|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
X-Wing and Armada.
Thank you! I couldn't think of the name and I was in a rush.
I agree with your points too. I'm totally up for the 5-15 minute resolution style. The roll to succeed at life isn't terribly gripping either, especially when it comes to space ships. Make a roll to take off, make a roll to leave the atmosphere. :/
Also important is the how of obtaining a spaceship too. Just a story reward? How does a party of 3 people get one, how about a party of 7? People who play the game as a miniatures battle game on a grid, people who play it with a focus on story and don't use miniatures at all, groups who do huge intricate 3D terrain and tape measures, etc.
Doesn't that lead to exactly the same problem, where one section of the game is for one person and everyone else must sit back and wait while they and the GM resolve it?
Not really. It's more that it pushes the group away from having space battles which is the far more normal situation in a space RPG. Someone's driving this thing so now we don't need to worry about it unless the story decides it's important. It's to keep the game from turning into stopping and just becoming like that Star Wars miniatures space game that Fantasy Flight does.
Spaceships are Adventuring RV's that carry people from adventure point A to adventure point B. It's like the USS Enterprise in Star Trek. Sure some times they get to put up the shields and shoot the lasers but a vast majority of the time it's just there to get them to the next M class planet so the adventure can continue. That function of them works.
Huge space fleet battles are super fun, in games about space battles. In an RPG that will take a huge amount of thought and effort to make something most of the player base would actually use. The up until now RPG model of huge GM responsibility and then blundering about is horrible. I warn against it. BEWAAAAAREEEE!
Don't make this like other space games where you need 5+ PC's to run a ship properly and there are tons of useless huge ships needing hundreds/thousands of people taking up valuable page space.
Space ships are cool and they're always handled very poorly in RPG's from the experience I've had with them. They're very often some combination of priced obscenely out of any reach, require the PC party to not only somehow work together as adventuring people but also work part time as communication officers and mechanics, or are just massive star ships that seem cool but are virtually useless during actual game play.
Spaceship battles can be a lot of fun but you can’t have them be like
Think Firefly, think smaller ships in Star Wars. 1 pilot in a proper ship, not a tiny fighter ship, but a whole adventuring RV ship! Engineers and people to work guns optional. We need Wash or Han. Everyone else can just buckle in. Something like that. Adventurer RV in Space. Spaceballs - exactly what ships are in a large portion of games.
So seriously think about that as a real problem. Cool customization of ship designs looks great on the back of the cover but the ship needs to be very involved with the regular game play and mechanics if you want to have them as any kind of real game focus. Otherwise your being dull or frustrating to the players.
Also don't let it devolve into that tired old trope of "cool, we have a spaceship... let's spend the rest of the game focusing on how we are going to pay for maintaining it." Way too many games devolve into that and it is not fun. These are real issues and failings in space RPG's up to this point.
How much do we know of spaceships so far? I haven’t read every post on the forum.
I’m just worried because they always seem to be either priced outside of any PC’s possible ability to buy, require some kind of extreme number of crew members that it removes some/all the ships out of most games or even without thousands of crew you need to have 4-6 PC’s specialized in just running it. It can really throw a wrench into things especially when players start to just steal them.
I’m just hoping that people are thinking about and looking at that. It’s hard enough to rope 4-6 people together as a unit without them needing to know how to use sensors or things after all.
I was pretty happy overall with the new season opener. Starlight and Sunburst were really interesting together. A sage type character is nice, and a stallion at that!
Sage Sunburst! I hope that these characters show up again. Before the end of the season. >.>;
Seriously though, only a 4 month hiatus? That's really surprising. No MA Larson this season either.
Well mechanically the important thing between them comes into play when your dealing with damage reduction or hardness. Some monsters are resistant to certain kinds of damage.
Skeletons for example have DR 5/Bludgeoning. They are resistant to arrows or sword swings but don't have that resistance to the smash of a club or mace.
Cutting a rope is easier with a dagger, harder to shoot with an arrow and nearly impossible to sever with a warhammer.
It's going to depend completely on where you live as to what you have access to when it comes to Television, cable or otherwise unless you go with a satellite cable system as bigbone said. Where ever you live you aren't likely to have a huge amount of selection.
It might be better to mention what kinds of shows you were looking for as cable television tends to be fill with mostly advertising specials and extremely small amounts of content.
