Camper

BPorter's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber. 1,616 posts. 4 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,616 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Will NPCs be built differently but still be considered as belonging to a PC class ala Starfinder?
Hellknight Hill confirms that, yes.

Actually, it doesn't, sadly. I had a chance to look at Hellknight Hill and NPCs are listed as follows: AL ancestry occupation. That is NG human blacksmith. No reference to level or class is given.

Gah! PF2 is great but this is seriously frustrating. I have no idea how to go about converting NPCs in my campaigns without doing the equivalent of throwing darts blindfolded. Are NPCs all pathetic ala 2e D&D? Are NPCs built-using PC rules vastly overpowered?

I feel like any conversion I'm attempting now is a waste of time and I'll have to redo it all post-Gamemastery Guide, anyway. I still can't believe NPC creation didn't make it into at least the Bestiary.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
I wonder if the building process of the CRB might actually work better for NPCs who are innately a snapshot than for PCs whose concept tends to evolve over play

I fail to see how that would be the case. Or put another way, I fail to see how PF2 is any different than any other RPG in existence with respect to a character 'snapshot' vs. evolved through play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Wheldrake wrote:

Sounds great! But what inquiring minds *really* want to know is:

- did you generate stat blocks for these NPCs, and
- can you share some of them with us?

I built all of these NPCs in Hero Lab Online. As for sharing, I'll have to test out how copy-friendly the output with the Paizo forums. I'm prepping for games this weekend and if it requires significant re-formatting to make it legible, that would eat into valuable - and limited - prep time.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I didn’t get to test drive PF2 in play this weekend as I’d hoped, but I did get to spend a large portion of the weekend converting close to 30 NPCs over to PF2 using the character creation rules.

Major Impressions:
Characters are much more well-rounded and fleshed out via PF2’s ABC creation process. Backgrounds are surprisingly impactful mechanically while also rooting some basic backstory into the character in a way that PF1 Traits tried to do, but rarely succeeded.

The class chassis are more flexible. It is easier and more intuitive to create different builds using the same class. The general “pick a feat” structure is superior to PF1s archetype “packaged features”. BTW, PF1’s archetypes were hands-down one of my favorite features of that edition.

The idea that all PF2 NPCs follow the Starfinder model of NPCs “belonging” to a character class took some getting used to after years of having dedicated NPC classes. However, that hill was easily climbed once I realized that it opened up some different NPC interpretations. So far, the PF2 interpretations have turned out better than the original PF1.

Characters are also more well-rounded with respect to skills, in general. The streamlined skill list combined with somewhat broader skills plus greater access to skills for all classes means that you can build an educated fighter, social characters of any class, and other builds that previously required significant trade-offs to achieve in PF1.

The combination of armor training, unarmored defense, and level proficiency actually result in a feeling of a greater verisimilitude. Specifically, one can reasonably expect PCs and NPCs to dress appropriately to circumstances if desired. No longer does the heavy-armor warrior have to rely on heavy armor in every circumstance. Getting caught outside of one’s armor, while less effective and undesirable, isn’t a death sentence. The range between unarmored to heavily armored is lower but still has mechanical benefits. However, GMs don’t have to through reasonable plot constraints out the window for fear of nerfing a heavy armor character. Sorry, you’re a guest not a guard, so no, you can’t wear your full plate armor to the royal wedding…

Surprising specific character concepts that PF2 core allowed me to build:
Mystic Theurge – in my campaigns, I use Green Ronin’s Book of the Righteous (3.5 era) pantheon. For a priest of the god of magic, I was converting a character that was built using Kobold Press’ theurge class. Using a core cloistered cleric with wizard dedication multiclassing, I built an effective theurge character whose skills and feats really reinforced the character.

Mage Guard of Tinel – the warriors of the god of magic, as presented in the Book of the Righteous, the Mage Guard are ‘holy warriors’, i.e. paladins of different alignments. They protect Tinel’s temples and libraries but also hunt spellcasters seeking forbidden knowledge. While I could have built this character as a champion, one of the original concepts of the 3.5 class was that a Mage Guard got a familiar rather than paladin’s steed. They are also known for fighting sword-and-board. Using fighter with wizard dedication, I got an arcane-fighting sword-and-board warrior with a familiar to act as scout before wading in to give the shield bash.

PC Conversion, multi- to single-class – I helped my son convert his PF1 cleric/ranger to a warpriest cleric. The only reason he multi-classed the original character was because his PF1 cleric had so few skills and he wanted to be effective in the wilderness as well as better represent the goddess of athletics. His PF2 build is a straight-up warpriest cleric, complete with trained ranks in Athletics and Survival. No multi-classing necessary.

Haunted Girl – one of the upcoming NPCs in one of my campaigns was giving me problems on how to represent the character mechanically. Conceptually, she is haunted/can see/hear spirits in her home that no one else can detect. I hadn’t statted her up yet as I wasn’t sure which class would work best. For PF1, Spiritualist didn’t quite nail it but was the front-runner. Medium and Sorcerer were possibilities. Witch was out since I didn’t want her to be reliant on a familiar. My initial PF2 build was a undead blooded sorcerer, which I felt was adequate. However, a spirit instinct barbarian won out as the barbarian rage nicely depicts her fear and frustration of abilities she doesn’t understand. And I can still multiclass with sorcerer later, if desired.

Mercenary turned Priest – one of the adventures I’m using has a village priest who used to be an adventurer. She’s also an elf. In the original PF1 build, she’s a cleric 6 with few stats to represent her backstory and thus, she was in my ‘rebuild someday’ queue. In PF2, she’s a ranger with the cleric dedication with plenty of elven flavor. The ranger class and elven ancestry better represent her background and the cleric dedication are more in line with a small village priestess than a level 6 cleric.

All in all, I'm loving how flexible PF2 is while being easier to use. I don't know if class builds were as big a part of the "better representing the stories we want to tell" design goal as game math & mechanics were, but they're certainly helping me better realize the vision for my game world.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm still making my way through reading the PF2 core rulebook and Bestiary. Between readings, I'm building characters in Hero Lab Online to get a better feel for how characters are built and grow, and the potential impact of game mechanics in realizing character concepts. So far, it's been great and characters seem to be much better realized in PF2 than in PF1. I'm hoping to get to kick the tires in actual play this weekend. Thus far, PF2 is shaping up to be a home run!

One thing that is bugging me, however, is the lack of NPC-building rules. I came around to the NPCs-by-different rules camp after seeing Starfinder's implementation in action. Starfinder placed them in the first Alien Archive. The lack of NPC creation rules in neither the core rulebook nor the bestiary seems like a significant miss in an otherwise excellent launch.

