Dark Midian's page

408 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 408 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

CorvusMask wrote:
Maybe it will turn out Xanderghul doesn't actually exist or something so he doesn't have stats :D I'm trying to guess what would be biggest plot twist related to master illusionist

Xanderghul and Sorshen will likely be taken out either offscreen or through McGuffins considering this isn't a mythic AP and both of them have considerable mythic tiers, so I honestly doubt they'll have hard stats. Alaznist makes the most sense to fight since she's just barely scraping mythic.

I just want to see the stats of the remaining five weapons of rule.

Echoing someone else's post that they should just rebrand Gorum as CE and rename him not-Erythnul, considering that's what they seem to be going for.

Brew Bird wrote:
Dark Midian wrote:
I have to say, I'm definitely more than a little disappointed that hand cannons are single shot only, although I understand it's to balance out the high damage small arm.
That's only true of the first one. The later level models have increasingly higher capacities.

I don't know how I missed that. Thank you, booze birb.

I have to say, I'm definitely more than a little disappointed that hand cannons are single shot only, although I understand it's to balance out the high damage small arm.

Ed Reppert wrote:
James Krolak wrote:
Man, the editing on this book really fell short. I'm less than 1/2 way through it and I've found so many typos and mistakes in terminology.
Editing is a dying, if not dead, art. :-(

To be completely honest, Paizo's GenCon books generally have this problem: They have to be shoved out the door in order to make the convention, and a lot of the time they don't get the quality checks that they need. The fact that a Pathfinder-only term like sneak attack made its way into Starfinder is really, really sloppy.

But don't worry, you can get the updated version if everyone pays them enough money and they sell out this printing. ;)

Out of curiosity, how many hand cannons are there, and do they have any neat effects?

Don't we already have a magus guide that's basically the guideline for magus guides?

Kurald Galain's Magus Guide

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll be blunt: This playtest is not an alpha, not by a longshot. It's barely even a beta. This is more like an interactive sneak peek of their new system, with the chance for us to help tweak a few minor numbers. I would estimate that unless there is some very, very strong universal feedback on certain mechanics like say resonance, nearly all of the major mechanics are set in stone.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Torbyne wrote:

Sounds neat, looking forward to seeing the new and clarified rules for them!

... cant shake the feeling though, that stagstep suit looks oftely familiar somehow. Destiny maybe?

Other than the huge stag horns, it actually does look like an armor set a Titan from Destiny would wear. There is actually a Warlock helmet that has horns like that; appropriately, it's called "The Stag". :P

Those hand cannons are bringing my operative one step closer to living out my Destiny-style Hunter fantasies.

1. By RAW, no. You can choose to touch a creature while holding the spell or to strike them with a weapon, but not both.

2. Yes, it would extend to the next attack you make, and you can hold the charge. Remember that touching another creature, friend or foe, makes you discharge it onto whoever you touch.

Damn, that was super fast. Good job.

Gisher wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Are the Lantern Style feats related to Lantern Archons, lantern staffs, standard lanterns, or something else?
The what? Do you have a page #?
Oops! Those are from Distant Realms. Somehow I got two plane-focused books released on the same day confused with each other. ;)

Well, Distant Realms is the Golarion supplement to Planar Adventures, so you're not wrong... ;)

That's pretty solidly evil. Cannibal or not, you're intentionally making this (Mostly) sentient human your living trap detector heedless of what happens to them. Killing them in combat defending yourself is one thing, this is another.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Honestly, the magic item crafting rules are one of the first things I will look up in the playtest book. They have vexed me for the entirety of 3.X/PF's existance and I hope that the devs have made them less prone to break campaigns.

The designers have made them less prone to break campaigns (and simultaneously less likely to be useless in the way Excaliburproxy noted while I was typing this post).

Honestly, they were one of the first things my group had to houserule in PF1, and one of the only rules I can think of where the PF1 rule wasn't an improvement over the 3.5 rule (removing XP cost as a thing was a good idea, but replacing it with no cost for magic item crafting was not). I feel like maybe you and I have talked about this from before I worked at Paizo, but that may have been someone else in the Paizo board community.

Let me guess, it will likely be like SF where it's practically useless unless you want something customized or need to make something that you can't get at the moment?

Hopefully the Starfinder Armory book will address this.

Out of combat and in an abstract sense the tier of the computer determines how powerful it is. Last session one of the people in my group had an argument with the GM because the GM said that the basic comm unit, something analogous to a modern tablet with vid-com capabilities, didn't have a forward-facing camera to take some pictures for data preservation because it was tier 0.

In reality, the dueling sword is basically a futuristic rapier and should be an operative weapon if a sword cane is, but I'm holding out hope that Starfinder Armory will add more operative weapons.

