Safan Domvesia

Alaryth's page

486 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I certainly like far more specialist casters than generalist, I feel more flavor on them, and currently they not feel much stellar. Maybe is a way for future archetypes or even full classes? Something similar to the True Necromancer or Warmage (not sure that was the correct name) can be an interesting take.

Edit: Also, personal attacks and calls to exclude people from conversation are not cool on my book.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am among those that say that the over-nerf is real, but "completely unplayable" seems quite the hyperbole, honestly.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

The system is far from being so unbalanced as the OP says. Is a very good system, with a solid math fundation. However, the OP is not alone on thinking that casters where overnerfed. Quite a good number of people thinks similar, just on a lesser scale. I hope that on the GMG could be some options to return some power to casters. I don't think they are unplayable (that seems an exageration on my experience) but while they can contribute to a team, they feel lackluster to me right now.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never understood why so many people dislike getting more classes and more choices. More options are a good thing. When some see "bloat" I see "a rich quantity of options".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Totally agree, Witch debuff themes seem quite better representer like compositions similar to bard than with Focus spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really know about that scenario with the barghest, so as an honest question...the players know the detail on the spoiler tag? because if they don't know, it does not make much difference.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that knowing the ST of the enemies seems too required to use spells. Of course knowing details of the enemy must be a great help, but should not be required to do anything on changeling encounters.

On the other hand, is true that Level+3 encounters should be quite less usual on PF2 than on PF1. That's a good thing, magic has too many cons on those situations.

Edit: on general, the required information to use magic is excessive. Do you think that enemy was level +1? Too bad, it is level +3, you wasted your spell with Incapacitation. You used a spell of the wrong ST? Now you need a little miracle to do anything useful. Do you like thematic casters (enchanters, one-element-focused, necromancers, etc...)? too bad, you need varied spells to be useful on hard situations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF2 is not a perfect system, but it improves clearly many of the issues of PF1, like the lack of basic magic attacks for casters, the wonkiness of the maths on too many situations, the 3 actions new paradigna...all those make PF2 a better game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
While I get what you mean, targeting the low save, using all possible debuffs and using the higher spell slot, and then get around 40-45%of success, seems to me like is a 55-60% of losing the higher spell slot AND 1-2 turns of preparation. That can hurt. Is clearly a gamble, but Incapacitate robs the reawrd.
It's a 45% chance of them just losing. Mostly, this version results in them having serious debuffs even if they succeed. Dominate would leave them Slowed 1, Frightened 1, and Stupefied 2 even if they succeed on the Save vs. Dominate, just as one example.

I don't have access to the books right now to consult, but...

Incapacitate makes that this 55-60% miss on the BETTER situation and using the highest slots is a critical success on the ST, not a success. That normally means no effect. That's harsh.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While I get what you mean, targeting the low save, using all possible debuffs and using the higher spell slot, and then get around 40-45%of success, seems to me like is a 55-60% of losing the higher spell slot AND 1-2 turns of preparation. That can hurt. Is clearly a gamble, but Incapacitate robs the reawrd.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


When someone does it once, it's cool and a relief. When the same person does it every fight, it becomes a 'Wait, why are we here?' experience for everyone else.

And the latter is very much what happens pretty often in a classic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard party with an optimal Wizard in PF1. It would also happen pretty often within a couple of rounds in PF2 if the Incapacitation Trait just ceased to exist.

You see, people like actually contributing to the group's success and having your entire existence basically irrelevant to whether the party wins is not fun in the...

And that is one of the main reasons of the change on the maths of the game, and a good thing. But with the current low chance of landing such a spell on PF2, is really necessary also Incapacitate? Seems like overkill to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
I couldn't agree more with the OP, I can't stand stuff like the UA options in 5e or the uncommon/rare options in 2e. Either something is a legit option or it isn't, get off the f@#king fence and make a decision. Don't leave it up to the player to work out some kind of deal with their GM to get that option.
Every campaign and story is different, so why not leave it up to the Players and GMs to work out a deal?

