|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The Harrow medium was never slated for this book. Sorry to disappoint.
Might possibly be an oversight of the Archetype's Creator though, but until then I'd say the Paladin can have a kinda-sorta-but-not-quite-animal-companion Drake Companion that's non-evil.
Not an oversight. We even dressed it a bit, in the archetype's description: "Silver champions are often concerned by their drake allies’ pragmatic natures, however, and are sure to treat them with respect, knowing that these lesser dragons must constantly be inspired to act on their better natures."
Matthew Shelton wrote:
This could change before the final product is out, but it's currently in feet, and generally uses the same measurements as Pathfinder.
I expect there will be elements of that. OTOH, advanced technology already exists in the universe of Pathfinder, and outsiders mostly don't feel the need for it... so most of them still might now.
The exact balance of this will vary, based on what makes the most sense to us, and what we think best supports the stories we want to tell.
Jack of Dust wrote:
My understanding of it is that Elves will be in the Core Rulebook but won't be a core race in the Starfinder setting. We will have rules to play them but we probably can't expect too much of a focus on them in the Starfinder setting (or not immediately at least).
I expect this to be true of all the Pathfinder core races.
Question: Is there a plan for how space travel works?
Yes. But the details are still be hammered down, so we're not talking about it yet.
Question: How does magic interact with technology?
Things like the Technology Guide and magic firearms in Pathfinder already tells us that magic and technology interact just fine in the universe both these games are set in. That said Starfinder is its own game, so it may not handle the ideas of magically enhanced technology exactly as you;d expect it to.
Golarion is NOT destroyed, It is missing, which is very different.
We have plans for all the other planets in the system, which we are not ready to reveal yet.
How compatible with Starfinder be with Aethera and/or Savage Planets?
That'll be entirely up to the companies publishing those products. Our concern is to make a game that does the stories we want to tell well. I strongly suspect that'll work well with 3pp star-focused Pathfinder-compatible games, but we can;t know until the books are all out.
Matthew Shelton wrote:
Will Starfinder open up Apostae to the rest of the star system? If so, how are you going to do the stats for the Ilee since they are so varied in their anatomy and capabilities? Will the Ilee be a playable race? (perhaps under a different name... Celerians?)
We have a plan for Apostae, but we're not ready to reveal it.
While this isn't official, it seems clear to me that's a typo and it should be +1 every 5 levels. Unfortunate, but it happens.
If trying to run it RAW, you'd still need to cap it at +5, even though you'd hit that before 20th.
But on the other hand, Owen reads these threads and it's well-known that he's open to feedback, which is why I always make a point of gushing my personal wishlists all over them. Sometimes things stick.
I do, and I am (thanks for noticing!).
I can't always include things people want for various reasons (ranging from timing to space to plans in other products to design philosophy), but I DO try to keep abreast of what people seem to be excited about.
Of course for MOST Lensmen all the Lens needs to do is be unreproducible (unless you are already far enough along to worry about Black Lensmen, who were never particularly successful), and grant universal telepathy.
That'll give you zwilnik-hunting, Boskone-fighting, Galacticly Patrolling Lensmen.
Well, and rules for negasphere, the Z9M9Z, sunbeams...
It's only if playing with Second-Stage Lensmen, and/or Eddorians and Arisians you need more advanced mental power rules.
The right balance of attacks, damage value, damage types, energy types, and energy resistance are absolutely among the things we are looking at. Indeed, making sure those work in a way that narratively makes sense is one of (though certainly not the only) the reasons we are writing a new game designed to be as compatible as possible with Pathfinder, rather than just releasing "Science-Fantasy Adventures" as a hardback expansion.
And we continue to tweak those answers as the game comes together.
... so I'm reading this correctly right? We're gonna get dragon mounts. You're not just playing tricks on me are you because if you are Owen I'll never forgive you.
"drakes and lesser dragons to serve as... " "flying mounts."
Yes, there is really an option for drakes and/or lesser dragons, that can result in having one as a flying mount.
I hope you all like what we've done once the book it out.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
*thinks we need more linnorm archetypes*
No promises on linnorm archetypes.
The word "linnorm" appears 25 times in the book (not counting the 2 times we say "Land of the Linnorm Kings") , and 3 of those are in the Rules Index.
