Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Akata

Odraude's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 6,849 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,849 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Headfirst wrote:

  • Lead a team of people. It could be anything, from a workplace group to a military exercise or a sporting event.
  • Haggle over the price of something. Flea markets and garage sales are great for this in a low-risk setting.
  • Ask an older person to tell you the story of their life. It's going to take a while, so get comfortable. You're going to hear some crazy stuff, too, things you can't even imagine happening today. Not having the right to vote, living through a world war, life before the Internet, TV, airplanes, and modern medicine. Sure, grandpa's life wasn't exactly Lord of the Rings, but hearing about what it was like to live in another era can really help you weave better stories.

That last part is the truth. My grandfather grew up in Jim Crow South and my father grew up in a Westies owned Hell's Kitchen. The stories from that have shaped a lot of how I run a game.


Yeah most of the games I have run have had firearms of various degrees and fighters and rangers were not obsolete. It helps that fighters and rangers get enough feats to make firearms super deadly.

That said, the more advanced firearms you have, the less of a chance that melee weapons would be used. Which makes sense with the era and style of game that is being run (in my case, it was WWI). And the style is different from heroic fantasy and puts it more in the realm of pulp fantasy. Which is pretty much what Eberron is. Just like firearms in a swashbuckling, 1500's game would run differently than a western six shooter campaign, which would run differently in a Great War campaign.

And even with that, magic melee weapons are still pretty useful, as my player discovered when ambushing some soldiers with greatsword. As is magic armor.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Odraude wrote:

I could see firearms but there would certainly have to be a reason for their existence and proliferation. On Earth, the factors that led to their creation were A) no magic, B) training someone in archery took a lifetime, and C) firearms could be made cheap enough.

Your logic is faulty, since we have no actual experience in real working Magic, we have no data for it's effect, or lack of one on technological development.

Anyway for Eberron, I'd think revolvers would be appropriate. Firearms would have some impact but given the existence of 19th century clockworks along elemental based magitek, I don't think it'd be that severe.

While true on the magic part, the other two reasons are major players in the spread of firearms. It's something we can see in history. So in theory, Eberron could certainly have room for firearms.

But it sounds like the creator, Keith Baker, has made his decision about firearms. So from there, it's up to us as GMs to see whether we're okay with it or not.

Personally, given the WWI vibe I feel from the setting, I'd love to see early Maxim machine guns and the rise of mechanized warfare. Arcane tanks sound pretty awesome.


While true on the monster part, real life caves really add a sort of claustiphobic element to dungeon crawling that I feel is missing in a lot of cases. Plus, there's the 3d element to caves, where the entrance to the next cavern could be on a different section on a xyz plane. I really like cave dungeons that take some cues from spelunking.

There is a lot in the real world that can take your D&D game to the next level. Tons of inspiration in the real world has made my games much better.


I've been in a couple fights and I've been out at night in the wilderness. It is super dark. Like, you really cannot see at all when away from the city lights. So for characters keeping watch, you'll want that fireplace smoldering some. Hardwoods are good because the fire will still burn but it has less of a light and smoke pollution so people can't find you as easy.


I'm doing the same thing with my girlfriend. Definitely give her a good supporting cast of NPCs that can help her and that she'll like. Luckily, since she's the only player, she can kind of pick and choose how much spotlight they get. It's actually kind of refreshing to have a player care about another NPC without another PC getting irritated for it taking up time.


What is the cost of wands in Eberron? It's been a decade since I've had my head in Eberron.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Toblakai wrote:

Eberron does not have gun powder, therefore no gunslingers:

Keith Baker blog on gunpowder

Why would they have any need to create gunpowder when some form of abundant naturally forming condensed energy [in whatever form you want in your game] crystals that can be used to propel bullets (or projectiles of their own creation)

Glad I read that. Ultimately, it's really up to the GM whether they want that in their setting. I guess you could just say that the crystals can't be ground up. Or maybe there's a Curse of Sulfur/Saltpeter that simply makes gunpowder not work, or bad things happen.

So really it's up to who is running. I can respect Keith on his decision.


I could see firearms but there would certainly have to be a reason for their existence and proliferation. On Earth, the factors that led to their creation were A) no magic, B) training someone in archery took a lifetime, and C) firearms could be made cheap enough.