As the rules are, there is no "work out a deal". On a deal both sides participate and have some power on the final result, here all the decision power falls on one side, the DM. I find funny all the talk about having the confidence on the DM to use rarity system well, while players that want uncommon things are presented as whiners. Where is the confidence on the player?

And currently, some characters concepts are so full of uncommon as to barely be playable, like Divination Wizard.

Edit: I find specially problematic the alignment spells case. It seems arbitrary to make some alignment spells the main route to do damage on the Divine casters (looking at Divine lance) and then made so many others uncommon. Either all should be usual spells, or all should be uncommon and take other mechanics as the damage dealing side of Divine spells. The current state made little sense to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My problem with rare/uncommon is that, ironically, seems way too common. I would have just used it for strange, unique spells like Blood Money, or some specific ones. Not putting an axe on the ability to get some very iconic spells like Protection. I find that the quantity of "mama, may I?" is too high.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The answer right now is "ask the GM". Is not a answer I like, but is what we have.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed.
Even if I have some details I don't like much, the system as a whole is superb, and while some criticism are always needed, we should not forget that the game is a very good game.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

People around here should try to calm a bit. This is a complex affair, and all this heat on the conversation really don't help it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would love to see on this book..
- rules for monsters as PCs
- rules for lowering the importance of magic items, something like the Automatic Bonus Progression from PF Unchained.
- Some official rules to return a bit of the lose power for magic.
- A bit more details on rituals; price, how many to give…

Finally, I know is not for this book, but, is there any idea when will be the non-Good champions? I would really need them for some campaigns.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yesterday I have the real first session with my players and they quite liked the system. ^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are abusive DM. There are abusive players. And there are great players, and great DM. But life is not black and white, there are all kind of grey players and grey DM. Saying "a good DM would not do that" surely is true, but...what about grey DM that is totally against houserules, and have the NO always prepared? That kind of rules would empower that grey DM, approaching it to a bad DM.
This is not my personal experience, I have an stable group with rotating DM. But I find distasteful to give too much power to a single person on a cooperative game. On my mind, on rules discussion the DM should be a sport referee, taking decisions on the best way to apply a rule. But not deciding what the rules are.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A DM has control over the setting, the NPCs, the story...there is one thing the DM can not directly control, and that is the PCs. But that kind of thing, specially for things that previously it was not needed, invades the only thing the players have some control; their characters. "You can give them easily" is still a way for the DM to have extra control over the characters.

When I am the DM (as I said before, more or less half the time)I think about the rules like they where the law physics of the setting. Of course, I have to rule things on the fly, but the less I need to do it, the better. So all this "return power to the DM" on PF2 is one of the parts I like LESS on the game (with the on my opinion overnerf on magic). The laws of reality should not include "ask that person". I find it inelegant.
The DM has always had a near complete control over all. Letting them control over the one thing they can't control is something I don't like specially. On the contrary that others, is not a practical thing; I play with the same group of friends since many years ago, and each one do DM on a different campaign. But still, cutting access from so many things, specially for spells that where common before, I can't really like it.

On the other side, I don't want to seem like a Nayseyer of PF2, I'm liking the system on 90%, and I truly believe that is an improvement from PF1. Is just that those few things I don't like I REALLY don't like.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There may be thing I don't like on PF2 and others I need still be sold, but I think it can be said with safety that is a better game.
On the other side, while PF1 has problems and that is one of the reasons for PF2, reading some people seems a unplayable game, and while is sure not easy, it can be played at high level and enjoy it. I find untasteful the current desdain for PF1, honestly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
theelcorspectre wrote:

I feel like this whole forum (even though it seems like it was not the OPs intention) has partly brought to the front a very old and dangerous concept. The idea of "Player vs. DM/GM".

On one hand we have people who are afraid that with the RAW, players who want to play more unusual character concepts could be easily shutdown by their DMs/GMs just because some of their character choices don't make sense for the setting or their story (ie. are Uncommon).

On the other hand we have people who are afraid that without the RAW, the game will devolve into players automatically choosing the most overpowered and unbalanced options for items and spells

For those in the prior camp, I would say something that has pretty much been said a couple of times. It has been like that for as long as there have been TTRPGs. The DM/GM has always been the "boss" who could set limitations and change rules to his heart's content, because it is his world. However, do I think that the rarity system makes it a little more likely that a DM who wouldn't otherwise limit an option to limit an option? Yes I do. However, you have one ability that the "boss" can never take away. The ability to quit. Just because it's his sandbox doesn't mean you have to play in it.