Thankfully, aside from the APs there aren't a lot of books to get behind on in SF. Once you've got the framework for AA down I'm sure adding the APs and Pact Worlds will be a breeze.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

For literal years my group got by with a game mat that we all pitched in on and beer bottle caps with numbers and letters written on them with Sharpies for "minis", glass stones for tokens, and any lid we could find for bigger enemies.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

If I were going to protect a building that I live in, I'd prefer something less toxic than lead . . . .

But I like the original post recommended solution to scry and fry.

Why do you think most casters go mad? It's the lead in the walls. ;)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Skeld wrote:
And a lot of that went back to Paizo's orginal request of the gaming community (the same request they've made in every playest since and the one they're running for PF2): they wanted playest feedback, not theorycraft. "I created a DPR spreadheet of this attack option mechanic and found it to be mathematically inferior to this other attack action mechanic" will always get less designer attention than "I played this and I had fun." It's baked into the DNA of the playtest: play it and give us feedback.

Saying "that's what Paizo asked for" is just kicking the can down the road. And can we dispense with the pseudo-wisdom that "mere theorycraft" is somehow less valuable than the results of what we can assume are not rigorous tests? Theorycrafting is the result of a playtest with an infinitely large sample size. You don't need to run experiments to find out what the rules of the world are when it's a simulated world whose rules are readily available.

"My Rogue has no trouble hitting" is fairly meaningless for testing purposes. Maybe you did have trouble hitting and don't remember it, or your rolls happened to be mostly good, or the GM used lower AC enemies than usual, or, or, or.

Lots of people have fun playing RIFTS or WoD, partly because playing games with your friends is fun in general, and partly because the settings of those systems are fun for many people even though mechanically the systems are tire fires. "It's not fun" is often a good indication that something's wrong, but "it's fun" is not necessarily an indication that nothing's wrong.

You. I like you.

While the devs can say that "theorycrafting takes a backseat to in-game data" all they like, a group of several hundred players doing number-crunching is much more likely to find errors in the system's basic math than the roughly dozen people they have working on this book, assuming everyone is devoted to the crunchy number bits. Sure, you're going to get people who are going to use theorycrafting to try and say a class is over-or-underpowered, but that's a good chance for someone like Mark Seifter to pop up and explain a class's math and why the previous claim is either correct or incorrect.

We basically already have a de facto errata thread, even if it's a bit old.

Um, which spells exactly? A cursory search of my core PDF says that there is no blanket entry for material components for SF's spells. I'd guess that it's specific trumps general, and then just read the spell and guess whether or not the materials are consumed.

Shar Tahl wrote:

These seem to be a proficiency category. I have a few questions about these two

1: If someone is proficient in long arms but not sniper weapons, would they take a -4 to all attacks with a shirren-eye rifle or would it be better to just have it lose the Sniper property?

2: Do the special weapons need proficiency each or just a blanket Weapon Proficiency(Special)?

1. Shirren-eye rifles are sniper rifles and require the Sniper Weapon Proficiency feat to not take the -4 penalty for nonproficiency. Sniper rifles are not longarms in this setting.

2. The Special Weapon Proficiency feat literally states that you select one type of weapon with this and only gain proficiency with that type, although you gain proficiency with different models of the same weapon. It's basically exactly like Exotic Weapon Proficiency from Pathfinder.

Remember, now that in SF lore is core, you don't really have to have player companions be a separate thing. That was all the original player companions were, just lore supplements to the setting-neutral system rules.

evdjj3j wrote:
Are there any plans to make printable errata? It would be nice to have printable errata to stick in my hard copies.

Errata is usually released in three forms: A separate PDF that you can print at your leisure, an updated version of the book's PDF with the errata incorporated, and a reprint of the physical book with the errata incorporated.

The trouble is, the physical book selling out is required for a reprint. I believe the SF core rulebook already sold out once and is on its second printing with no errata, so who knows how long a third printing will take.

The first one. It is oddly-worded, but the "against agents of House Thrune and so on" part is supposed to apply to both of the previous bits.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo did the right thing by making single-classing attractive over the 3.x Frankenstein's monster builds of yesteryear.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm legit hoping the final AP has the PCs building up to fight a rampaging Tarrasque, and PF1 ends with the entirety of the Inner Sea region devastated and rebuilding.

pauljathome wrote:

Given that we have both the d20srd and Archives of Nethys, is the Paizo PRD really all that important any more?

I know people say its "official" but it seems to have at least as many bugs in it as the other two sites

Yes, technically. It's basically the resource document for PFS; if it's up there, you don't need to bring a book for it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Madclaw wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
NetoD20 wrote:
They are changing small aspects of their costumes. I would absolutely love if Ezren were to get a pointy-hat.
Assuming he's not too old to adventure now.
Are you kidding? Ezren may be getting older but he still keeps in shape. I mean have you seen mythic Ezren? Dude is swole! His adventuring days aren't done yet.
It's been 10 years since PF1, and he was already really old by then, he could've died of old age by now.
I figure his age is kind of fixed in time. Like how Batman has been in his 30s since the 1930s.