Given PF2's rebuild-from-the-ground-up design approach, although I can use PC rules for creating NPCs, I feel like PF1 creation assumptions don't hold and I've got tons of questions.

What's a "representative" level spread for a village, town, or city?

Are 0-level NPCs the lions share? If so, what does that even look like?

Will NPCs be built differently but still be considered as belonging to a PC class ala Starfinder?

Do crafting level/feat requirements apply to NPCs or just PCs?

Etc.

I feel like I'm swinging blindly trying to convert existing NPCs over to something I can use in PF2.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:

I do not like the way that money has been changed in the game.

Two reasons:
* - It is an obstical to converting older material.
* - "Grognard-ism" Long time players may not react well to fighting an epic battle to win the princely sum of 150 silver.

How are others feeling?

Coinage besides gold isn't useless? That's great. Perspective of both players and GM.

Consistency/immersion improvements? Also great.

Loving the system and it's a long, long overdue change.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
ikarinokami wrote:
I hope they develop actual psychic rules, and not just have them be occult casters.

I love the new arcane, divine, primal, and occult classifications. Sorry, but I sincerely hope we don't get a psychic/psionic outlier. Occult fits much more thematically for my campaigns and Golarion lore.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Definitely psyched for this one!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Joana wrote:

Announced in Paizo 2019 & Beyond for Starfinder:

  • Attack of the Swarm! AP (Aug)
  • Alien Archive 3 (Aug)
  • Character Operations Manual (Nov)
  • Deck of Many Worlds (Dec) -- deck of cards to combine & build random planets
  • The Threefold Conspiracy AP (Feb)
  • Near Space (Mar) - expands the setting past the Pact Worlds
  • licensed skittermander dice bags (spring 2020)

    Also, expect a starship book that is as yet officially unannounced. :)

  • Really glad to see Near Space as a Q1 2020 release, like the Deck of Many Worlds concept, and praying that the starship book is a summer 2020 release!


    9 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Lord Fyre wrote:
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    Comparing like to like (i.e. the CRB and Bestiary 1 of each), I don't think there is even a question.

    But that is the exact question I am asking: Is PF2 worth my money?

    Captain Morgan's thread has devolved to the point that it is no longer useful for this purpose. :(

    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    But one game has 10 years of supporting material and you can't catch up to that in 1000 pages.

    No, you can't. That is an unfair comparison.

    Yes, this thread is dangerously close to provoking edition warfare. But money is tight, so I want to know if it is worth it.

    I haven't had a chance to try the game out an the gaming table, yet, but based on everything I've seen thus far, PF2 is unequivocally a better game than PF1. And I was a "PF1 Forever!" diehard.

    Organization, presentation, consistency of the rules and how they are presented are far superior to PF1.

    Class structure is pretty damn brilliant. I couldn't understand the changes to archetypes given how popular they were in PF1. Now that I have the PF2 CRB, I get it. Build Your Class how you want it is now done on a Class Feat by Class Feat basis instead of swapping out sets of abilities feats like PF1 did. Class customization is baked into each class.

    Trap options seem to have been eliminated and obvious "must haves" are rare or non-existent. Variety of builds is greater in that regard, as there are few/no obvious go-to choices.

    Similarly, skills are simplified yet make more sense and seem to do more.

    Proficiency isn't just a bonus, it also indicates ability so character progression feels more organic than PF1s, "I took a skill and am now as good at it as someone who's had it for years/levels" or PF1s front-loaded multi-class dips.

    Degrees of success & failure are great.

    Paizo managed to pull off "easier to learn" while still providing more mechanical depth. Obviously, by more, I don't mean volume but rather options. I can also see how PF2s design achieves the oft-cited goal of "opening design space". PF2 supplements won't be going the route of new feat with simple math bonus or super-situational restriction.

    Finally, and this will obviously be vetted during actual play, PF2 appears to be much more of a "yes/try it" system and not a "no, you can't" like PF1 could be when you didn't have a specific feat.

    Will every PF1 concept or build port over intact? No. Just like every other RPG edition change that I've seen in 30 years. Will you be able to better realize certain fantasy archetypes, concepts, and adaptations than you could in PF1? Absolutely, yes.

    If you're still on the fence then at a minimum, I think it's worth a PDF purchase.


    9 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    PF2 class design. With class feats now a thing, make-your-own archetype is essentially baked into each class. Rather than PF1s "every 'insert class name' gets these class features" and "swap these features for Archetype's new features", class feats allow for player-driven control. It is far, far easier to make characters of the same class operate and feel distinct in PF2 than it was in PF1.

    This wasn't something that really 'clicked' for me until I saw the class progression tables in the CRB. Looking at the Playtest, I had some misgivings that archetypes as I understood them in PF1 were gone. Seeing the finished PF2 CRB, class table consistency of presentation & language makes it easier for players to learn while simultaneously expanding customization options. That's pretty damn impressive to me.

    There are a ton of close seconds for favorite thing in PF2, thus far, but class design really stands out.

    Other contenders:
    Proficiency
    Spell-less ranger
    Focus casters without necessitating PF1s partial-caster progression
    Degress of success & failure consistently applied across the game.
    Sorcerer distinct from wizard
    Fighter, Rogue, Champion, Ranger, and Monk - all look much improved over their PF1 incarnations.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    James Jacobs wrote:
    Aenigma wrote:
    James Jacobs wrote:
    1) We'll get to settlement stat blocks eventually but as of the time of workng on this adventure we hadn't figured out how to do them in 2nd edition. Later volumes will have some settlement stat block experiments, but until the Game Mastery Guide is done we won't have a final look for them.
    Wait, what? I thought we already have complete rules regarding settlement stat blocks. I thing the rules presented in GameMastery Guide seem decent and perfect enough to be used in Second Edition without further change.

    I pushed for their inclusion or something like it in the core rules but there wasn't room. I believe that something like it should be coming in the upcoming book, as I mentioned above... but we'll see.

    But the more folks who let us know and let the design team know and let the publisher know you want these stat blocks in the game for cities, the better the chance will be that they'll come back.

    Settlement stat blocks are a must-have. They don't have to follow PF1's settlement stat blocks 100% if improvements can be made but a return to the days of 'winging it' would be a huge loss.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Landscape for the win.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Same here. Takes multiple tries to get to forums or subforums and seems completely hit-or-miss as to whether it works or not.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Saint Evil wrote:
    Mark Seifter said so about the GMG having the item quality rules variant in there. Either in place of magic pluses or in parallel.

    WTF?!? Item quality was one of the best ideas from the playtest!

    If they're being exiled to the GMG, I hope it's in the form of "replacing magical bonuses" rather than stacking with them.

