to update your Tomb of Licensed Adventure from 3e to 4e, you'd first have to get rid of the 3e backstock before you could start moving the 4e stock. They didn't want to be fighting against their old stuff for shelf space, and that makes sense. Everything went to hell when the guy from Necromancer Games completely misunderstood what was happening there, and made a "...but what if it also means this?!" chicken little post at RPGnet. It got legs because the WotC reps posting in the thread were idiot children. This is the earliest mention I've found that you'd have to go one way or the other as a company.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
happyelf posted:Did you read the actual GSL at the time? Because there were other companies talking about shedding product, and i'm pretty sure I read the clause in the contract myself at the time. Do you have actual confirmation of this because it sounds liek you're jsut saying that nobody confirmed or denied it in that thread. [ happyelf posted:]Even if this is the case, it's still a terrible decision, imposes bizzare limites on distribution and stocking, and did not make sense. This make sense when you look at how people were planning on weaseling around it. Just in that thread there's one guy talking about how he can produce dual-system stuff if it's a PDF since that's not a real product and other crazy poo poo. Wizards didn't want any dual-system material because 3e was open and had in effect become a competitor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2010 01:27
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:How is "well if you design the encounter specifically around loving up the wizard" good game design anyway? If anybody is going to have experience and extensive in-game knowledge of how to wreck a wizard's day, it should be a random pack of kobolds.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 03:19
|
|
|
Meepo posted:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
Fire posted:I am curious if the Pathfinder people will ever do anything with D20 Modern I wouldn't expect D20 Modern to see any sort of revival. It wasn't terribly popular at the time, and I don't believe it had an open licence the way stock D20 did. But if you're looking for a more developed D20 Modern, I've heard that SpyCraft makes a lot of good moves in that direction.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 13:29
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Companies full of skilled and experienced people, have been trying to produce successful MMO for a decade now. There's been maybe a dozen overall successes in that entire time. They don't have a single person who can get this past vaporware. If they did, he'd be knowledgeable enough in the industry to have aborted it already.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
That's my point. The guy who should know enough to stop this poo poo green-lighted it. e:  It seems to me that they'll "work" on it for a year, cash a lot of paychecks, then announce cancellation. Nobody gets mad or upset because hey, MMOs are a tough market to break into.
moths fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Nov 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
Selachian posted:And the playtest crowd rejected it utterly because it was too overpowered. If this had accompanying fluff that some magic has rubbed off on the fighter over 20 levels, it would have been accepted unquestioningly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
It's kind of amazing that the playtest is getting the full Paizo treatment, I wouldn't be surprised to see licensed q-workshop dice. I kind of wish they'd call it a preview event, but I can see how that would rustle some jimmies. The flip mats almost certainly key to the specific adventure, I'd be astonished to discover anything that makes them incompatible with previous mats.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Wait did they really get Mearls to lead design this? E: ooh, it was a lovely April fool's joke that suddenly became plausible. moths fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
There was actually huge backlash against 4e explicitly for being balanced. "If all your choices are good..." something about communism and participation trophies. Nerds loving love lovely design because they can find the holes and be rewarded for exploiting them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
I finally started playing Pathfinder this year since the only popular alternative is D&D Next (with its human trash consultants.) It's ok. I don't hate it, but it's such a slog and there's at least two decades of legacy cruft. I really want 2.0 to represent a massive improvement. I'd absolutely love a well designed game that I can actually get people to play. I know it won't be exactly what I want, and I'm not their target audience - I can already hear shrieking from the alternate future where it becomes a fast playing, accessible, streamlined system instead of a bathroom reader exercise in system mastery. There's just so much goddamn baggage. I don't see any way they can "fix D20" with this, which people have been either attempting or denying necessary (with equal zeal) since 3.0. And I think in the end they'll bolt some nice things onto the frame and call it a day. They're not positioned to do anything else. It's going to be PF1e with some house rules and a fresh FAQ.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Xotl posted:selling it literally by the pound at GaryCon in an attempt to clear out stock. I don't know anything specific regarding this particular case, but there's almost always more to this story than "it's unpopular and not selling."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
I want to say reloading will be a factor, but it probably won't be. E: that is, there will almost certainly be a feat or class perk to discourage ranged unless you deliberately spec for it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
This is exciting and I love that they're talking about actual development challenges instead of how much anything "feels" like Pathfinder. It's extremely reassuring.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Hasn't he made some alarmist vague-tweets about Paizo before? I feel like his deal is interpreting things poorly and then disclosing only enough that any reasonable person would agree with his take.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 11:54