In D&D, the first two don't really exist. Anyone can pick up a bow and use it, or get the proficiency with a single feat. In addition, there is magic everywhere in Ebberron and it has been industrialized. I could see firearms as a cheaper alternative to wands of fireballs, since that costs a lot of money and aren't as cost effective to mass produce. So I could see firearms as a cheap alternative to wands, since a wand of fireball would cost 11,250 to buy. Plus wands are spell trigger, so you would have to know fireball to cast it. With wands of fireballs having that high standard to use it, I can definitely see firearms proliferating for the mundane masses. Hell, I could even see it as a sort of symbol of the peasants revolting against their magic tyrants, if that's the story you want to tell.


Bandw2 wrote:
Odraude wrote:

The thing about invasion is that there has to be a reason for it. If the players are just starting a small trade village, then the only persons that would possibly invade are pirates and rival robber barons. Larger nations probably wouldn't care too much. And they would attempt to invade only if they certainly had a great force of arms and magic. This would be a good chance for the players to try and overcome the obstacle with roleplay and combat, but invasion shouldn't be a foregone conclusion.

And I wouldn't throw it at the players immediately. Far too often, GMs like to crush what their players build in the vein of having conflict and obstacles. But I think for a while, it's good to just let their village grow for a time. It shouldn't be easy of course, but having someone try and knock over their proverbial sand castle on a weekly basis gets old hat pretty quickly. It makes players get more detached to their village when you keep smashing it on them. Let them enjoy the fruits of their labor every so often.

And if their trade country has become popular and wealthy, then there would be several kingdoms that would be happy to trade with them. For everyone count that would want to invade and take them, there are several allies that have commercial interest in their city state that would back them up. That's a key thing to remember as a GM.

ugh... no the first person to invade would be the closest guy with enough troops to conquer the town, IF they're applying tariff to it. If they're down stream it's much likely they'll try to invade just to get the profits for themselves.

This is the point though, they'd have to be big enough to have an impact on the trade route before anyone would really care. Before then, they'll actually probably get a few offers from near by feudal lords if they would like to swear fealty to them.

Last I saw though was they were between Chelix and that democratic state, so that's unlikely. If anything the area might attract outlaws to the area,...

Which is fine and my entire point. The only people that would actively try and take the village are those with the force of arms to do it. But my point is, don't just throw a platoon of 40 people straight off the bat. Give the players some time to build up their little village at first. Get a garrison and their own militia to take on the wild first and then bring in the roving army. Start slow with small groups of bandits and go from there. If you just start with the roving army in the first week, then you are pretty much telling your players that there will be no kingdom building and you've wasted their time.

Throwing an army at a thorp would be like throwing a great wyrm at a level 1 party and expecting them to come out on top.


The thing about invasion is that there has to be a reason for it. If the players are just starting a small trade village, then the only persons that would possibly invade are pirates and rival robber barons. Larger nations probably wouldn't care too much. And they would attempt to invade only if they certainly had a great force of arms and magic. This would be a good chance for the players to try and overcome the obstacle with roleplay and combat, but invasion shouldn't be a foregone conclusion.

And I wouldn't throw it at the players immediately. Far too often, GMs like to crush what their players build in the vein of having conflict and obstacles. But I think for a while, it's good to just let their village grow for a time. It shouldn't be easy of course, but having someone try and knock over their proverbial sand castle on a weekly basis gets old hat pretty quickly. It makes players get more detached to their village when you keep smashing it on them. Let them enjoy the fruits of their labor every so often.

And if their trade country has become popular and wealthy, then there would be several kingdoms that would be happy to trade with them. For everyone count that would want to invade and take them, there are several allies that have commercial interest in their city state that would back them up. That's a key thing to remember as a GM.


It's doable, but it takes effort from both the PCs and the GM. The PC just can't galavant around and pretend that they are special snowflakes. And the GM can't just have everyone act like Cecil Price. That's just lazy. Both sides have to be committed to making this work.