    This is the first solid hit to my PF2 hype excitement that has been steadily building for weeks.

    Glad we'll be getting some form of it, at least, but damn, this one stings.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    With sorcerers pulling from all four magic sources + so many sorcerer bloodlines falling into the divine magic source + oracles being spontaneous casters, I wonder if PF2 Oracles will be adapted as sorcerer feats or a multiclass archetype rather than a full class on its own?

    Although I like the PF1 Oracle class, since a lot of PF2 design philosophy seems to embrace the goal of leaving open lots of new design space, I think I'd be cool with that approach.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Sounds great!


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Louis Agresta wrote:

    How about this instead, then? We expect to send out the Backerkit pledge manager surveys this week, but until we do we can slip you in under the wire.

    Email us at info@irongmgames.com with the pledge level you'd like, along with your paypal email (you can still see everything here). We'll send you a paypal invoice and add you manually, just like you'd backed before the close.

    Our ability to do this ends in a couple of days, but you're just in time.

    Thanks so much for your interest, Grimmer!

    And backed! Thanks, Lou & Rone. You guys are great!


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Gah! G@% D@##it!! I was slammed at work right up until vacation and it wasn't until I was 3/4 of the way through vacation that I realized that I'd forgotten about the Grimmerspace Kickstarter!

    You want to talk real horror?!? Try the sick feeling you get when you realize you missed out on the Grimmerpace kickstarter! Not even a delicious thunk dinner is going to make this better...


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Disappointing but understandable.

    Thanks, all. I had missed the hints that a GM-focused book might be coming. Hopefully it's targeted for a Dec release so we can see it in 2019. I expect Starfinder's Character Operations Manual will be the hardback focus for the fall.

    I suspect PF2 and Starfinder will have different release tracks that don't really impact each other most of the time but the PF2 Gen Con launch has to be resource-taxing. With COM slated for fall, I have a hard time seeing a PF2 GM book launching in the same timeframe.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    I know we don't get Monster-building rules in Bestiary 1, I know we can build NPCs using PC rules, and I know we're getting streamlined NPC rules in PF2. But does anyone know if NPC-building rules - meaning the new, streamlined system - will be in the PF2 CRB?

    Also, has there been any mention as to the form it may take? I was always a proponent of building NPCs via PC-building rules but Starfinder's NPC rules made me a convert. Based on Starfinder, I sort of assumed we'd see something similar but the Pathfinder Society teases about NPC faction leaders only cite alignment, race, and gender. For example, Calisro Benarry (N female half-orc) instead of Aibretta Fulson (CN female human mechanic).


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Bah! I care not about waiting for PaizoCon!

    People not going to PaizoCon want reveals now. People going to PaizoCon want reveals now, as well! It really is a win-win, no reason to wait kind of situation. Don't make me go all Thor and gather up a group of Revengers to come kick in the door!

    Kidding aside, we're less than 3 months from PF2 launch. I understand the importance of PaizoCon, but C'MON!!!!

    Also, there must be ale, mead, and beer! And do you know what makes ale, mead, and beer taste better? Reading PF2 reveals/teasers while drinking!!!


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Per the title.

    Pretty please.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Marc Radle wrote:

    I see what you are saying and I can agree with it. My point is more about the physicality of Captain America - he’s faster than normL people, stronger, better endurance, heals more quickly, heck - one of the reasons he can do such cool stuff with his shield is related to the Serum. Sam even makes comments about it on more than one occassion in the movies “I’ll be doing whatever he does, just slower” etc.

    I agree Sam probably is the closest to Steve’s moral center and ideals. But he’s nowhere near Cap from a physical, super soldier’s abilities sense, and to me that matters. Captain America is BOTH of those things - his sense of right and his morals AND his superior super soldier induced abiliities. In my opinion you can’t have one but not the other and still call someone Captain America. It just isn’t the same. Not for me anyway ...

    As a diehard Captain America fan, for me Steve Rogers is the one true Cap.

    That said, I'm a big Falcon/Sam Wilson fan as well and I've loved Mackie's portrayal of the character in the MCU. In terms of the physical limitations of normal human vs. super soldier, you're spot on.

    However, Sam as Captain America is often referred to as Falcon Cap because he's effectively still in the Falcon suit (just a red-white-and-blue version) + the vibranium shield.

    Chris Evans is the perfect Steve Rogers, IMO, and while I want more Steve Rogers stories in the MCU, I liked the way they handled the passing of the torch/shield in Endgame.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    eddv wrote:
    BPorter wrote:
    eddv wrote:
    By the point that theyre back to playing 2nd banana to WotC, who really cares about Paizo is my point.

    You actually came to the Paizo boards just to say "who really cares about Paizo"?!?

    Damn, the Internet is weird.

    If They go back to being a 3pp for WotC was the full context there.

    But sure.

    Ah. My bad, then. I find it impossible to believe that Paizo has any desire or intent to go back to relying on a being a 3PP for WotC. I also don't see a scenario where PF2 and/or Starfinder are abandoned.


    10 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Former PF1 diehard, optimistic PF2 enthusiast here.

    I've been anxiously awaiting a Kingmaker hardcover since the RotRL Hardcover was announced. I'm a huge fan of the AP and in many ways, it established Paizo as the company who "gets" the heritage of AD&D more than any other company.

    Coming off the CRPG version of the game, this is the perfect way to support the PF2 launch. Although I was initially taken aback by the 5e bestiary, I can see the business logic of having a gateway vehicle for introducing 5e players to PF2.

    Can't wait to see this baby in it's full PF2 glory! I didn't think we'd see PF2 Kingdom Building this quickly, but it's very welcome. I do hope KB gets refinement over the PF1 version, however.


    19 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    eddv wrote:
    By the point that theyre back to playing 2nd banana to WotC, who really cares about Paizo is my point.

    You actually came to the Paizo boards just to say "who really cares about Paizo"?!?

    Damn, the Internet is weird.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    AnimatedPaper wrote:
    The only thing I’m REALLY looking for is the monster creation rules. I can fudge the rest, but getting the math on that would be very useful.

    Absolutely this! I keep forgetting they won't be in the Bestiary at launch.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Mark Seifter wrote:


    Oh sure, and ultimately, the product referred to here has to do enough heavy lifting in a variety of important ways that we can't devote tons of page space to any individual component; there will have to be some that we leave to you guys to implement yourselves, ...

    Would it be possible to just have more than one "options" book? i.e. More than 1-Unchained! style book? Unchained is one of my favorite books from PF1 and struck a good balance of options. Conversely, I felt like optional systems from Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic were not playtested at all and as a result weren't truly viable optional subsystems.

