|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Distant Scholar wrote:
My data/calculation spreadsheet is still undergoing some modifications, so it's not yet available.
01. One on One Adventures Compendium (673 points)
Again, just some shuffling of the same names since the last list.
Psionics Expanded + Psionics Expanded: Work in Progress is 425 points.
Runners-up include: Book of the River Nations: Complete Player's Reference for Kingdom Building and Longest Book Title Ever (188 points), Path of War + Path of War work in progress (165 points), Kineticists of Porphyra II (149 points), and Making Craft Work (140 points)
Top 10 Publishers of All Time (through 2016):
Only a few changes from last time. If one conglomerates OtherWorld Creations, Super Genius Games, Rogue Genius Games, and Everyman Gaming, they get 5243 points. Runners-up are Rogue Genius Games (by themselves, 669 points), Drop Dead Studios (654 points), Louis Porter Jr. Design (618 points), Purple Duck Games (529 points), and Jon Brazer Enterprises (408 points).
So far, 765 different products and 78 different publishers (depending on one's definition of "different") have been on the lists.
So, downloading the newest 64-bit version of LibreOffice helped.
Not too much change since the last report; just a little reshuffling. The 5e Tome of Beasts ended up in 12th place (59 points).
Top 10 Publishers of 2016:
01. Purple Duck Games (509 points)
There's a bit more shuffling here, but it's still the same ten names as the last 2016 list. If you want to add Everyman Gaming in with Rogue Genius Games, Rogue Genius rises to 252 points, which doesn't quite change their ranking. Tenth place got 3 times the points of 11th place.
It also has "Lem" in the title, so it's obviously about halfling bards.
No boos, but be aware that Starfinder is space fantasy, and not science fiction.
Kee-rik will continue to take down any goblins he can reach. (Taking a 5-foot step to get to the next one in line, if appropriate.)
Bite!: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (1) + 5 = 61d6 + 1 ⇒ (5) + 1 = 6
I haven't really looked at the book much, but, taking a glance now, some classes could use more class options. Some classes (like scout and knight) seem to do a good job of that, while others (like bounty hunter and corsair) don't. Bonus feats are helpful for this, but aren't as interesting as class options.
I'm wondering if some of the classes could be rolled together into one if you used class options instead of set features.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Even more advanced pieces of technology could allow ubiquitous 3D printers with sturdier and more varied materials than today's, which could let anyone (with the right cash and blueprints) make whatever they wanted.
Something along the lines of Insult Sword Fighting / Pun Combat / Cutting Remarks. I'd love it.
After reading this and other posts, the main (only?) thing that seems to be missing is Charisma-based skills (Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Disguise, etc.). And Linguistics.
It's actually closer to: "The EM Drive has been studied quickly and cheaply by multiple groups with inadequate funding, and to date no conclusive results have been produced either way."
I'm guessing you don't mean it this way, but what you wrote could be read as saying, "Only rich people can do real science."
Also, what makes you say it was done "quickly and cheaply ... with inadequate funding"? I wouldn't know how to tell.
GM IronDesk wrote:
For future reference, breaking a grapple is a standard action. So, D'Son could not have broken the grapple and attacked the stirge in the same turn.
Huh. I specifically looked up grapple, since I'm not very familiar with it, and it seemed to say otherwise. Let me take another look.
I think I was fooled by the "If you escape the grapple, you can act normally" line.
D'Son, held in place(?) by the stirge's grapple, grabs at the thing to pull it off.
Escape grapple: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (15) + 5 = 20
He then tosses the thing away a bit and smacks it with his battle axe (no power attack).
Battle axe attack: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (17) + 5 = 22
Harrol steps up (one square to the right) and attempts to carefully skewer one of the stirges attacking Dee. "Hey, Wood, you don't mind me helping Dee out here, right?"
Long sword attack: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (17) + 5 = 22
If Harrol hits, and can use the Cleave feat without having the prerequisite Power Attack feat, he'll then attack the other stirge attacking Dee.
Long sword attack: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (20) + 5 = 25
You think that's the (only) issue with this? Bless you.
Sometime in early January, I'll do the all-of-2106 lists.
I'll pop in with a dissenting opinion: I hope there is little-to-no cybernetics in Starfinder. It doesn't fit my concept of space fantasy.
Of course, most (if not all) of you disagree. I'm not trying to convert anyone; I'm just stating my opinion. Otherwise, I won't get in the way of your discussion.
It does sound awesome. I haven't had a chance to try it, myself.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
What kind of tone of Starfinder game are you interested in?
I'm definitely a heroic adventure kind of guy, so my answers probably won't be a surprise.
Do the Job/Heroic: Heroic!
Lawless/Great Empire: Lawless, I guess. I'd prefer to have a Justice system I can turn bad guys over to, and not have to worry about it afterwards.
Core Races/Some Races/Lots of Races: I prefer lots of races, although it's not a necessity.
Political Intrigue/Shooting Gallery: About half-way in between. I don't want to shoot just for the sake of shooting, but I prefer action to talking in my games.
Normal Sci-Fi/Gonzo Sci-Fi: More gonzo for me. It's more fun to shoot at dangerous space monsters than fellow sapients, especially when moral ambiguity/relativity might be involved.
This isn't Cerulean Seas' Product Discussion thread...really doesn't belong.
Wondering how Paizo's take on underwater adventures will compare with a 3pp's well-respected take on the same topic does belong here.
Also, Paizo doesn't need to keep track of what someone else created.
Of course, they don't need to. But I think it would be foolish for them to ignore the excellent work in Cerulean Seas.
Isn't borrowing other peoples' work (and building on it) why there's an Open Gaming License in the first place?