The closest thing I have to how peasants dealt with heat is stuff my grandfather used to tell me about working on a plantation in Puerto Rico his youth. Down there, even with the island breeze, it can get extremely hot. Some of the stories he'd tell me were about them working early in the morning, usually around 4-5a, and they'd wear loose cotton and wide brim hats. They'd also have water nearby at all times. While a lot of the people would be used to the heat, there would be the occasional victim of heat sickness. And it would be at temperatures of 93-95. But even with being used to the heat, they'd try and be done by 1, because then things would get too hot.

I think one thing we have to remember is that in modern times, we have better fabrics and water to deal with the heat. Water bottles in coolers and such help. But also, there are a lot of factors to temperature that the Pathfinder rules can't realistically cover without getting into more complexities that a GM may not want to get into. 90F in Boston or London are different from 90F in Miami or Vegas.

Personally I'd prefer a more in depth ruleset that included heat index and wind chill while adding human acclimation. Then again, I trained to be a meteorologist, so I'm kinda into that thing :)


Islands would have some good trade routes, especially if there are great resources that can't be found anywhere else. Exotic fish, spices, fruits, sulfur, salt. Salt and spices were HUGE, as was sugarcane for rum.

But it sounds like the River Kingdoms or Varisia is your best bet.


Eh, backstory or not, if a GM wants to screw with you, they will. A part of adventuring is facing difficult trials and overcoming them. Sometimes it's by force of arms, other times it takes cunning and more nuance. And by having flaws in your character, it gives you social obstacles to overcome (or succumb to, in your case) through character development. You handle the rewards and consequences of your actions in game. It's really no different than the GM throwing monsters at you to challenge you. Granted, it can be ruined by lazy GMing, but really, anything can be ruined by lazy GMing.

Honestly, the first scenario seemed like a misstep from your end for treating the situation so binary, not the GM (except for the fall. I probably would have warned you about that before your actions). Lazy handling of the situation. Second scenario is definitely pretty lazy on the GM.

And if you're worried about being screwed over by the GM, perhaps it's best to stick with simpler dungeon crawls and wilderness adventuring.


I do the island and it works out well, especially for the GM. It means you can control the boundaries some, so things don't quite spill over to other nations, but it leaves things open for some awesome naval adventures when they do. For the early part, things stay self contained.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the biggest change I'd make is removing damage and instead having it evolve into stages of Fatigue and Exhaustion.


johnlocke90 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

In the environmental rules, characters are expected to make fort saves each hour they spend in temperatures above 90 degrees.failure inflicts 1d4 nonetheless damage. 90+ degree days are the norm in summer for much of the world.

Your average farmer has 10hp and a fort save of +1. The farmer will fail over half his saves. On a day with 10 hours of heat, that means collapsing unconscious. A mildly unlucky day is fatal.

A month of weather like this would kill most of the population.

You can tell these rules were written by modern Pacific Northwesterners where a day that touches 90 is hell on earth, to be hidden from underground, in a pool or air conditioned spaces.
My thoughts too. Its almost October and I am still getting days over 90.

One problem that Pathfinder's rules have is that they don't really take into account all of the factors that makes surviving in harsh weather difficult. 90 degrees is completely bearable up in, say, Boston or Philly. But 90 degrees down where I'm at is absolutely draining, mostly because of the humidity. 80% humidity and on will make 90 F feel like 110F and greater.

There are also differences in terms of land masses, location, wind chill for the cold. Puerto Rico and Hawaii are cooler because they are islands, despite being in the tropics. The same latitude in Mexico gets hotter because it's inland, and the Sahara is even hotter because of the dessert. With all of these factors, the standard rules presented just simply can't handle it.


Wheldrake wrote:

Nobody *really* uses these lame environment rules anyway, do they?

This said, sure, 90°F isn't that bad, especially if you're used to it. But get above 110°F and you're looking at serious problems. So there *is* a place for such environment rules... they just need to be a little better thought out and graduated according to severity.

I do :)

But I also have tweaked the weather rules some, so that it takes advantage of acclimation. In addition, for heat between 90 and 109, I have it to where you can avoid the rolls for a time by just drinking water, wearing loose or shaded clothing (like the rice patty hats), and occasionally grabbing shade. If you do that, you are usually okay. I did something similar with the colder weather, changing it to 32 degrees as the first section and again, allowing for acclimation.