The trend right now is either towards cutting out cable entirely or simply not having it to start with. Lots of guides exist on how to set yourself up without paying extra for what honestly is mostly advertising. Tom's Hardware Guide, PC Mag's Guide and Tekthing's suggestions in this episode are some examples.
Most GM's I've played (myself included) with will allow you to have a mount that's capable of flight eventually. Once the game is going if you find and tame some wild creatures or gain a flying beast cohort through trade then you're golden.
The mount is supposed to function like a druid animal companion and druids are quite capable of swapping their companions with a day or so of work so there isn't much reason not to do the same with a cavalier. Limited starting list sure but a horse/pony/whatever is pretty solid to start off with.
GM discretion of course! Dragons, Griffons and Pegasi aren't animals and are also not of animal intelligence so it wouldn't make sense for them to operate in the mount/animal companion system. Iconic mounts certainly but they fall under Leadership and would be Cohorts rather then class ability mounts. Hippogriffs aren't animals and lack the animal companion rules, though I think there might be something on the website for rangers that might work.
Rocs, Dire Bats and similar animals are what you'd want to be looking for. Something with that's got stats for an animal companion. It'd be up to you to actually find and train them though.
Now as for PFS...well that's for them to make things easier for them and not much else.
Will cards from the previous edition be usable (at least, for home games)?
They should work alright. Some keywords/traits might not come into play and you'll want to use the newer plot cards.
They changed how the hand size balance comes into play. Instead of a draw limit overall there is a max hand-size that's set by your plot card that gets checked during taxation.
Well I don't know about anyone else but I'm certainly excited. Seems like the card art templates and icons got a nice overhaul. To see some actual card play would be nice at my FLGS.
I remember playing the first edition of the game years ago quite a lot. :)
Attachments can bounce back to your hand, two new factions, and other small little goodies. Huzzah!
Why WOULDN'T I pick a class for fluff reasons?
Well the simple fact that your character defines itself and not the character classes that they take. Your class defines some of the abilities of the character but little to none of what it is fluff wise.
If the idea you have is to be a knight with a code of ethics, the game could care less if you took levels of cavalier, rogue or even wizard. Mechanically cavalier certainly could encourage some of the concepts given the pre-existing orders but it does nothing to denote any kind of knighthood status. The game has no Knighthood feat with the prerequisite of Cavalier 1 that anyone in the world must have to be considered a Knight for example.
Your choice in character class of course can (and should!) support the creation of the type of character you wish to play but the system your describing aligns more with older editions of a different game where a Wizard was Wizard and didn't have the ability to be customized as they could be in Pathfinder through skills, feats, traits, archetypes, prestige classes, multiclassing and so forth. Given how far a character's mechanics can be customized there isn't any reason to assume if one doesn't use one particular ability somehow they are entitled to something else.
You're right that these types of things aren't like a video game, but you're actually implying that somehow a class decision is fleshing out your PC when it isn't in reality.
From your list mechanically Cavaliers, Samurai, Paladins, and several others support #1. #2 is simply being a proactive player and could be done innumerable ways using class abilities, feats, mundane equipment and the basic rules of the game. Tactician, any type of spellcasting, bardic songs, aid another checks, creative use of ropes, etc. #3 is just the annoying habit of people to rank things based upon random metrics and doesn't really have anything to do with anything. #4 likewise has nothing at all to do with anything. Writing Cavalier on a character sheet does nothing to compared to being proactive and instigating the roleplaying yourself.
Insain Dragoon has a good suggestion of something that does mechanically what you want.
I can't say that it absolutely can't be done well but it seems completely unnecessarily.
There are already so many options for the PC's to have followers, so many NPC's that could be played, guards hired, monsters charmed/bribed/converted/summoned and so forth that many of the reasons a GMPC might be there are entirely pointless.
I could see a mentor type or leader type being involved situationally. Leading a particular battle or encouraging the PC's. A trainer type being used to lead some kind of scene with the PC's really being the focus.
To run an extra PC because the group is small is a good use. Simply change the nature of the encounters and let the party make their own ends meet.
Eventually some other game will come along and draw people out of the PF pool as well, that's probably where you're splitting of the fan base is most likely to happen. Look at 5th edition D&D, it's got people playing it that haven't played D&D for quite some time playing it these days. Paizo's lunch can be eaten by a competitor just like anyone else's and they don't have Hasbro and Magic the Gathering to prop them up. I don't see it happening but it isn't impossible.