For those in the latter camp, yes the system does help DMs/GMs veto potentially game-breaking character concepts. However, like I said earlier, DMs/GMs have always had that power, its just now the system has a few more guidelines and justifications for when they use that power.

Games like Pathfinder generally aren't meant to be competitive, but cooperative. Everybody should be able to play the game wanting to have fun and know that everybody else is wanting to have fun also. However, a game like this is more than a game, its also a conversation. That conversation should start before the lights dim and the story begins. DMs/GMs should talk with their players about expectations, desires, and fears and vice-versa. If you realize that you probably wouldn't enjoy yourself...

+1 to all this. Trust is important on both ways.

Just want to make a little note; my personal problem is that some spells that where quite usual and iconic, like Protection, now suddenly are behind a wall. If this has been used for Blood-Money-kind spell, I would be the first to applaud the rule change. But change some very usual spells from "near all casters, at least PC, and many times nPC, use them" to "default, you can not have it", leaves a bad taste on my mouth.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

DMs are not divided on Good DM / bad DM. There is a glorious grey scale. And while I'm quite sure I would play quite happily as Max Astro and other people defending current rarity as a DM, the "grey DM" will see the rarity system as a way to say "NO" to many request, and be totally sure the rules are with him, because that is the way they see rarity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want to be misunderstood; I'm not agaisn't rarity, just versus some of it's examples. I'm not specially happy with it, but not annoyed.

I suppose part of the problem some people have with this is that it may not be seen as a negotation between player and DM, but as a request. On a negotation both parts have some power, while on this case, the final decission on the matter is 100% on the DM side. I can see why some can be not happy with this.

For the record, I'm 50/50 player/DM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On fact, the one shining example of why I'm not very happy with Rarity is not even a Divination spell. Is Protection. I totally get that something must have been done with that spell, but with the "+1 to Saving Throws, +3 versus control" I think the broken part of the spell is taken care of. Why suddenly one of the most ubiquitous divine spells besides Heal is uncommon?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like rarity for items, my problems is with spells. No direct way to get them on the rules, and with the very high number of iconic spells that suddenly are rare, I see three problems.
The first is that seems quite hard to do an Abjurer or a Diviner when an high percentage of your school spells are gated.
The second is just setting consistence. Near all clerics where using spells like Protection, and suddenly they get uncommon. How to explain that?
The third problems is simple character adaptation from one Edition to the other, when a good numbers of spells have restrictions previously inexistent.

Resume: I would have liked far more rarity if it haven't axed so many iconic spells, or at least where a good on rules way to get them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not talking about the playtest. The playtest certainly has the fault on the other side; too much negativity. I'm talking about NOW. I believe that developers would be interested on criticism on the final version too.

Edit: Insults are wrong on EITHER side, of course.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

Criticism is totally necessary. If a new edition of something you like goes on a direction you don't like, is logic to complain about it.

On general I'm liking 2Ed, but there are things I dislike, and others I have to made a decision still. But I can get why people can come and say "I don't like this change" when something they liked changed. Is NOT a totally unrelated thing to the one they liked, is on theory an evolution and improvement. And while I agree than on general there IS an improvement, I can easily see the reason to complain about some magic changes.

I find harder to understand the people that seems to believe that only positive feedback can be said. Some people have been quite rude to others that just said their opinion on quite polite manners. I even dare to say that developers appreciate to hear different opinions more than an echo chambers of praises.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm liking many things on the game. There are others that I don't like, but I can live with them (like the art of the Bestiary). But there is one thing that I MUST houserule from minute one.