Batman is at the youngest in his late 30s, if not early 40s. Dick Grayson and Jason Todd are both in their early-mid 20s.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
None of these are basic, common or sense to me. They're more of "a history buff is mad because they want a simulation of medieval Europe and what they get is some Gygax guy throwing names at things at random" frankly.

Hey, I'd love to do away with "studded leather", rename it "brigandine", and make it obvious that the metal plates are the main protective component and not the leather. :v

The other ones really are kind of pedantic, especially the dagger one; what, did you want the dagger to be 2d6, x4 crit just because people used to finish others off with it?

Maybe with 1e going by the wayside they can afford to keep up a 2e PRD.

It's a lot like how PF rogue's sneak attack had rider effects that only functioned if the sneak attack dealt damage. Think of it as, "It doesn't matter how hard you stab someone in the kidney if their skin is too tough to break or they immediately heal afterward."

I kind of liked 5e's counter-argument for standard healing being evocation and the raise dead line of spells being necromancy, but I admit this is more intuitive.

Is there anything you can actively criticize, something you didn't care for?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
A Reddit report from Garycon said there’s a limit on how many use activated magic items you can use per day, which included wands. His was only 1+Cha, so spamming CLW wands won’t work anymore and you’ll have to invest in higher level cures at some point. It also makes shields more valuable if you can’t heal cheaply between fights.
Terrible idea. I'm definitely going to be against this.

Yeah, it sounds like they're trying to enforce simplicity by saying "No magic item healing after a certain times per day." I hope that this gets absolutely shredded in the playtest, because I don't want to see a repeat of SF's "You can only have so many magic items on you at a time" deal.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
I imagine they’ll be... cautious on rolling out Mythic or similar, given the response last time.

No public playtesting on a brand new power system PLUS doubling down with an entire AP based on said untested power system. The response they got was entirely their own fault.

Yeah. Maybe this time they'll keep up on it with 2e.

So... What are your opinions on PF 2e, KK? Especially after all the work you've put into cataloging 1e?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Backgrounds as a replacement for traits, archetypes being prestige classes, bulk, magic item limits.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
And WOW, that last AP is a DOOZY.

Is Golarion exploding to make way for Starfinder's story? Or is this like an Order of the Stick scenario where suddenly there's a flash of light and everything's updated to the new edition? ;)

If my math is correct (Which it rarely is), War for the Crown will end in August, we'll get Return of the Runelords, and then we'll get one more full AP before GenCon of next year when 2e is scheduled to be released.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just please, make the cleric/oracle spell list suck a little less. Clerical magic took a big hit in 3e when the list got stretched to nine levels, as opposed to six previously. Also, more diverse clerics!

Dragonborn3 wrote:

From the podcast: Acid Splash is an Evocation spell now? I have to wonder if this means the other Acid spells are getting moved too. It would be nice to see the 'blasty' acid spells moved out of Conjuration.

Will the Cure spells be moved to Necromancy?

If anything, likely Evocation, 5e style. Raise Dead and that line of spells should be Necromancy, though.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Okay.

2 & 3: No. Nononononononono.

We're not going back to the days where you couldn't multiclass out of monk and paladin. They got rid of those rules in 3.5 by the end anyway, once you took a feat you could multiclass out of paladin into specific other classes.

The "one chance" thing is a flavor thing; it literally only matters for 1st level characters since there are no multiclassing paladins in your theoretical campaign.

Do all of this in your home games if you like. Don't make it canon.

deuxhero wrote:
Dark Midian wrote:
deuxhero wrote:

@Dark Midian

We had that the FIRST playtest. It's why CMB/CMD is STILL broken at higher levels and against any monstrous foe.

Pretty sure that's why CMD in SF is based on your armor, and bonuses are nonexistent.
I meant the first playtest as in the Pathfinder playtest. The CMB/CMD math simply not functioning was known and reported multiple times there.

I know what you meant. In any setting like this, there will always be times where the devs will say, "We're professionals, we know better than you, this isn't a problem" and lo and behold it's actually kind of a problem later on.

Then again, a fair amount of devs who worked on the original Pathfinder beta don't work for the company anymore.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, if there's another thing that I'd like Paizo to take notes on from 5e, it's "Use errata as clarifications/fixes, not balance passes." I get that PFS is a thing, but please, PF2e should let the practice of nerfing things into the ground for no reason die, especially when errata itself is so rare because of the book reprint requirement.

deuxhero wrote:

@Dark Midian

We had that the FIRST playtest. It's why CMB/CMD is STILL broken at higher levels and against any monstrous foe.

Pretty sure that's why CMD in SF is based on your armor, and bonuses are nonexistent.

1 to 50 of 408 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>