    Rather than have one Options book have to do everything, can't we get more trips to the Well of Optional subsystems/mechanics?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    1. While I want this one to be in the CRB, as long as we get an integrated Starfinder-style stamina/HP system (as opposed to UltCombat's Wounds/Vitality), I'll be happy.

    2. Rules that illustrate how to adjust the "levers and dials" to tailor PF2 as desired. I want to be able to run a PF2 Dark Fantasy game with Paizo-approved guidelines rather than house rules. Such a section/chapter could be applied towards Mythic as well by altering things in the other direction.

    3. Expanded downtime mechanics & rewards. More ways to integrate the PCs into the world beyond money & magic items. Factions, businesses, temples, knightly orders, etc. While I liked Kingdom Building in concept, I want to have stuff that ties characters deeper into the world/campaign and appeals to all characters at all levels (for those who want it).

    4. Meatier building & castle construction rules.

    5. Options for non-Vancian PF2.

    6. A return & refinement of some of the Ultimate Intrigue concepts such as Heists and Social Combat.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Fleet battles would be the equivalent of mass combat, something that hasn't really followed the character-level combat of just about any RPG.

    Legendary Games' Star Battles is about the only alternative currently available that I'm aware of.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    TOZ wrote:
    I wasn't going to say it.

    ...but yet you did.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Bill Dunn wrote:


    Frankly, I think you're actually proving TriOmegaZero's point.

    The point that he clarified wasn't directed at me? Sure, dude. Helluva a ball of twisted logic you've got there.

    Show me how my praises and criticisms of the movie actually align with the insinuations the "movie wasn't for men" blogger makes. The things she cites in 'all the negative reviews by men' aren't the issues I had with the movie. At all.

    I have zero issue with people disagreeing with my criticisms of the movie. If someone came out of the theater thinking it's the greatest superhero movie ever made, I'm glad they liked it.

    I have a big issue with people assigning motives to me for having any criticisms of the film, especially given that most of my issues have to do with Fury's portrayal and the challenges facing the good guys being so easily overcome. I find such insinuations especially disingenuous given that I praised Bree Larson's portrayal of Danvers/Marvel and the character's relationship with Maria.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    All of Carol’s challenges were in her mind, which is hard to portray in an action flick.

    Ah, here we are.

    Quote:

    The biggest problem with every single bad review of Captain Marvel coming from a man is that none of them seem to comprehend a narrative that isn’t meant for them.

    They see Carol finally breaking free from being gaslighted by the Kree as “emotionally underwhelming,” never realizing that a climactic, emotional showdown with her abuser would be giving him exactly what he wants. Being in control of her emotions? Choosing not to react to a provocation? That’s strength most male comic fans don’t understand. They see masculine-coded strength as the only kind of valid strength. Carol not being angry and putting Yon-Rogg down in a shonen-esque battle doesn’t make sense to them because it’s not what they would have done.

    They see a woman struggling to work through lies she’d been told as “bad narrative structure,” when in reality the movie was never about building Carol up from nothing, but about her realizing her true potential through seeing past those lies. Carol’s character arc parallels many women attaining social consciousness, throwing off patriarchal lies they’d been conditioned to accept about who they are and what they can do. Her strength isn’t about attaining power, but about embracing her true potential that had been deliberately hidden from her.

    They see Carol’s emotions not lining up with the lies her abusers told her about being too emoional as “bad writing” or “bad acting,” never realizing that that was exactly the point. They only understand defiance as impassioned, outward battles of will and pride, not understanding that quiet, steadfast refusal to bend to others’ designs of who you should be is strength too.

    Brie Larson was absolutely right. Carol’s story is not for men. And nothing proves that more than all the

    ...

    So...there's a problem with the road you're headed down. I got the fact that Carol's challenges were "in her mind", ala the memory loss. But that internal struggle never really put her or anyone she cared about at risk. This, combined with no physical threat, added up to no real tension in the film.

    I also didn't criticize Larson at all. In fact, I cited her performance as one of the highlights of the film.

    As to the rant you posted to back up your point... complimenting Larson for portraying Carol Danvers/Capt. Marvel well, giving kudos for portraying Carol's confidence with a quiet cool in contrast to Stark or Thor's egos, highlighting the chemistry she had with the cast she had to interact with, and laying my criticism on the directors, writers, and the wasted potential of the Skrull threat, the typical Sam Jackson we got instead of Nick Fury, the eye loss played for a laugh... none of that is valid because A) I'm a guy, and B) the movie 'wasn't made for me'?!? I mean, you didn't come right out and say that, but I can only conclude that's what you mean if you're linking this "rebuttal" of criticism of the movie to me via your earlier post.

    Other than saying the only real challenge she had to overcome was memory loss, I never said she lacked heroism. I certainly never said here anything about her emotions being invalid. I criticized the 90's setting because I believed the sexism she encountered in the military could have happened in 2019 as easily as it happened in the 1990s and the 90s setting didn't meaningfully contribute to the film.

    If any of those valid criticisms of this movie can't be adequately defended (and since this is all opinion, you wouldn't think that would be that hard to do but apparently, it is), then sure, throw them into the "men can't speak" sewer. Unfortunately, that charge is the steaming pile of excrement that deserves to be dismissed.

    Wonder Woman was a great movie about an empowered woman. Wonder Woman was also a great superhero flick with threat and tension for Diana and other characters. Wonder Woman dealt with the topics of sexism and the horrors of war. I frickin' loved it.

    Captain Marvel was a decent, but flawed film. But don't take my word for it (I'm a man, after all). My wife liked it but didn't think it was as good as most MCU films. Also, in her own words, "it was no Wonder Woman" and she's eagerly awaiting the Black Widow movie. But I suppose the movie wasn't made for her, either.

    I mean, Disney & Marvel should really put that info into the trailers, movie posters, comics, etc. "This media is not intended for the following genders and ethnicities...". That sounds like a very inclusive approach and a great business strategy.

    I guess diversity is great unless it doesn't align with the proper 'mindset' of the 'people for whom it's intended'. And for those idiots that actually ARE looking for shallow or sexist reasons to tear down the film, by trying to lump people with valid criticisms in with them you're actually giving them ammunition.

    And if, by some chance, you "didn't mean anything by it", you shouldn't have tagged that quote in the first place. It has no bearing on anything I posted in my thoughts/review of the movie. If you read my thoughts/review and equated it to the things in the quote you cited, then the problem lies with you rather than me.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Irontruth, I'm not sure if you're arguing points from a different site or post but either you didn't read my thoughts/review of the movie or you're choosing to interpret things in a way that I didn't write them.