Beyond that there is something also to be said about the fact that the people at Paizo have been playing this game longer then any of us arguably. Creative people being paid to be creative. It seems unlikely that at some point enough people aren't going to want a fresh canvas to express their ideas for a game upon.
Just throwing in my pair of pennies, a 2.0 would not see me or any of my group spending money on it. We've decided that Pathfinder is the system we'll "retire" on after years of edition upgrades and thousands of dollars spent collectively on books. We'll stick with PF as long as it stays in its current form; it's unlikely, no matter how good a PF2e might be, that we'd switch to it.
Yeah but if you've already made that decision it could be implied that you and your group won't be spending any more money on anything more really anyway? You've spent your like $700ish dollars, own all the hard covers and are effectively out of the market place as a consumer. You also won't be buying any competitor's product as well given what you've said.
You've got more then enough material to last the next 20+ years of regular role-playing game meet ups and are probably the least likely group to buy the more and more esoteric books that likely to come out in the future for the current rules of the game.
How about not splitting the fan base?
I'm not sure about how exactly Paizo's fan base would be split by them eventually coming out with a new core rulebook. Not like they would keep releasing product for the old edition and unlike video games it isn't like someone switched off a server and your books and dice stop working. The only real issue to a person from a new edition standpoint is in terms of the Pathfinder Society and if anything that's what needs a huge rework to start.
A /lot/ of role-playing games go through edition changes, not just D&D. Traveler, Shadowrun, BESM, GURPS, Earthdawn, Vampire: The Masquerade, and that list goes on and on for quite a while. They happen for a variety of reasons but they happen, some times they're huge changes and other times the tweaks are smaller and harder to see.
There are some issues that are still legacy from the Oldest RPG in the World. People are right that anything new "edition" would need to be at least somewhat visibly the current edition, as the whole reason this exists is said oldest RPG didn't do that for one of their editions and actually did what all the people who worry about these kinds of things worry about happening so it isn't like there isn't president for some people to at least have an opinion on the matter. It does force some of us to chime up so things aren't ruined for the types of games we want to play though.
Casters should be more damage dealing or whatever then people wielding sticks and rocks, they should also probably pay a heavier cost for that ability though. Casters get too survivable is likely the real problem mechanically. Also I dislike cinematic combat, I watch films for that stuff and even there I'm getting pretty sick of it there. Seriously why does a 2003 Korean film have a better fight scene in it then the Avengers squeal?
I don't want Naruto the RPG, that isn't epic. I want armies marching and rules for kingdom building. The risk of wounds getting infected and characters dying. Magic being this dangerous thing, risky to use but powerful. Artifacts that always have a big down side. I want to /play/ in that game. All of which is the total opposite of a lot of other people want.
Blargh. Anyway disagreeing with people on the internet, blah blah blah.
I wouldn't focus on this so much really. Cavalier works just fine on foot from my experiences with the class. It's an animal companion and a small bonus when charging on it that you wouldn't be using all the time.
Core abilities have little to nothing to do with being mounted. Almost all the order abilities, the challenges, tactician, etc all work just fine.
Dragon Disciple was better in 3.5 D&D actually. More focused. It was effectively a trap for sorcerers to go into but you could make very interesting and powerful characters with it quite easily.
Now it's still effectively a trap but a less punishing one for everyone else at the table who has to tote around the low BAB melee guy whose way behind on spell levels.
I'll second Onyxlion's suggestion of going from Dragon Blooded Bloodrager into Dragon Disciple.
Well I certainly hope that the next edition of pathfinder isn't called Pathfinder 2.0. That's a horrible name!
I could hope for Advanced Pathfinder or something similar but that'd be too derivative really.
Seriously I can't personally think of any reason to not eventually make a newer game. Newer ideas, plenty of lessons learned and eventually there will be a content end point. How many Bestiaries can you make before sales choke? I literally have no idea.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
So smooth! Especially if you kept the charts for your character on hand. Ability checks were so good, with no ridiculous dcs to worry about (hello 3.5-pf str checks). Urgh at the modifiers & excessive addition of recent years, way to make rolling tiresome.
Indeed. 2nd edition AD&D had a really good character sheet for that. Just list it all right there where you need it. DM gives you a bonus/penalty based on the situation and there you go.
All character sheets should come in green and white in my opinion too. :)
I didn't mind the declining AC myself either Snorb. Or just the era when AC's usually stayed in a kind of set range usually determined by just armor alone.