You may or may not be happy with the final result. I love what we did, but obviously with 32 pages we could only do so much. :)
It is, at this point, impossible to fit in archetypes for all the Pathfinder classes into a Player Companion, or at least it is if we put *anything* else in. So some of the classes you mention get archetypes, but certainly not all of them
Some of the classes that don't get archetypes get other class-specific or class-focused new rules elements.
And there are some options available to any class.
I'm really happy with what we've done, but it's just not possible to cover everyone's list of 8 preferred classes.
This product also let me go back to WRITING for a Player Companion, rather than developing. Taking marching orders for a writing assignment from James Jacobs was a big part of my career as of few years ago, and it was nice to briefly have that opportunity again.
He's got NEAT stuff planned for this book!
Internally, we have an idea. But that isn't firm enough for us to want to talk about when that might be, since we're not yet sure we're right.
So, not to be too reductive, we're not yet ready to talk about when we may begin talking about the things we're not yet ready to talk about.
We actually settled on all the classes weeks ago, we just aren't discussing them all yet.
It actually might.
We can't do exactly the same kind of PrC book over and over. And we don't do campaign-specific PrCs in the RPG line. So if this does amazing sales numbers, there will be a better change of different kinds of PrC products in the future as well.
I, for example, would love to see a hardback Ultimate Prestige rpg book. But that's a tough sell without more examples of recent, successful PrC products.
Obviously I am reading the threads, or I couldn't be commenting. :)
No public playtest is very different from no playtest. We will be putting things in front of a lot of out-of-the-office eyes, just not in front of *everyone's* eyes.
Without getting into a game of 20 questions (i.e. I won't be answering a bunch of what ifs), there is no hint, evidence, or clue left in any form about Golarion or its new location.
So, to be technical, I have never been a "Pathfinder Developer." I am a Paizo Developer.
The difference is largely invisible from the outside. MOST of the time, that has meant I worked on Pathfinder RPG products, for obvious reasons. The Player Companions most often, though certainly not exclusively.
But I have also, when appropriate and needful and so directed by the Editor-In-Chief, Project Manager, and/or Publisher, I have gone over plot lines for the Adventure Card Game, hosted the Superstar contest, spoken to licensors about tie-in games, and on on.
ALL of the Paizo Developers have done that kind of broader work, be it answering game questions about how a plot in fiction could handle an issue without the world our game described, going over tie-in materials when a specific expertise is required, giving seminars, designing workshops - whatever is needed.
I also happen to be on the Starfinder Team right now, and likely for quite some time.
But that is a specific, special role on top of being a Developer here rather than a new job description. And I'll continue to tackle different games, tie-ins, contests, and anything else my job calls for as it gets called for.
I obviously won't be doing as much Pathfinder RPG-specific stuff as we work on Starfinder, but I am still doing "development" as needed, and I strongly suspect I'll be working on Pathfinder RPG products in one capacity or another on and off even before Starfinder is released.
Liz Courts wrote:
It's just pre-marinated!
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Will there be an homage to the works of E.E. 'Doc' Smith? (Lensman, Skylark)
I genuinely can't say, but I will note there is no bigger fan of Doc Smith than me. And I'd add Galaxy Primes, Spacehounds of IPC, and Substace explorers/Encounters to that list. Though, for me, Lensman is the best Smith, by far.
Let's wait until this book is out and then we can talk about whether we feel the idea needs more consideration. :)
Joe Wells wrote:
How tied to the setting will the ruleset be? Golarion provides a sandbox to explore many, many different fantasy tropes and gives you guys a platform to expand the ruleset in different ways. Will this setting/ruleset similarity enable many different SF tropes?
We sure hope so! But our #1 concern is to make sure is handles the Starfinder setting well, though that itself is a setting with more than one appropriate trope, much as Golarion is.
Are you looking to continue the trend of set capabilities as classes
While I suspect I know the answers to some of those questions, we could still change our minds, and we're definitely not talking about those kinds of specific details yet.
Do you have a recommended reading/watching list to help people get into the space-magic groove?
I'm actually far more interested in what YOU ALL are interested in as your favorite space-magic groove.