    1. I never said anything about the "time spent" on Carol/Fury/Maria. I wasn't smoking anything. I actually complimented the chemistry between the characters. I said that there was a lack of tension & threat -- none of the characters were at risk. If you misconstrued that they 'didn't spend enough time on them', maybe check the ventilation in your zone.

    2. Carol's role in Avengers:Endgame is immaterial to the merits of the Captain Marvel movie being able to stand on its own. This isn't Part 1 or Part 2 of a Hobbit trilogy or Harry Potter movie. It's not Avengers: Captain Marvel. The movie needs to stand on its own, period. As I stated, if this is the 2nd movie made for the MCU, it's good. If it's the 21st movie made for the MCU, it's far from their best showing.

    3. Power Level - part 1. I did complain that Carol's power curve went beyond exponential in the film. Basically, it turned into almost a straight line upwards. If Carol has to be ultra-powerful to appear in Avengers: Endgame, it would have been better had she been introduced as part of the Endgame story ala Black Panther in CA: The Winter Soldier and then have her stand-alone movie tell her origin later.

    4. Power Level - part 2. First, this movie isn't here to put Captain Marvel on a power level comparable to Thor, it's her origin story. It's to provide the first entry of a female-led MCU movie. (FWIW, I've been rooting for a Black Widow movie since Iron Man 2 and I would literally throw money at the screen to get a Scarlet Witch film.) Second, Thor didn't achieve his current power level in his first appearance and in a matter of minutes of 'world time'. Not minutes in screen time, literally within minutes of events taking placing in the context of the story.

    5. My complaint about villains is directly related to the lack of threat posed. I expect the hero to win the day in a superhero movie. I also expect there to be a challenge that test the hero to overcome. We didn't get that.

    If you loved the movie, great. Good for you. I stand by every point of praise and criticism I gave the movie and I cited examples for why I felt the way that I did. Let's agree to disagree.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Bill Dunn wrote:
    BPorder wrote:


    There is a noticeable lack of tension in the film. At NO TIME did I fear for the characters in this film. The prequel structure of the film works against it in this regard.

    Going to pull that out of the spoiler tag - I don't think it's particularly spoilery since we all know it's a prequel.

    From my perspective, this is something that usually doesn't bother me in a superhero genre movie or comic, because there's usually no reason to fear for most of the principal characters in the genre - superheroes survive.

    The genre itself isn't conducive to killing off the super-powered protagonists because its serial in nature - whether comic series or in movie franchises. The tension is almost always sought elsewhere using other suspense-building aspects of the story. "How to they get out of this?" "How does this affect other people?" and so on.

    This might actually be a bit different in April since we, as viewers, know that multiple actors have contracts that are ending in Avengers: Endgame. We don't know if they're going to retire, die, or have something else happen to them. The fact that we know something about their future in the franchise is driving tension. Will they kill off Iron Man, Cap, Thor? Who knows?

    On the other hand, even though this isn't a prequel, we're pretty sure they aren't killing off Black Widow. Scarlett Johansson's got at least one other moving coming up. Her serial/franchise life will continue.

    I'm not even referring to killing off a hero like Danvers. I understand the genre. What I mean is that at no time during the film did I feel she or any other character was is danger of being harmed.

    It's one thing to know Iron Man will be in another movie but has a scene where he's outmatched or getting his butt kicked. It's another for him to cakewalk through the film.

    I like my heroes having to outwit and outfight the enemy. The only obstacle Danvers has to overcome is memory loss. Combine that with no real threat posed towards the supporting cast and you get the lack of tension or threat I referenced.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Selene Spires wrote:
    BPorter wrote:
    Vidmaster7 wrote:
    Worse then the 2nd or 3rd iron man or 2nd Thor? No I think not.
    Yes, I think so.
    Worse than The Incredible Hulk?

    Honestly, that one had me bouncing between the two. Ultimately, had Capt. Marvel been the 2nd movie in the MCU*, it would easily beat The Incredible Hulk (and probably others). As the 21st(?) movie in the MCU...not so much.

    *Which is ironic, I guess, since chronologically, it is.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Vidmaster7 wrote:
    Worse then the 2nd or 3rd iron man or 2nd Thor? No I think not.

    Yes, I think so.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Sigh. Captain Marvel, being a prequel film, wasn't one of my "must see" MCU films but I had high hopes for another entertaining entry in the MCU.

    Unfortunately, what I experienced was a serviceable, but unremarkable superhero film.

    Brie Larson's portrayal of Carol Danvers was a highlight. She found a way to portray a cockiness in a manner distinct from Tony Stark's or Thor's and I think she nailed the essence of the Danvers character which has kind of ranged all over the map at times in the comics.

    The rest of the cast - human, Skrull, and Kree all do well in their roles as well (problems noted below).

    The special effects are good and at this stage of the MCU, those are table stakes. The Skrull shapeshifting is exceptionally well done and are a highlight of the film.

    That said, however...

    Spoiler:

    This movie has little to no emotional weight to it. Danver's banter & chemistry with Fury is a high point, as are the scene's with Maria & Monica. But since Danvers is 'on mission' for almost the entire film, there is less time devoted to Danvers as a person. The story beats are there, but they're glimpsed so briefly (due to her memory loss) that with the sole exception of the 'she always gets back up' sequence, they don't really pack the same punch as other movie heroes have executed. It's actually a testament to Lawson's portrayal that you can feel for Carol to the extent that you do despite this failing.

    There is a noticeable lack of tension in the film. At NO TIME did I fear for the characters in this film. The prequel structure of the film works against it in this regard. Danvers is almost never in physical harm's way and the one time she is (the dogfight), since it's a flashback we know she's not at risk. Other characters have to survive to appear in other films and are clearly safe.

    Action sequences are serviceable but unremarkable. There's nothing on par with an Avengers, Captain America, Black Panther, or Spider-Man fight scene here.

    These two points combine into a larger concern - Captain Marvel is the first MCU character that left me thinking that the hero was too powerful. I haven't collected comics regularly in at least 15 years. I know Captain Marvel has been elevated to be one of the powerhouse of the Marvel Universe. But the power escalation that occurs in this film is problematic. Imagine Tony Stark going from Mark I armor to his Infinity War armor in the course of 1 film. Captain Marvel beats that. Carol goes from not knowing how to fly to literally flying through and smashing spaceships in a matter of minutes. It's the worst of the Superman problem of "how do you challenge a character this powerful"? Watching Captain Marvel left me with the feeling of the throwaway comic book storyline where the hero gets a ridiculous power boost which is quickly undone when the author responsible for the power boost rapidly leaves the title and the incoming author has to do a filler 'de-power the character' story just to make the character someone who can be challenged again.