I find it interesting that the D&D 5th edition Tome of Beasts is number 11 (59 points). One on One Adventures has been slipping in the ranks these last few weeks.
Top 10 Publishers of 2016 (so far):
Dreamscarred Press soared in points compared with Purple Duck Games, but not enough to take the lead. Kobold Press jumped a bunch of places. If one wishes to lump Rogue Genius Games and Everyman Gaming together, RGG/EG jumps to a tie for 7th (138 points).
Pax Rafkin wrote:
My all-time favorite game. I'm pretty sure I'll use the Star*Drive setting for Starfinder. No way they're going to put out a better setting than that one.
Remember that Starfinder is space fantasy, not science fiction. How much space fantasy is in Star*Drive? [I honestly don't know.]
Matthew Shelton wrote:
You mean, like dice? :-) They aren't electronic, but it's hard to play the game without them.
If you want an RPG that does turn-based 3D starship combat occurring at different ranges and scales, you could try to do it all on a hex grid or square grid with tokens, platforms of varying height, and measuring tape, all of which is constrained by the size of the battlemat...or you could do it electronically and have all object positions, distances, and movement computed automatically in compliance with the rules of the RPG.
One question I would have is, "How often would this be necessary?" Another is, "And, is it worth the overhead of learning how to use the program and setting it up every battle?"
Note that 3D effects are only necessary if there are more than three ships/objects in the encounter.
Edit: Or if there are restrictive arcs of fire.
N. Jolly wrote:
I haven't been able to work on this recently. This weekend won't be any better, but maybe soon...
I haven't played GURPS since 1992 - I'm quite intrigued to see talk of Professions. I remember the point-buy customization, but I thought GURPS was a classless system or do Professions act differently to classes...?
I only have a couple of the Dungeon Fantasy series, and they're called "templates" there, but they're essentially pre-packaged sets of abilities you can buy which give you the things you expect from a Fighter, Bard, Cleric, or what have you. I imagine you'd still be able to fully customize your character as you wish, but this gives an easy, familiar, set of abilities without a lot of analysis paralysis.
Aha! So you're the one who made a class that encourages full attacks, but also gave it d8 hit points and no armor proficiency. Poor little Kee-rik's dying out there!
More seriously, how bad would it be to allow Improved Natural Armor at levels 1, 7, 13, and 19 rather than 5, 10, 15, and 20?
[And I have a complaint about the magical beast phenotype not having much access to magical abilities. Or tentacles.]
On the whole, though, with a few more levels and some GM special permission, I just might get my triphibian up and running.
I'm GMing a game right now, and I've run across a bit of a trilemma. It also is an example of different valid approaches to how to play a role-playing game, and I thought there might be some interesting discussion.
Here's the situation (simplified and modified for the boards): The PCs have been tracking down a Magic MacGuffin that generates monsters. They've come across the building which houses it.
They've decided to rest for the night before going in.
This means that monsters will be generated during the night. [The monsters now being generated are intelligent and organized, so they won't wander about randomly, waking up parties of PCs that happen to be nearby.] I need to decide how to handle it. Here are the three choices I see:
The main advantage of the first is that it's less work for me. But it leaves me with the feeling that I'm making the players' choices not mean anything.
The main disadvantage of the second is that the result will be unpredictable: it could end up much more dangerous that what I had originally planned, even unbeatable, or even slightly weaker than I planned.
The main disadvantage of the third is that trying to determine what would be the most fun is very difficult. Also, it feels artificial if I make sure the final result is something they'll be able to handle.
So, what should I do? Make it easy on myself and not change anything? Use the rules previously decided and let the dice fall where they may? Carefully craft what I think will be the most entertaining experience for the players?
I know people will have differing opinions on this, and I'd like to hear them all. I also know that there's no wrong way to go. But I think seeing a variety of viewpoints on this will help me make a better decision.
Maybe, yes, and yes. Benevolence is still Dominion, and still "driven by an unstoppable drive to impose order and rule on the world around them." Justice is still Wrath. And Love is actually Lust. It's also more about making others "love" you than you loving others. Benevolence is the best of a bad bunch, but it's still a bad bunch.
Edit: Ninja'd. Ish.
The answer is, of course, "It depends."
Personally, I'd try it and see if I like how it feels. The main advantage I see is it eliminates the SR die roll, which probably speeds up play.
My mathematical analysis indicates that against good saves, the change is better for you vs. low-CR monsters, and worse vs. high-CR monsters. Against poor saves, it's the same or worse for you. Against AC it's even harder to say, but the change is probably worse for you vs. low-CR monsters and better vs. high-CR monsters.
Let's make some assumptions:
According to the Monster Statistics by CR chart, monsters typically have a good save of about CR+2, and a poor save of about CR-2. Your spell DC will be 10+level/2+4+level*2/5, or 14+level*9/10. Let's call it 14+level. A monster with no SR would typically fail to save against your spell 55% of the time with a good save, and 75% of the time with a poor save.
With this alternate SR, they'd get a save boost of (10+CR)/4 ,which ranges from about 3 to about 8. It's trickier to say, but the monster with SR would fail to save against a spell targeted at a good save about 15-40% of the time. Depending on CR, this means the SR will turn a success into a failure between 30% and 70% of the time [instead of 45%]. For poor saves, the spell would fail about 35-60% of the time, or SR will turn a success into a failure between 45 and 80% of the time [instead of 45%].
Difficulties: It's hard for me to tell whether the percent change in successes or the change in raw number of successes is the appropriate measure for this. I went with percent change, because it was a bit easier to work with. Also, I made a lot of assumptions, and did some rough rounding of numbers in this process.
I don't have a good assumption for touch AC, so I didn't formally analyze it.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.