That one thing is Goblins getting bonus to CHARISMA.
(the new art for kobolds is a close second one. I profoundly dislike it)

I'm not a big fan of goblins as core ancestry, there are many others I would have liked more, but the goblin as core is one of those "I can live with that" things. But bonus to Charisma is a resounding NO to me. The question then is...what other attribute to give to them? I find the more thematic to be Constitution, but that would break the rule of 1 mental bonus + 1 physical bonus. The other option could be Intelligence, as I can see the goblins being quite smart on their peculiar way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kineticist, Witch, Oracle and Inquisitor


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I too feel a bit worried that class feats try to do too much, and the lack of weapon choices on many classes is something I don't like. I'm really a "swordsman" if I'm exactly as good with longswords as I am with axes (just an example).
On the other side, I remember some theme on the Playtest when someone expressed similar worries with Class feats being a bottleneck, and some designers agreed saying they where looking for ways to improve that. Sadly, my pathetic search-fu has been unable to find that discussion. We know what has changed for the final version?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Depending on what you call a "hero god"; I'd say Sarenrae should be right at home for a CG warrior-hero.

And PossibleCabbage's example is straight from Gorum's anathema - "preventing a fight through negotiation". If two people are mad at each other and there is the possibility they may fight, doing anything but encouraging them to fight is against Gorum's code.

I guess by hero God I literally mean like Kord from the DnD 3.0 core rulebook. CG good of strength and war. That type of deity has always been the most popular type of god for my players and for me personally, it just seems to fit the adventuring lifestyle very well. My homebrewed version of that god is named... Bardarok and is also associated with the more good leaning orc tribes in the world so I guess it's just a strong personal preference. Sarenrae is a fine god (and I also have basically a Sarenrae proxy in my homebrew pantheon), and the drunk guy is interesting but neither really fill that niche that I think Gorum would be better suited for. That said I guess if I run a Golarion game I'll just house-rule it and stick with the PF1 lore where CG clerics would be allowed.

I think you would like Milani. Is a shame she is not on the core 20.

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Milani


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Matthew Downie example is totally right, and certainly a serious problem for PF1. Saving throws is another glaring case.
But there should be some happy medium between a difference bonus on dice at level 20 of about 35, making the dice totally unnecessary and preparing adventures a nightmare, and the current situation on PF2Playtest of 5-6 points of difference outside corner cases, making the perceived competence of the character near disappear.
On my humble opinion, Paizo is right see that kind of situations on PF1 as a problem, but they have totally overcompensate, so the Playtest have the opposite problem.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

That's true. But there is a great difference between "assure succes on a 2 versus same level", and "the best you can arrive is to succes on a 9 versus same level, and that with total optimization".
A character with proper optimization on their specialty should have succes on a 6 or around that number. If the difference between total optimization and zero optimization is succes on a 10 versus succes on a 13, the game begins to resamble doing coinflip on all rolls.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this is a touchy subject, but...is there some alignment restriction on monk? Can some dev confirm?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest, that was the most important thing for me about the monk. Between that and the watered down mysticism on the monk, I'm not particularly happy.

The Barbarian one mention the lack of restriction? People reacted like there was no restriction, but I can't find any mention to alignment: any, neither on Barbarian nor Monk.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just want to say that I do not hate the existence of Alignment itself, spells and creatures based on alignment, and all that. I'm the first that like hardcore alignment on outsiders, I loved Planescape after all.
But, sadly, is NOT true that alignment is only a way to help define character motivations and that it not define your actions. Why? Alignment restrictions. If I lose like 80% class power because the DM interpretation of some action says that is contrary to my alignment, then is hard to negate that it is a straightjacket.
Alignment restrictions on not divine characters need to go, and I have hopes that the ones on Monk are gone. Things like "drunken masters need to be lawful" have zero sense. I would love to have alignment restrictions disappear from divine classes too, but there they can have some sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only core 6/9 caster may be the Bard, but many of the classes that come later are 6/9 caster, and many of those are among the most liked classes; Magus, Inquisitor...
If we lose the very concept of 6/9 casters, that seems a huge change from PF1 that I hope not happens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

well the good news is...I think with goblins and paladins out of the way, and at least the major mechanical changes somewhat introduced (Resonance, proficiency skill system, actions), most or all of the major grenades have been lobbed?

Although I could just be super naive here...

Monks could potentially flare up the alignment discussion a second time if they end up being Lawful only again. I'm sure the caster players will be whining about their nerfs every time one of their class blogs shows up, lol.