    Aside from Carol & Fury's banter and a Monica scene-steal or two, most of the humor seems forced. The 90's technology laughs land for those of us who lived through them, but the other 90's jokes effectively peak with the Blockbuster store. The attempts to capture some Guardian's style laughs with the alien cat quickly grow tiresome.

    The 90's setting really does little to enhance the film. There is little, if anything, tied to the core plot that requires the 90's setting. Carol & Maria could still face male stereotypes in the military today as they could in the 90's and for what little mileage is gained from it in the film the decade is irrelevant. The relationship with Fury could have easily been filled by present-day Fury or another Shield agent. In fact, the #1 reason for setting this movie in the 90s seems to be solely so Captain Marvel can be worked into the MCU in time for Endgame. I can't shake the feeling that Captain Marvel would have benefited from having a movie or two of character development before integrating her into the Avengers.

    The score being comprised almost entirely by 90's songs doesn't really land either. It's all serviceable but it feels like a 90's nostalgia grab bag whereas Iron Man's AC/DC or Guardians' 70's soundtrack really helped reflect the tone/attitude of their heroes or the film. And there is nothing close to approaching the goosebumps-inducing combo of Wonder Woman in action with her now-iconic theme.

    Coulson is used effectively but almost too sparingly. Ronan...if you thought he was underutilized in Guardians this movie only makes it worse. Aside from providing more context as to what a Kree Accuser is, his appearance is worse than a throwaway.

    But without a doubt, the #1 flaw of Captain Marvel is the one that I never expected. That's probably why it actually pisses me off rather than being a mild criticism. Nick Fury is played for laughs in this film. Aside from Jackson's & Larson's chemistry (which is great), the Nick Fury of this film is a pathetic shadow of his other MCU entries. Gone is the intelligent, secretive, cool, and calculating superspy. Instead we have a standard "agent" playing the role of comic relief. We know this isn't an issue with Jackson's ability to portray the character, so clearly the fault lies with either the writers, directors, or both.

    Even though, by this time in the MCU, Fury would have met Alexander Pierce (his pic in The Winter Soldier is Fury with two eyes), reached the rank of colonel in the US Army, worked as a spy and has been with SHIELD for years, we get 'cool guy Nick Fury'. We get 'standard wisecracking Samuel L Jackson' rather than Nick Fury. This isn't the 'get the job done' Fury that Pierce describes to Steve Rogers. It isn't the guy who would oversee Project Insight. It's not even the "I've got my eye on you" Fury of Iron Man 2.

    But wait! Maybe you'll embrace my wife's theory of "maybe he hasn't become cynical & jaded yet". I could stomach that if this film tried even a little to portray that shift. Remember how Fury "trusted someone once" and it cost him his eye? Remember how the Skrulls are part of this story so the setup for a worldview-changing betrayal is right effing there in front of you? Nope. Would-be top agent & superspy Nick Fury is too busy playing kissy face with a freaking cat. Hell, he didn't even get his blood pressure up that aliens A) exist, and B) can perfectly duplicate anyone, anywhere. No big deal, I'm Sam mutherf'ing Jackson, I mean...Nick Fury.

    And then the loss of his eye is played for laughs.

    Captain Marvel is decent superhero film and had it come out in the 90's it would have been fantastic. Bree Larson makes for a great Captain Marvel and I do look forward to seeing her interact with the larger MCU. But this movie has serious problems. It is definitely my least favorite entry in the MCU.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    SuperBidi wrote:
    BPorter wrote:
    1) You can run away if your ship can maintain distance or increase distance over a period of time.

    Even with a faster ship, it's nearly impossible, as weapons can shoot at 10 times their range increment and we are speaking of 2 to 4 squares per round. Roughly, you need 50-100 rounds to run away, you're blown to pieces long time before safety, especially if you took a few shots before running away.

    BPorter wrote:
    2) The ship is crippled and the bad guys leave.

    Why???

    The ship is crippled and the bad guys finish it. They are bad guys...

    BPorter wrote:
    3) The ship is crippled and the PCs plead/taunt/trick the bad guys into a boarding action.

    Why again? I'm the bad guy, I've won the fight, if I don't want to destroy the ship, I ask the crew to just hang outside while I board it easily. As a PC, I always ask that to vainquished ships.

    BPorter wrote:
    4) Allied reinforcements are detected en route and the bad guys leave before they can arrive.
    That's the fairest point. But it's a very special combat situation, unless you want some deus ex machina saving the PCs all the time, but it will be quickly visible.

    #1 - Being able to shoot at that range and hit at that range are 2 different things. Also, if you're going to take that literal an interpretation of range & escape, you'll have to also take it for initial detection and closing. Both of which would be resolved via a few checks at my table but if you want to adhere to those kinds of scenarios, the PCs should have ample time to assess/scan foes and disengage before combat starts.

    #2 - This is no different than any personal combat encounter. Being a "bad guy" doesn't equate to "kill all opponents all the time". If it does, I suspect TPKs and frequent introduction of new characters is a commonplace occurrence, so starship combat doesn't alter that.

    You can run NPCs and encounters any way you like, but the things you're citing are mostly GM decisions/choices and not flaws (or features) of starship combat.

    Bottom line, where you see a binary outcome, I see unexpected/unscripted role-playing and story opportunities.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Ixal wrote:
    SuperBidi wrote:

    Space combat has one very major difference with normal combat: It's either a flawless victory or a total party kill.

    Also, there are no special resources you can use to "save the day" when a combat looks badly engaged. And you can hardly run away. It's win or die, period.
    This is probably the main problem with space combat. Combined with how disconnected the spaceship is from the rest of the game those are the only two possible outcomes with nothing in between.

    Um, not even close. Per the SFCRB: "Hull Points: This is the total amount of damage a starship can take before it becomes inoperative. A starship with 0 Hull Points isn’t destroyed, though many of its systems are no longer functioning and it is no longer a threat to its enemies."

    Now, for some encounters, that could result in ship destruction and a TPK just like any personal combat with monsters or enemies. It's hardly the binary choice being discussed, however.

    Off the top of my head:
    1) You can run away if your ship can maintain distance or increase distance over a period of time. Since starship combat and space travel contain hefty doses of abstraction already, a GM could say the encounter ends after a random or set number of turns. Even if pursuit is maintained over a long period, the PCs could be hailing any friendly/neutral ship for assistance, etc.

    2) The ship is crippled and the bad guys leave.
    2a - The PCs have to make field repairs to get moving again.
    2b - The ship is a hopeless wreck. The PCs have to use escape pods which will take them to that mysterious planet...
    2c - The PCs have to limp to an asteroid field, moon, or planet and gather resources to repair their ship so that they can resume their journey.
    2d - The PCs are stranded in their crippled ship but their distress calls are picked up by an allied/friendly/neutral vessel that can either rescue them, tow their vessel, repair their vessel, or be hostile to the PCs where the PCs will need to try and take the new vessel.