Course I also take into account wind chill for cold weather and relative humidity for hot weather, so there will be times where players will have a bad time in the heat. 95 degrees feels like death when the relative humidity is 65% or more.


Tyinyk wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Zenogu wrote:
Tyinyk wrote:


The issue with having a "Leader" class (As I imagine it would be called) is it makes people feel they can't play a leader type without it.
Lots of this.

Out of curiosity, do the players in your games feel like they can't buy a guard dog unless they're a druid or ranger? Do they feel like they can't have a combat trained warhorse unless they're a cavalier? Do they feel like they can't use their bare fists at all unless they're a brawler or monk?

Sorry if these sound sarcastic, but they're honest questions. Just because something is a core feature of one class doesn't make them off limits to other characters.

Beyond a couple of early levels, you kind of can't do any of those things without significant feat investment, or a class designed around it. I say this as a guy who's bought four horses at level three, which all died over the course of three session. Seriously, I lost two horses in one session! I stopped buying them after that because I just couldn't afford it.

Same issue with a guard dog. Hell, even as a ranger, my wolf got nearly killed every fight, and it was several steps above just any old guard dog you can get. That was pretty early in the levels too, like six or so, I think.

Bare-knuckle boxing is a tad more viable for just anyone, but it takes a bunch of investment to actually make usable for someone not designed for it. Even then, you're going to be woefully underperforming compared to someone with a fistfighting class, or someone of your class that had just picked up a weapon.

Pretty much this. And in Pathfinder, after a while, it's fairly true. A bog standard guard dog that isn't an animal companion will get wrecked by foes at higher levels. That's why I like that the Animal Archive exists, because having animal companions is pretty fun.


SheepishEidolon wrote:
Odraude wrote:
As the GM, just sit down and say "Hey guys, I'd totally like it if you guys make some cool backstories. Don't worry, I'm not going to abuse your characters or their loved ones consistently, and they can also be super helpful. So create away!" Better to be open and honest with your players instead of doing amateur social engineering.

While I agree with being open, honest and just encouraging (not enforcing), telling someone not to worry sometimes makes them worry.

If you build on a player's backstory, you automatically reward them with additional spotlight time. In case this favors a certain player at the expense of the others, you probably should link them to the new content. For example, if someone made a powerful enemy in their past and he now pops up, the group could help to get rid of him.

At that point, if the player is absolutely worried, then I'm going to sit down with them and talk about why they don't trust me and what I can do to help them out. Clearly, either something I've done or something that happened to them is causing this issue, so there is a problem I'm going to at least try and get to the bottom to.

To me, D&D isn't a game. It's a social activity and group, complete with its quirks and social dynamics. So I'm going to do my best to make sure things run smoothly and everyone is having fun without feeling hurt.


Just a Mort wrote:

Sometimes old habits are hard to break and after you've been resisting backstories so much, they won't come. Also, should you write a backstory that will screw you over in gameplay after, you only have yourself to blame.

I.e if you write you hate all orcs, and you're playing a paladin, the villagers tell you that some orcs have been killing their cattle, you burn down the entire orc village and your GM declares you fall.

Why? Because the orc village was framed by someone else. Since you don't speak orc..there's no way you could even have a trial.

Meh. Reminds me why I don't play paladins.

Honestly, I'm pretty okay with my character's flaws and traits coming back to bite me. It's part of the roleplaying experience and is just another challenge to overcome.

As for the orc thing, a common misstep people make is an extreme, all or nothing character. You don't have to have him hate all orcs and murder them. He could have simply hate orcs but eventually through interaction, come to appreciate them.

That's the thing about character traits and flaws. Far too often, players use them as the only means of defining their character, almost to the point of it being a caricature. But ones personality and demeanor change over the course of months and years, especially by going on life changing adventures. Your character is a snapshot and their life is a scrap book. Remember that.

Also, as a GM, i'd make it quite clear that doing something would make them fall. But that's just me.


David knott 242 wrote:

If the players who did not create backstories are experienced roleplayers, they might be paranoid about what you are going to do with whatever backstories they create (based on bad experiences with previous GMs). When such players do create backstories, they tend to make characters who are orphans with no friends or living relatives.