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:I would not call this vague, and "Paizo is handling harassment very poorly" is not a new thing or limited to this tweet thread Vague is generous. It's a third-hand account that unnamed executives told unnamed employees something at a meeting that may have happened days or years ago. There is zero specific information, and what he gives is filtered through at least one person who's been Real Mad at Paizo before. The industry has problems, but there are better ways to address it than this approach of intimations and shade, while protecting the alleged wrong-doers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
I'm saying hearsay is inadmissible for a reason. Maybe there is something to it! But he's not giving any details or context here. An "executive" said something gross? Ok let's burn our books and play something more ideologically pure. E: Now that Jessica Price is chiming in, maybe we'll get usable information! E2: Oops, sorry - It's unreliable af and courts treat it as "generally inadmissible" for that reason. Do I look like I'm trying to defend St Paizo from criticism? I'm not. It's a poo poo company that does bad things. But "I heard (from a friend that) an (unnamed) guy said something (we interpreted as) confirming what I said all along!" is hardly the smoking gun it's getting spun as. moths fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Mar 27, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:What is "usable information" here anyway? A name? That'd just change the response from "that didn't happen" to "he/I didn't do that". So then let that happen. Put it on the bad actor to act badly, don't protect their anonymity because "oh well they'll just say it's untrue but you guys believe me right? "
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
I like the boost/flaw language, I hope this means something other than +/-2 to ability scores.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2018 12:55
|
|
|
I can't think of any single occasion when a DM has said "Sorry, nobody will sell you [absurdly common equipment]."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Is there a reason these things have to be feats instead of "things you just have because you're a goblin? "
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
They could have just made it a skill only accessible to goblins. And then given it some upside to make it occupy a different space than Craft, ie: no cost materials and a "break whenever it's funny" catch. I feel like this is how they get you house-ruling. It's like the garbage card they put in every MTG starter deck to get you into improving stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Even so far within the racial pool, you have "craft skill but worse" competing with straight up free bonus damage from fire sources.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
It's a pretty glaring example of what's changed in the last 20+ years of design. A game designed today would just empower a goblin character to do all of that stuff. It's what a player has in mind as they write GOBLIN on the character sheet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:These mechanics aren't just bad - they're decrepit. I feel like Savage Species actually handled monster PCs better, and that thing was a trainwreck. Sage Genesis posted:"You get 10 Hit Points from your ancestry—more than the other ancestries and MUCH more than the elves!" Is it per level? That would actually be good and cool.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I think they're referring to how Listen and Spot are being split up again to make Perception less of a god skill. Would it not make sense to instead make all the skills good and useful? I realize this alienates TRUE ROLEPLAYERS (not ROLLplayers!) who want to write Profession (Dirt-farmer) on their sheet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
Once I got on board with the idea that it's literally a game about the fiddly bullshit instead an RPG, the whole thing actually got a lot more appealing. Consider how MtG isn't actually a game about wizards throwing spells, it's a game about mechanics interacting and wasting money on cards. 3x/PF/5e are basically the collaborative version of that - with a sprinkling of silly accents and narration.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
moths posted:I like the boost/flaw language, I hope this means something other than +/-2 to ability scores. Preview posted:Your ancestry then gives you ability boosts, each of which increases the score by 2. Most ancestries get three ability boosts, two of which have to go into specific scores. The remaining free ability boost can go into any score except the two set ones. Most ancestries also get a flaw, which decreases a designated score by 2. Stuff like this is heavily eroding my interest in this edition. It feels like the intent is to supecifically change much while mechanically improving exactly nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 13:54
|
|
|
The example pitting the Paladin's Lawful against his Good is kind of exactly what I hate about this style of gaming. It's potentially a cool character moment where we learn about the character's priorities, loyalties, and beliefs. But then they're like, "nah bruh we wrote morality rules that the game world says are right." It's "birds can fly as per the wizard spell Fly" levels of rules for their own sake, but this time rules actively eliminate roleplay.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2018 12:03
|
|
|
quote:* You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent. Also the trolly problem causes the Paladin to auto-fall RAW because you can't only ignore this tenet to follow this tenet. (You can only violate a lower tenet for a higher one.) It just might be possible that morality and ethics are too complex to be handled universally by a single page of D20 rules. moths fucked around with this message at 14:55 on May 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
Any system they come up with for absolute morality is problematic because there is no such thing as a clean, universal, absolute moral code. Moral quandaries call for a case-by-case adjudication between the DM and player to determine what the character should / would do in relation to his diety. But that's way off-brand for Paizo, so instead we got... this.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Aren't Backgrounds fixed at character creation? Periodically introducing new ones through adventure modules and splats seems like a poor decision.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Ah yes, exactly like when that legendary hero Bugs Bunny stole Fudd's boxers as he wore them. At what level can wizards magically compel someone to "give me your shoes," for comparison?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2018 13:35
|
|