Ahh, the wonderful days of charts and ability checks. Honestly I wish I could visit there a lot more often. I enjoy the limitations that were set up. It wasn't 100% bullet proof or anything just like any other game of course but still a lot of fun.
Really we could stand to go for more charts and things. Useful ones though. Wouldn't mind drawing back in ability score prerequisites too..
What do you expect people to do, roll dice to randomly select everything?
It's a game. You're always are supposed to come up with some kind of plan or strategy for the future if you want to do well at a game. That's true for every game from the playground to professional leagues. Even games that seem to be entirely random have large amounts of strategy to them.
Even more specifically Role-playing games in general are games where the reward for playing it (beyond obvious social rewards) is that your character gets more powerful in some manner. The plan for the character starts at first level just by picking a class in Pathfinder.
So there are going to be very few players in this game who aren't going to know what to do after they take their first level of wizard or fighter. They've already made up their minds by making that first choice about a lot of things that need to be thought about for the future.
If you want people to keep gear it needs to be useful to them, not just cool or interesting.
I've got an elven caster cleric (Divine Strategist) of Shelyn. Like 8 Strength, 16 Dex, 18 Wisdom, 8 Charisma and so forth. The idea is to then slide into Pathfinder Savant because I like the prestige class and want to play it.
Issue is I've been wracking my head trying to come up with good Esoteric Magic choices for Cleric. I found a few other threads but they were all wizard focused and also a bit dated.
I know summoner haste is a key one to nab. I want Ill Omen and Good Hope too just because...well awesome. What else though? I can actually get a total of 6 here and am curious if anyone has ideas.
You can take a hit or two and move your flank so you should be fine. I was roaming about with an AC of 13 as a sorcerer for a long time. You get to a point where it just doesn't matter what your AC is if you don't max it out as hard as you can so it isn't worth the time to bother with.
You should of course have other defenses set up as the others have been suggesting. My protection of choice was mirror image.
Flight of Dragons was a beautiful movie, with James Gregory, Harry Morgan,John Ritter, and James Earl Jones. Seeing that movie sparked my creativity for many years to come after that and it got me into roleplaying. I wish I had it again, but I don't believe it was ever rereleased in DVD format.
Actually it's been on DVD since 2009. I agree it was a fun film. Interesting premise and enjoyale to watch. I had it recorded off of TV on VHS growing up.
Amazon has the DVD on sale for like $12.
Traditionally a lot of the issues with large animals comes form getting them in and out of places to actually be used. Dungeons with 5' doorways and corridors, stairs/ladders and so forth. It's mostly a logistical problem. A medium sized mount or one that can fly tends to solve some of those issues.
Now an Eidolon doesn't deal with a lot of those problems. It's intelligent and you can summon it into places easily enough if not in combat or pressed for time. That allows it to be less stressed by those logistics.
A themed unicorn mount Eidolon should work just fine. Remember however not to focus on it completely, your summoner is a large part of the build. You can easily turn a lot of problems into solutions. A small summoner on a medium mount with a few mounted combat feats is just as scary as most other things on a mount. They can wear armor, they have d8 hit dice. It's entirely possible to build the summoner to be the combat monster and let the eidolon be the support like that especially with the right traits and feats.
You don't even need to do small if you can just be patient.
Alignment is a useful tool in helping to understand how another character wants to act. Not how they always do but how they'd like to or how they see themselves. Useful to add that little bit of nudge outside of your own head if you like to get a bit more into role-playing or so forth.
We've never had a Pathfinder or AD&D game without it that I can remember. It has lead to interesting situations of ethical conflict between certain groups.
Just wanted to make sure everyone had a heads up on this as I often miss out on cool stuff myself.
Tomorrow is Turkey Day! Starting at 11am US Central Time on November 27th the Mystery Science Theater 3000 Turkey Day marathon will be starting on Youtube found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p56igk63es
It should be good for hours of football alternative entertainment this year! If you haven't watched MST3k before you are missing out. It even includes some new stuff so it should be quite a lot of fun.
As an added bonus they're streaming Manos: The Hands of Fat on a loop until the new marathon starts up! Torgo-ahoy!
Judge things when appropriate and just allow a knockout blow here and there if it seems reasonable.
If you're looking to capture people alive there are alternative methods to dealing damage as well. Various spells, combat maneuvers, demanding surrender, binding lethal wounds, etc.
I'm curious how this is coming up as an issue for you and your group at all really.