    3) The ship is crippled and the PCs plead/taunt/trick the bad guys into a boarding action. Personal combat ensues as the PCs attempt to board the enemy vessel to salvage needed parts, capture the enemy vessel, or capture enemy hostages to bargain for repair parts.

    4) Allied reinforcements are detected en route and the bad guys leave before they can arrive.

    If Hull Points = 0 = Star Wars ship explosion, then yes, starship combat is pretty binary. Fortunately, Starfinder isn't that way. You are no more limited by losing encounters than you are in Pathfinder or Starfinder personal combat. In fact, in many ways, you are less limited.

    You're free to impose whatever limitations on a game/campaign/session that you like, but don't blame the game for imposing a limitation that the GM assigned.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Xenocrat wrote:
    How do you control magicians in this poorly thought out world of yours where no one carries weapons?

    There's a huge gulf between police state with no armor and weapons and futuristic Wild West where no pretense of law enforcement exists.

    The beauty of Starfinder is that it's far more conceivable for PCs to move to different settings. Verces isn't Akiton. The scope available for author's in Starfinder is far, far greater than in Pathfinder and should be used accordingly.

    To use an example, in Firefly, the frontier worlds are pretty lawless. When they do the run on the hospital on one of the core worlds, they have to operate very differently. That is a setting and storytelling feature and opportunity, not a "that's not fun" restriction.

    And the example issue of the trapped front door in a metropolitan area is spot on for showcasing things that need better design. I'm all for a certain amount of suspension of disbelief because you're playing a game or adhering to genre conventions. But that falls into the "too stupid to be remotely plausible" category.

    It's Starfinder. I can buy into the melting pot of unusual races, tiered weapons and armor, and social norms that allow for weapon carry permits and armor in certain/most situations. But don't put me in a cosmopolitan city that is an example of the top-tier of Pact Worlds society and treat it like Tombstone, Az before Earp comes to town.

    And, if you're hell-bent on doing just that, you probably shouldn't include a gazetteer of the city in question where a significant portion of the write-up talks about how relatively nonviolent the city is, focus a good portion on the police force, and where the NPC art for the article is the chief of police!

    I, for one, want an adventure in a city on Verces to feel different and present different challenges than a dead/dying boomtown on Akiton. If I'm going to stamp setting sameness on everything, what's the point of having so many diverse settings?

    Starfinder is great. That doesn't mean that adventure and encounter design can't improve and shouldn't embrace it's Science Fantasy environment - including the new challenges that introduces.

    Starfinder can be so much more than "Pathfinder in space".


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    SuperBidi wrote:

    In Dead Suns, there's a space combat I found kind of silly.

    We were attacked without warning (I was captain, and tried to open discussion for no result), and once we won, we discovered the enemy ship was having some very important information to us.
    First, we could have blow them up. But, more importantly, the guys tried to blast us, without warning nor discussion, and now we have to make some Diplomacy checks and stuff.
    My True Lawful Priest of Lissalla was that close to explain them how she handles what she considered an act of piracy...

    That's fair. I can see that.

    I think that's more an issue with encounter design than starship combat itself, however. Starfinder is still relatively new but sometimes the application of Pathfinder-dungeon-style encounter design doesn't really work as well for far future science fantasy. I'm hopeful that will improve over time and hopefully will also help improve starship combat encounter design as well.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Space combat has been great in our campaigns. It's been a welcome change of pace. In Reach of Empire, one of the space combats is critical to the adventure, so I'm not getting how they are getting looked at through a more critical lens than a XP-filler encounter.

    As for "less meaningful" encounters, I'm really tired of low-/no-stakes encounters awarding more XP than a life-or-death encounter at a lower level, simply by virtue of being in a higher AP installment. If such encounters are just going to be XP-filler, there's really no point in tracking XP (regardless of whether it's Starfinder or Pathfinder).


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    I, too, generally think that some of the population numbers are quite low. It's never been something that Paizo pays too much attention to, even in Pathfinder, so I tend to take them with a certain amount of Handwavium.

    That said, while the setting doesn't really portray it this way, this is how I've chosen to interpret things.

    The core races represent the races most interested in space travel, colonization, and exploration. Other races may be more populous, but they are content living within their planetary system for the vast majority of those races/species.

    As for looking at some of the numbers, yeah, some things seem out of whack. The assessed degree of whack is a matter of personal taste. Here are a few examples/comparisons:

    1. Castrovel is less populated than expected because so much of the planet remains jungle. The elves are already a slow-to-reproduce species. Formians are short-lived.

    2. Verthani do seem underrepresented. Despite being tidally-locked, Verces appears to be one of the most densely populated and relatively stable planets in the Pact Worlds. Cuvacara alone has 30 million inhabitants; 16.5M are Verthani. And that's just in one city!

    3. Poor little Absalom Station only has 980,000 humans. Cuvacara has 3 million humans. Arl has almost 7 million humans. Yet, Absalom Station is portrayed as the center of human society. This only makes sense if Absalom Station is the primary place where humans can significantly wield power.

    4. And don't get me started on the Kasatha. Yes, their homeworld is accessible now, but a single ark ship seems unlikely to have enough inhabitants to constitute a core race -- unless we're referring to propensity to be a starfaring race of explorers, colonists, etc.

    The Pact Worlds are interesting and I believe they are structured as they are so that the efforts of a group of space vagabonds is more easily felt. However, I do think that since the Races chapter of the SFCRB explicitly cites the core races as being "so common as to be ubiquitous" the Pact Worlds setting would have done a better job of reflecting that.

    Paizo always favors story over statistics, though, so I wouldn't expect much in the way of official changes or retcons. If the numbers bother you, your best bet is to change the numbers in your campaign.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    CoeusFreeze wrote:
    BPorter wrote:

    So, love the book and content so far.

    One question: what the heck are "cp"?!? They're referenced multiple times in regards to Wealth Points.

    cp refers to Credit Points. It's the currency of Starfinder akin to Gold Pieces in Pathfinder.

    Color me somewhat confused, then. Star Empires goes out of it's way to say a direct Credit:Build Point conversion doesn't exist. This seems a strange thing to contradict in Star Intrigue.

    Going along with CP = credits, however, things don't really get any better/clearer. If a Wealth Point = 400 credits, and 10 WP = 1 Build Point, that means that the starting treasury of a Star EMPIRE is a measly 200,000 cr (50 BP).