I really dislike the paladin restriction, but I can live with it. For me, the drop of the monk restriction is the really important one. That one I hope is gone for good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ugh. This is very complex, disappointing and unintuitive. Sorcerer seems nerfed very hard. That is one of those things that lessen the hype spectacularly.
I hope this is changed on final version. I have some problems "selling" what we know of PF2 to my players, and this seems like a deal breaker.
At least, the spontaneous spell delay is gone, I hope.

By my experience, Sorcerer is more intuitive than wizard. The claim that this is more intuitive while wizard use the same version of casting is hard to understand.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I certainly do not envy the good people on Paizo who must write the Paladin. Whatever they do, many people will be very disappointed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Alaryth wrote:

I think "go and play a Warpriest" is scalling quickly as my most hated sentence on this forums. If Warpriest had 4 spell levels and the necessary full BAB, maybe. As is, Warpriest has nothing mecanically on common with paladin.

As an exemple, recently I made a character whose 3 central points where...
- Highly religious, and with good standing on her religion, even chosen by her deity.
- Centered on being the very best with her weapon.
- The deity was CN.
Finally, I had to take antipaladin and made the character CE. I vastly had prefered some CN holy warrior. But no, CN has not that right. And please...no more "play warpriest", please.
But my problem with that is that you want the mechanics but not the flavor. That's cherrypicking. If I said "I want to play a monk who's lazy and never practiced, I just sit on the couch and have cool monk abilities"... that doesn't make sense. Seems like people want the benefits of being a holy knight without actually being a holy knight. Paladins get their abilities BECAUSE they are LG.

I do not want a "knight on shinning armor, a guide to all" of any alignment. I just want a full-BAB class (or equivalent warrior style, now with no BAB) with some divine powers from the deity. Is that too much to ask?

Edit: Normally I say that I find that the only alignment restriction with some kind of sense is the Paladin. But anytime I see more and more "only the perfect and difficult LG has the right to have divine warriors. The rest, inferior alignment are unworthy". That, or tradition for its own sake.
That kind of arguments, to me at least, only put me on "no alignment restrictions" more and more.

But that's not what I'm saying at all. It has nothing to do with "the perfect and difficult LG" or being superior. As I mentioned, that's not how I've EVER seen it played. Seems to me you want a sack of stats without paying the roleplaying price. A holy knight (or maybe a better term...

Oh, I'm not saying that the paladin player sees itself as superior. I am saying that the forum users that defend that position see LG as superior to all others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:
Alaryth wrote:

I think "go and play a Warpriest" is scalling quickly as my most hated sentence on this forums. If Warpriest had 4 spell levels and the necessary full BAB, maybe. As is, Warpriest has nothing mecanically on common with paladin.

As an exemple, recently I made a character whose 3 central points where...
- Highly religious, and with good standing on her religion, even chosen by her deity.
- Centered on being the very best with her weapon.
- The deity was CN.
Finally, I had to take antipaladin and made the character CE. I vastly had prefered some CN holy warrior. But no, CN has not that right. And please...no more "play warpriest", please.
But my problem with that is that you want the mechanics but not the flavor. That's cherrypicking. If I said "I want to play a monk who's lazy and never practiced, I just sit on the couch and have cool monk abilities"... that doesn't make sense. Seems like people want the benefits of being a holy knight without actually being a holy knight. Paladins get their abilities BECAUSE they are LG.

I do not want a "knight on shinning armor, a guide to all" of any alignment. I just want a full-BAB class (or equivalent warrior style, now with no BAB) with some divine powers from the deity. Is that too much to ask?