The cure for this would be to use the backstory that the one player created to give him some neutral or even spotlight time. When the other players notice and mention that you seem to be favoring this player, you can remind them that they could get the same attention if they gave you a backstory to work with. They might even have an easier time coming up with a backstory if they have played the character for a couple of levels and thus have worked out the character's general personality.

Don't do this. All you are going to do with this is have the player resent you or the person that has the spotlight.

As the GM, just sit down and say "Hey guys, I'd totally like it if you guys make some cool backstories. Don't worry, I'm not going to abuse your characters or their loved ones consistently, and they can also be super helpful. So create away!" Better to be open and honest with your players instead of doing amateur social engineering. And if they don't do it after that, then it isn't in the cards. You can't force or trick someone to play how you want. Just gotta be an adult and tell them straight to their face. Lay all cards on the table.

If they don't dig backstories, try and see if you can shift the focus on bonds with current players. I find that people that don't really do backstories seem okay with making backstories with other players. That way there is more collaboration and you ally (another PC) getting attacked and such is par for the course in a D&D game since you are both adventurers. Look at some of the Dungeon World playbook questions for cool ideas of setting up bonds.


Molthune and Nirmathas would be good for this. Both are distracted by war.


I've gone the old school route with Leadership. I removed the feat and now have it so that anyone can have followers, allies, hirelings, and cohorts come with them. They don't get to build them unless they have a really good idea and we can build it together. That way, with multiple followers and cohorts, they can take down harder tasks that would normally be out of their level range. Of course, they have to befriend their cohort, or at least pay them enough.

I dislike Leadership as a Feat or Class because I feel like players should be able to bring along trusted allies and friends that they've made through adventuring and roleplaying without the need of wasting a feat.

Also, when you have it tied to a feat, then the players have it in their head that they can make the NPC however they want since they spent the feat slot for it. So if you're not into min maxed NPCs, you'll have to figure something out since the player will feel owed this. So I just removed the feat and I let everyone have the capability of attracting a cohort or hire some henchmen.


I wouldn' worry too much about it. There is a value of making your character's current actions important, rather than what they did.


Varisia and the River Kingdoms are probably your best bet. The Land of the Linnorm Kings has a feudal/chiefdom system so if your players prove themselves as capable raiders and warriors, they may get granted land

Otherwise, the much of the wilds of Garund are not civilized by people and are ripe for colonization.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Creatures that represent trickster gods would be interesting to make into special creatures or even spirit animals. We have spiders, coyotes, and ravens/crows as common trickster animals in North American mythos.


Bandw2 wrote:

so... ugh...

for the period pathfinder kind of describes itself, which is generally early renaissance. The idea of nations wasn't a strong one. people had fiefs or titles and what not and people pledged loyalty to them. They didn't pledge to the Kingdom, but to the actual King. People weren't german, in that they were part of germany, but german in that they were culturally speaking german.

for this reason the existence Andoran annoys me. Pledging yourself to a national identity that didn't exist didn't make sense to about anyone until the 1800s.

HOWEVER, what they can do, is somehow settle the land that got hit by the natural disaster, or any region where the governments grip isn't strong. If anyone says they own the land, they're wrong and simply attack them. Eventually you'll have recognized by the surrounding countries as a sovereign power.

Basically, if they can't keep a grip on the land, it isn't theirs, not unless they want to conquer it.

While true, Golarion essentially has nations for most of their areas since it is shown through the lens of 21st century thinking. There are many factors that have led to the idea of the nation state and nationalism (industrial revolution, better roads and locomotion), but Golarion doesn't really get into it as much.

And there are arguments that the idea of a nation isn't as new, with scholars arguing that certain eras of the Roman Empire as well as China and Athens meet the definition we have of a nation.

Though this doesn't really matter to the OP. Ultimately, you can definitely have your players run their own country.


If you want to do kingdom building, I would suggest using the updated Ultimate Campaign rules for it.

