IronWolf
blank
Here's the podcast I mentioned earlier where they talk about Warpath along with the designer, it might be interesting:
Episode 004:Sniper in the Deep/Warpath Mass Combat | Chronicles
athfinder Podcast
Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder and Mass Combat
- Thread starter Xyxox
- Start date
Here's the podcast I mentioned earlier where they talk about Warpath along with the designer, it might be interesting:
Episode 004:Sniper in the Deep/Warpath Mass Combat | Chronicles
athfinder Podcast
Xyxox
Hero
Here's the podcast I mentioned earlier where they talk about Warpath along with the designer, it might be interesting:
Episode 004:Sniper in the Deep/Warpath Mass Combat | Chronicles
I just ordered the hard copy/PDF combo through Paizo. It looks pretty good, but defnitely requires some work.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
At the risk of getting off topic, what errors are you referring to in the former two books? Every RPG book I've ever bought that had appreciable new crunch always needed some degree of errata - were those two that error-riddled?
Also, I only vaguely recall that the World Guide got delayed. Did they say what caused it?
Yes, they did: they were trying to put out too many hardbacks too close together, so they pushed Inner Sea back... though why to February is still a mystery. Why not November or something, for the holiday season?
And just look at all of the less-than-ideally-worded feats, spells, and PrC abilities in the APG, and the totally screwed up tables in the first printing of Adventurer's Armory. The biggest problem right now at Paizo is the lack of editing and development eyeball-hours. Whether they just need to hire more people, or make sure that flagship GenCon releases start the editing process sooner, or even increase the kinds of things in the books that get open playtesting (*bing, bing, bing* I think we have a winner!) so that the bugs get worked out BEFORE the books see print, things could certainly change for the better out in Redmond.
But actually on topic, here's a sample statblock from the rules in Pf #35:
Regular Militia CR 5
Huge army of humans (warrior 3)
COMBAT
hp 27; DV 15; OM +5
LOGISTICS
Speed 2; Consumption 2
Prerequisite Kingdom size 25 or higher
Actually the questions of editing and these mass combat rules are one and the same, since there are some serious errors in the presentation of those very rules! The most obvious is the "Strategy" table, which has a column that makes no sense at all - I'm guessing it is a relic of an earlier version of the rules that they forgot to remove. But i haven't gotten an answer at Paizo yet.
This kind of thing is what bugs me most - the bar is set pretty low in RPGs for playtesting when there are a ton of interacting features (look at all the 4e rules updates!), so Paizo isn't unusual in releasing overpowered/unclear feats etc. But editing and spellchecking is pretty elementary stuff, and they routinely have problems with it - sometimes serious, like a good chunk of the Inquisitor rules in the APG being completely wrong, the screwed-up map in AP#35, and the Armory thing.
James Jacobs
Adventurer
Because Bestiary 2 is our holiday season book. Since it's a new book, and the World Guide is more or less an expanded reprint, and since we couldn't do two books at the same time, the World Guide got pushed back. This also lets us put it through an extra long development and editing cycle; it's the core book of our campaign setting after all, and the first hardcover printing was, unfortunately, kind of rushed so it'd be out at Gen Con that year. There's a lot of corners we had to cut with the first edition of the setting that we're hoping to shore up in this second edition... but in a way that keeps as MUCH of the first edition of the book still relevant.
IronWolf
blank
I will make the broad jump and assume this is your question from the Paizo boards?
caelum on Paizo Boards said:
They way I read the table is that depending on the Strategy you choose you will have a modifier to your offense check (the middle column). If you manage to make your offense check by beating the defender's defense then you do the damage by the amount you beat the DV by and then add the damage modifier on top of that.
So the damage modifier listed in the table doesn't boost the actual check, only the damage if you did beat the DV. At least that is my interpretation of the table.
I will make the broad jump and assume this is your question from the Paizo boards?
Good guess!
That's whatI thought at first, too, but there are a couple of problems. From a philosophical perspective, it means offensive strategies are way more valuable than defense - because it gives a huge bonus to damage, and these armies don't have many hit points. From a more concrete perspective, you can end up doing negative damage, which is weird! Also, James Jacobs' response in that thread implied they didn't think of damage separately.
So I lean toward this being a relic of an old version of the system. At least, when I play it (unless I get official word otherwise), I'll ignore that column.
IronWolf
blank
It could certainly be a little clearer!
You are right, that if you stack the two it definitely can swing the damage to a pretty high number. I will probably need to run through a few scenarios and see how it plays out and determine how I will run it when we get to this section in our Kingmaker Campaign. I am wondering if the penalty to DV makes a big enough difference to make doing so a risky proposition even with the damage boost. Seeing it in play will help me get a feel for it so I can adjust as needed.
I have considered trying the Warpath rules for this as well, but waiting to see how "into" the kingdom aspect my players get as we move forward.
IronWolf
blank
Oh, I meant to touch on this as well. I think I would go with if you hit you do a minimum of 1 point of damage - just to keep it from getting weird.