    I'm fine with BP & WP being abstractions lacking a conversion from currency. However, Star Intrigue goes out of its way to say factions can "purchase" additional wealth points for 400 cp. That seems ridiculously low.

    I appreciate the answer, though. It's easily house-ruled to a different value, of course.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Wealth by Level is a useful tool for providing GM and PC guidance on appropriate gear balance in the context of the game. I get it, it’s useful, and I’m glad we have it in the game as a guideline.

    Unlike Pathfinder, however, the application of WBL to an advanced society and economy like the one depicted in Starfinder needs to (or at least should be able to) account for much more than your typical roving band of fantasy adventure heroes. Corporations, advanced banking, investments, planetary economies, interplanetary economies, etc. all exist and are commonplace elements of Pact Worlds societies.

    Since Starfinder is a game about science-fantasy adventures, the relevant application of WBL is rightly on adventuring gear. No one is seeking to play Starfinder Drift Barons or Starfinder Accountants. This is acknowledged in both leveled gear and the explicitly stated “can’t sell starships for cash” part of the SFCRB.

    Also, before anyone makes the “post scarcity” argument, that’s clearly not in play as a signficant factor. Treasure/wealth/gear are clearly explicit rewards of the game. The problem, however, is that in order to steer PC wealth towards leveling up their gear appropriately, some really wonky stuff is thrown around for the rest of the Starfinder economy. Here are a few examples:

    1. A sleep pod (communal showers/restrooms) costs 1 Cr per night. A 1-2 person suite is comparable to a standard hotel room by today’s standards and cost 10 Cr per night for 2 beds. Quite the deal! Yet a 0-level spell costs 20 Cr. But spellcasting requires skill has a rarity component, etc. Fair, and true enough. However, the hotel has to be a profitable business.

    2. Starship passage (good) costs 300Cr / day of travel per person. Makes sense as space travel encompasses much more than a standard hotel room, right? But is it really worth 60 times what a hotel room would cost (Suite, 1 bed = 5 Cr/night)? It could very well be that starships are that expensive to operate, but then there's the following examples (#3, 4, & 5).

    3. In the Penumbra Protocol, renting a private hangar for the PC’s starship is a measly 10 Cr/day. This is despite the fact that “Cuvacavra is a densely populated metropolis with only one allocated area for landing spacecraft”. If the goal is to make starship operations costs irrelevant, simply say something like “docking fees are assumed to be paid out of starship operation funds” and move on.

    4. In The Reach of Empire, the PCs will be paid 4000 Cr for delivering supplies to the colony. This is presented as PC wealth. I certainly hope that’s profit after starship operations costs are accounted for because I question the viability of starship freight transport, otherwise.

    5. Starship salvage is effectively ignored. The only time I’ve seen it addressed is in The Diaspora Strain and it amounts to “they carried nothing of value” from a NPC, as though the ship itself is of no intrinsic value.

    6. The apparent setting conceit that robots exist but can't be purchased by PCs.

    However, in addition to providing in-game rewards for PCs, the use of economic hurdles, items of value, mining and salvage and host of other topics are all excellent fodder for stories. Greed-motivated villains, piracy, bounty hunting, mercenary work, ‘get a job, keep flying’-style merchant campaigns, etc. all need at least a somewhat plausible 'economy' in order to make sense contextually. Sure, non-adventuring economic topics shouldn’t take the focus away from adventuring but they don’t have to be dismissed, or worse, made nonsensical or trivial in a way that calls attention to it. Saying “your ship is like a corporation and the UPBs and credits that pay for it aren’t available as PC personal wealth” is perfectly acceptable. Creating scenarios where selling a relatively commonplace weapon will pay for living expenses for an extended period of time isn’t.

    I really hope that a future supplement addresses or expands topics like cost of living, downtime money-making activities, starship operation costs, salvage, & trading outside of the constraints of WBL. If we can accept level-gated gear, we should be able to accept separate sources of wealth, income, and expense that can only be applied to certain areas. Let’s not close off story opportunities or internal setting logic because of a fear that PCs will break WBL restrictions.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    So, love the book and content so far.

    One question: what the heck are "cp"?!? They're referenced multiple times in regards to Wealth Points.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    Quick clarification to my earlier post: Star Empires does have sample nations & colonies. However, the AbadarCorp & Starfinder Society analogs are in Star Intrigue.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    ForeverQueen wrote:


    So, let me preface this by saying I am a DM running three different parties in the same 'universe/continuity'. So, the ships occasionally send messages to each other, and at some point the groups may team up to overcome severe threats, or share knowledge stuffs.

    My big three-pot homebrew game is moving towards Swarm stuff. In my head I'm picturing the PCs as being one group of many on a planet battlefront. There are loads of NPC locals, small militias, random folks, all trying to fight against the might of the Swarm. Will they turn the tide of battle? Are they trying to merely minimize loss? Or direct the swarms slaughter until reinforcements arrive?

    I'd love to have a hex 'battlefield' map with resources, (a la Ultimate Campaign style), armies, etc, to help coordinate attacks.

    Has anyone else had this sort of feeling of needing a bigger venue for planet-side combat? (Is anyone working on something like this for themselves/their party that I can peek at?) Am I thinking too big?

    (Also, I realize a lot of Starfinder is 'the ship is home, so we don't need to put down roots', but I think it would be cool to have a method for building your own scifi outpost on a random asteroid in the diaspora or something.)

    I'm a huge fan of Ultimate Campaign and would love to see a Starfinder book in the same vein.

    Specific to your point, though, I recommend getting Star Empires from Legendary Games. They essentially adapted principles of the kingdom-building rules and applied them to science-fiction/fantasy concepts. It's abstract enough that it can be applied to everything from colonies, outposts, corporations, guilds, etc.

    I've begun using it to develop groups and entities that are relevant in my campaigns. So far, it seems to be crunchy enough to be satisfying but abstract enough that it is readily applied to a variety of organizations/power groups. It seems to have found a good balance without bringing along some of the more problematic aspects of Kingdom-building. It also includes examples for 2 organizations that for IP-related reasons seem to closely align with AbadarCorp and the Starfinder Society without naming them such. I appreciated their inclusion for showing how the rules apply to things other than stellar nations/empires.

    It also has rules for sci-fi warfare and mass combat but I haven't had a chance to play with those so I can't speak to how well they work at the table.

    I also just picked up their Star Intrigue supplement which provides rules for developing factions that can struggle for power within a 'star empire'/colony/corporation if you want to play up internal power struggles while fighting the external threat. As with the warfare rules, though, I haven't had a chance to dig into them too much yet.

    Good luck with the campaign!

    1 to 50 of 1,616 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>