Traditionally, if you have the military force and money, you could build a fort and simply claim land. As long as you didn't piss off a different ruler, then you'd be fine. This is much easier in uncontrolled or contested lands, such as the River Kingdoms. Your players could also swear fealty to another kingdom and be a vassal. However there has to be a good reason for a ruler to give out land. The players would have to prove themselves to not only be loyal to Codwin, but also have some intrinsic value to him.

Because it's feudalism, it may be easier to have them interact with a count or duke. Perhaps have them save his life, or the life of one of their family members. Proving themselves loyal, they get a manor, some land, and can be barons under a lord.

Though if they want to rule on their own without any allegiance, I would say stick to the River Kingdoms and have them ally, annex, and otherwise assimilate the petty kingdoms there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say that we really don't have to have colonization to have something analoguous to Hispanic culture. In much of fantasy setting, we have kingdoms that are inspired by Western European lands without much of the conquering that happened.

Consider the following. England, which has been a huge influence for many Western RPG settings, was shaped by the invasions of Vikings, Romans, and Anglo-Saxons. Most fantasy settings do not reflect these, instead having the England-influenced fantasy kingdom's culture come about on its own volition.

In addition, much of what we consider standard fantasy Middle Ages was heavily shaped by the fall of the Roman Empire, the Mongol Invasion, the rise of Christianity, and the Crusades against Islam. Most fantasy settings gloss over these things. Golarion's Mongol analogue can't even make it to Avistan.

So if we can accept this for your bog standard fantasy setting, then I think we can also do this with Hispanic and Caribbean cultures. Hell, I've already done it in my homebrew setting.


I think a lot of ship combat can really come down to how you describe everything. If you're just saying, "There's a hull breach, roll to repair.", then that's going to be boring. Add some flair and danger to raise the stakes for the player. Make that hull breach actually start suffocating everyone near it and try and pull them out into space.

There's also the idea of using electronic warfare. It gives the hackers something to do while the gunners are all doing something. hacking the enemy ship to shut off certain systems. There was also the idea of giving people small drones that can also act as weapon systems, support, repairs, etc. It is the future after all.


Thanks. It's a pain in the ass to link stuff through my phone.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Yes, but somebody who is actually from the corresponding cuture might have a better chance of making something that will sell, provided that they can make the bridge to the main existing audience.

They could probably get the game designer of Ehdrigohr. But at that point, I may as well play Ehdrigohr instead of waiting for Arcadia for another three years.


That's absolutely silly. You can have ship combat in a roleplaying, just like you can have regular combat in a roleplaying game. Combat doesn't remove roleplaying. And most sci fi games out there have space combat in them. Savage Worlds, White Star, Traveller, Star Wars... Not to mention that ship battles are big in pretty much most sci fi stories. SKipping out on starship combat would make no sense, especially if they want to compete with other sci fi games. Starfinder may have the Paizo brand, but if they don't even come close to more established sci fi rpgs out there, then people aren't going to stick with the brand.


Hayato Ken wrote:
Odraude wrote:
As for Tian Xia, I've pretty much accepted that we aren't getting that or Arcadia anymore. It's just not in the cards. It doesn't sell well enough and nobody else really wants it. Which is fine. I can always do a Native American fantasy world myself.

Excuse me, but i think that is nonsense.

Someone said that a long time ago, it was hinted that 2 books which came out a very long time ago didn´t sell that well, and people just repeat it over and over, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Maybe you wanna rethink that. A lot has changed since then.
Additionaly, things sell when they get hyped.

Why should I wait when I can just do it myself? Jade Regeant came out years ago and beyond some PFS scenarios, what else is coming? I expect the same of Distant Shores. And what other Paizonians are there besides Adam Daigle that are championing Arcadia?

I've waited three years for more stuff on Arcadia and honestly, I can just do it myself.

Slithery D wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Being afraid of people on the internet is silly.

It's not silly if you're in a business that does a lot of sales and customer relations through the internet. Not making people mad (and deleting forum posts that make your company or employees look incompetent or silly) are defensible in that circumstance.

Hayato Ken wrote:
Odraude wrote:
As for Tian Xia, I've pretty much accepted that we aren't getting that or Arcadia anymore. It's just not in the cards. It doesn't sell well enough and nobody else really wants it. Which is fine. I can always do a Native American fantasy world myself.

Excuse me, but i think that is nonsense.

