Search results

‘Speculation’ might be a better way to put it . There were a couple of posts from ICv2 a few months back on it. Those weren’t very high quality posts, but that’s why I used the Spongebob text. ICv2 Has A Theory That WotC Will Be Sold (ICv2: 1, 2)

BuT HaSbRo Is GoiNG tO SeLL WoTc. One should think this ought to put those silly rumors to rest.

It must be very tiny at this point, but Pathfinder Online is actually still going and receiving updates.

Make PF2 seem simple by releasing HERO Pathfinder.

It’s hard for me to say whether that’s a failing of the AP or not, though it sounds like it. My first AP was Council of Thieves, which I ran (only the first volume) with little knowledge of the setting. I thought it gave me what I needed. My first (and only) completed AP was Kingmaker, which I...

That’s more or less what Paizo does already with their APs. They’re set in different areas, accompanied by supplemental information and options related to the area. If you are running an AP, then you can pretend the other parts of Golarion don’t exist. It’s very uncommon for APs to take you...

Yes, but Paizo has not focused on one particular region to the extent that WotC has focused the Realms on the Sword Coast. To justify a new setting, it would have to be so different that it couldn’t work it into Golarion. Even Starfinder is technically the same setting (just set 1,000 years in...

Another reason why a new setting doesn’t make sense is Golarion is an extremely kitchen-sink setting. If you want to change things up, set your game in a different area. For example, the PF equivalent of Ravenloft is Ustalav. If you’re looking for something more like Expedition to the Barrier...

The advantage of a Pathfinder’s Guild is that you would (presumably) be able to write and sell 3PP content set in Golarion. While PF2 is OGL, all of the setting stuff is Product Identity and can’t be used because there’s no commercial equivalent to the community use policy.

I’d be very surprised if they did that. One of the things that Lisa Stevens has cited in her review of the death of TSR and its influence on Paizo’s business model is that they fragmented their audience by releasing lots of setting books. For a game with a small audience (e.g., Pathfinder)...

It depends on what one means by “modular”. Mechanics in PF2 are generally isolated, but stuff builds on top of them. If you wanted to change something like stealth, you’d still need to keep an eye out for the signposts indicating where other things built on top of it. For example, the...

It’s like they were trying to solve the Jack B. Nimble stealing a chicken problem, but they did it in the clumsiest way possible. The stuff about senses is not bad, but the vision state machine is too clunky.

I understand that people are going to make the comparison, but things were worse in PF1. The old books were released monthly. If you subscribed to both the PF1 and the PF2 lines, you ended up paying more per annum in PF1 for lower quality material. Player Companion books almost never got errata...

It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. It’s comparing player option books to meaty setting books published before Paizo increased their prices. The comparison is not valid not matter how much people want to complain about it.

The Lost Omens line replaces the Player Companion and Campaign Setting lines from PF1. The price per page of Lost Omens is less than either of those. Player Companion: 32 pages, $14.99 print, $10.49 PDF Campaign Setting: 64 pages, $22.99 print, $15.99 PDF Lost Omens (small): ~128 pages, $34.99...

That’s pretty much what the Automatic Bonus Progression variant does. You don’t have to use it for every item or bonus. Just get rid of striking runes and give out devastating attacks at the appropriate levels.

I should have gone with my original choice (raja rakshasa), which was medium but still used a striking weapon. I wanted to show how the PCs also would get to do multiple dice worth of damage like the monsters did. 😬

Maybe not a good example. The stats are the same, so I didn’t pay attention to the size issue. The point still stands though. If you find a weapon you can use, it works the same way it did for the monster.

I think the assumption is you could pare down the complexity/etc while preserving the system’s customization and tactical elements. There are some subsystems that border on vestigial. For example, the core rules have an entire subsystem for vision. It does basically nothing*. The Beginner Box...

Thanks for the additional information. Something told me it was there, but I wasn’t finding it where I was looking. I didn’t think to check skill feats. I was expecting things like dogs and horses to be in equipment section, which I suppose is my thinking too much like other systems.