Edit: Normally I say that I find that the only alignment restriction with some kind of sense is the Paladin. But anytime I see more and more "only the perfect and difficult LG has the right to have divine warriors. The rest, inferior alignment are unworthy". That, or tradition for its own sake.
That kind of arguments, to me at least, only put me on "no alignment restrictions" more and more.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think "go and play a Warpriest" is scalling quickly as my most hated sentence on this forums. If Warpriest had 4 spell levels and the necessary full BAB, maybe. As is, Warpriest has nothing mecanically on common with paladin.
As an exemple, recently I made a character whose 3 central points where...
- Highly religious, and with good standing on her religion, even chosen by her deity.
- Centered on being the very best with her weapon.
- The deity was CN.
Finally, I had to take antipaladin and made the character CE. I vastly had prefered some CN holy warrior. But no, CN has not that right. And please...no more "play warpriest", please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My first D&D character ever, on 2ed, was a CG elf bardess. I loved that character. On 2ed she was not legal (illegal race and alignment for bard), but neither me not the DM (newbie too) where conscious of this at the moment. When we notice, the DM let me continue to play with her. Obviously, I do not like any alignment restrictions.
But I find there are two kinds of alignment restrictions; the divine and the rest. I dislike both, but can accept the divine restrictions; the divine classes having important moral components have some logic. What I dispise is the rest; Monk and Barbarian, basically. Specially monk. Some awesome fictional monks, like Zaheer (CN)or Aang himself (CG) from Avatar or Togashi Mitsu (CG)from Legend of 5 Rings are totally monks, and totally illegal on PF. Being a monk has nothing to do with law or chaos. Or should not, at least.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That necesity of book-keeping is certainly a really bad new, possibly the worst one I have heard until now, specially for how much it restrain the kinds of campaigns you can play. But I'm fairly confident that on the future there will be some alternative rules to play without it.
Please?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I love to see Trigun there


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
The Warpriest class is looking at this thread with exasperation.
Funny, seems like most people who want to play a CG Paladin are looking at the Warpriest with exasperation.

+1. Warpriest is probably my least liked class on the game. Basically for how spectacularly it fails at being a "paladin for all alignment" class. For me, a true paladin for all must have Full BAB, be CHA based and be a Caster with 4 spell levels. Warpriest have none of it. I am pretty sure that the problem is mine and not of the class, but outside very punctual builds (high level summoner and funky weapons) the Warpriest just seems like a worse Inquisitor. The only thing I really like of the class is Fervor, and you don't have it so many times a day. To play Paladin-lite for all alignment, I would play before a Cavalier with Order of the Star and Divine Obedience and later Sentinel prestige class.

I hate all alignment restrictions, specially Druid and monk (some of my favorite characters has been NN monk and CG Druid). In fact, my very first D&D character on 2e was an elf CG bard, something that seemed so appropriated that neither me nor the DM saw until much later that was illegal back then.
But Paladin is all about their alignment. I see it like an alignment champion more than a particular god champion, so is the one restriction I see some reason to be. Still, I would really like to have an option for, at least, LG, LE, CG and CE. The concept feels incomplete right now.
If we see them as divine champions, there is one thing I dislike on the evil ones. I don't see "champions of evil gods" with powers to fight "good", but to powers to "smite anything that do not serve my deity". Obviously, the smite then should be less powerful, being more broad. That's why I love the Insinuator archetype for Antipaladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the lasts blogs, it seems clear that Starfinder will be basically a Space Opera game. I have no problem with that, I love Space Opera. But some home-made settings my group play have been a long time on pause waiting for Starfinder, and those settings are basically CyberPunk. How viable is Starfinder for settings like that? Is possible some kinf of "Cyberpunk Adventures" like "Horror Adventures" for Pathfinder on the future? The setting seems interesting, but I will use nearly always homemade ones. How much I lose of the Core if I don't use the setting or use very little the space part?
I'm very excited and impacient waiting for Starfinder. Those lasts months are really slowwwww.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
richard develyn wrote:

Veo la misma cosa en Inglaterra con Pathfinder. Desde que empezó D&D cinco, la selección de Pathfinder ha bajado mucho en las tiendes acá también.

I've seen the same thing in England with Pathfinder. Since D&D 5th edition arrived, the Pathfinder selection has gone down quite a lot in the shops here too.

Richard

P.S. Apologies for mistakes in Spanish. I'm not as fluent as I was.

Don't worry; I am not so confident on my English either.

Just to help: In spanish sound better "veo lo mismo" que "veo la misma cosa". And on Spain at least, we use more "aqui" that "aca". "Aca" is more for latin-american spanish.

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>