Someone said that a long time ago, it was hinted that 2 books which came out a very long time ago didn´t sell that well, and people just repeat it over and over, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Maybe you wanna rethink that. A lot has changed since then.
Additionaly, things sell when they get hyped.

Things sell well when there is natural hype. Grassroots demand, not astroturf.

But it is silly if you are so afraid of offending people that you don't publish anything different. Take some chances. Paizo WILL offend people, no matter what they publish. So they may as well just publish something, with the best respect and research that they can.


Being afraid of people on the internet is silly.


Hobgoblin invasion sounds cool. I just hope they do a better job of giving out some preview information than with Giantslayer. Going into GS from Iron Gods, all anyone really knew was that there were giants and maybe a red dragon ally. Which, coming off the heels of Iron Gods, we really needed more information on what made GS special and different from Against the Giants. So hopefully we get more preview info that will whet the appetite.

As for Tian Xia, I've pretty much accepted that we aren't getting that or Arcadia anymore. It's just not in the cards. It doesn't sell well enough and nobody else really wants it. Which is fine. I can always do a Native American fantasy world myself.


I could see pilot rolled into skills, and just have feats or talents that make you better at it. Soldiers could have a talent that makes them better dog fighters, while scoundrels have a talent that makes them better at flying under the radar. But I think having a whole class dedicated to one thing would be too much

Though an Ace Pilot prestige class wouldn't be bad.


Dragon78 wrote:

I think humans are fine the way they are. I like having a race were you can choose were your racial stats go. though some alternate racial traits for humans with alien blood in there veins would be cool.

Yeah I'm fine with the floating +2, but humans really need something cool instead of "Get an extra feat!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see humans as overpowered in PF, but I do see them as really boring. WOuld love something to spice them up more. At least more than just a bonus feat.


So as someone that does run a more stone-age, tribal style of game, here are some ideas from my game.

Economy: Many people believe that barter economy is the common ancestor to our modern day currency economy, but more anthropologists are finding that a favor-based economy is much more common in old times. Essentially, you do something for someone or give them something and they owe you a favor. This is a gross oversimplification, but one you can use in game, in addition to bartering.

Endemic Warfare: Violence is the everyday life of a tribal hunter-gatherer, though generally not for ideological reasons. Large scale warfare of agrarian city states were preceded by raiding parties where one tribe would attack another, stealing supplies that they want. This could be food, tools, and women for marriage. There really isn't peace time or war time, but rather endemic raiding as a way of life. This would help hunter gatherers access more tools and calories, especially from newly formed city-states. Especially since the skills that make a great hunter make a great warrior, which cannot be said about farming.

Religion and Culture: It is true that many tribes started off without written word, but there are still languages that they would speak and art they would create. Religion is more basic and animistic. Spirits and shamans play a large role, as do the creatures your people hunt (or are hunted by). Look at animals they would admire, fear, or depend upon, and make cool myths about them. Tribal culture tend to oral history, but also the usage of pictograms. And don't forget ancient burial barrows, mounds, and stone monoliths.

I like watching Crash Course World History. The first episode talks about hunter gatherers and is a good watch.


That'd be pretty cool actually. Somewhat space feudal, but I can dig it

So we have the classic creds, EP's reputation or 'rep', and parcels of planets and starbases


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bitcoin


I am. Definitely I am


Following traditional sci fi and modern day tendencies, you can't go wrong with credits. Another thing is one's reputation. You see rep used in Eciipse Phase and Nova Praxis.

I'm partial to zenny or neoshekels myself :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Corporations are now a playable race lol


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd honestly rather not. While I get that this will have some rules changes, I still want this to be close enough so I can run classic classes along side this. Such a big departure from Pathfinder would honestly leave a bitter taste, especially since there is a lot of old material I want to use.

I want Starfinder, not a stealth Pathfinder 2.0


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe then they could be diplomat bots


Honestly given examples in both sci fi (Jude Law's character in A.I.) and human nature, I'd be surprised if there wasn't robots made for entertainment.

Course this leads to robot rights activists fighting to free them, which always adds interesting adventures. But it's admittedly a more mature topic than some are used to.

1 to 50 of 6,849 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.