Christopher LaHaise's page

Update for Starfinder, yes please! I want to run this for my group, but I don't want to teach yet another system. Ideally SF2e will be as close to PF2e as systemically possible. This is all that has kept me from buying up all the Starfinder books as I have with Pathfinder First and Second editions.

Whereas I'm the opposite. I'm still using PF1, and if SF2 was closer to PF2, I simply wouldn't buy it. I find PF2 far too restrictive for my tastes, and I want that level of flexibility in Starfinder.

Q: "Will this have an effect on Starfinder?"
A: "Not Yet."

I'm not a fan of 'not yet'. I like the Starfinder engine as-is (closer to PF1 than PF2), and I've dumped a small fortune into getting as much Starfinder and 3PP Starfinder material as possible. There's a few specific things in PF2 I would not want to see in Starfinder. Now, if you were simply to tweak Starfinder a bit and integrate stuff like you're planning with PF2, okay, sure, a 'Starfinder Core' would be cool. No complaint there.

I've been having a bit of a discussion involving the Thirsting Blade (Scaling Magic Items).

It starts with this:
This long, curved +1 dagger gives off a contented hum when soaked with blood. It can be thrown normally despite its length and has a critical threat range of 18–20.

Then it gives this:
8th Level: The thirsting blade is a +1 keen dagger.

The way I understand it, the 18-20 is an intrinsic part of the dagger itself, and not a magical modifier, meaning that making it keen would give it a critical threat range of 15-20. Some people have disagreed, saying that the critical threat range would be 17-20 (as a normal dagger would), and that this overwrites the 18-20.

I'd really like something official one way or the other, but I'm pretty sure that you aren't waiting 8 levels for a +1 keen dagger.

As a comparison: Armaggeddon Plate:
A suit of armageddon plate acts as +1 full plate for nearly any wearer—it automatically resizes when donned to fit wearers of size Small to Large. The armor is blackened, with joints and helm in a style reminiscent of the legendary tarrasque.

8th Level: Armageddon plate retaliates against melee attackers when its fortification ability triggers. When an attacker strikes the wearer with a melee weapon and the armor negates a critical hit or sneak attack, the power of the armor leaves the attacker shaken for 1d4 rounds (Will DC 16 negates). This is a mind-affecting fear effect, and can stack with itself to make an attacker frightened or panicked.

One reason I like social-fu is because it allows a player who's not good at this kind of thing to actually be able to play a character who's better at that kind of thing. Much like how someone without much knowledge of the setting can use lore skills.

On top of that however, I believe that other tactics should be just as viable as combat. You run into a pack of goblins - how do you convince them to take your side and work with you? Or to convince a member of the Frost Giants to betray his lord?

How do you convince the King's Court to blackball someone you don't like, so they lose influence? These could all boil down to 'roll diplomacy', but that doesn't really lay out a system for if you're trying to do anything nifty or different - and there's no *Classes* that do this sort of thing - one reason my sister's pissed off with Starfinder. She wanted at least one purely social class - and there aren't any.

I think it would be wonderful if the Bestiaries in 2.0 balanced out the creatures across the full range of alignments. It's nice to have people to beat up, but putting as much emphasis on the creatures which may / may not be enemies, or even be allies, would help. For example, if you did a 'haunted wood' there's scads of adversaries you could put in from the Bestiaries, but if you did a 'faerie wood' or a 'blessed wood', the variety suddenly drops like a stone. The number of creatures you can put in without doing reskins is a lot less.

And on the flip side, if someone's running an Evil Campaign, there's a lot less non-evil opponents to use. So there's that, too. I do feel it would be beneficial to provide creatures across the alignments, without focus on 'evil' or 'hostile' - sure, that can be a part of it, but it doesn't need to be the majority.

One thing I'm hoping we'll see in PF 2.0 are options for characters who don't want to do physical combat. In our group, there's a lot of social activity involved in our encounters, before we even get to the weapons, and it would be great to see character options which step away from physical combat and go more into social conflicts. Whether it's trying to negotiate with a hostile force, convert people to the cause, or cloak and dagger in the king's court, having characters able to do more outside of combat would be a godsend.

Think about it - a cleric who's more oriented towards uplifting spirits and inspiring the faithful than about smiting undead and fighting on the front lines. A magician who's about bewitching and entrancing opponents with words and illusions than fireballs and lightning bolts. A rogue who can talk anyone out of their goods, convince everyone he's on their side, while walking away with their belongings.

I would love to see archetypes and feats that put as much emphasis on social activities as they do on combat activities.

Apps and SRDs are fine for quick 'what does that do again?' but they're really not as useful for taking one's time to browse through until something catches one's eye. I like my physical books.

Shooting for the moon, I was thinking about 2e Pathfinder, and something I'd kind of like to see - though in no way would I expect to see it become true.

Release the core rulebook - sure, no problem. Base Classes, Base Races, Base Spells, no problem - I'm fine with this idea.

Expansion Books - because we know sourcebooks would be coming sooner or later - I would love to see act as a 'collection'.

The Book of Classes - takes all the Classes from 1e, tweaks and updates them, and releases all of them in a single book. ALL of them. Take the old Prestige Classes, turn them into Archetypes.

The Book of Magic - an encyclopedia of all spells produced for Pathfinder, plus a few score new spells. Clean them up, touch them up, there we go. Words of Power could be fleshed out in this as well.

(And as an aside - I hope overcasting is going to be a thing in 2e - take a lower level spell, cast it as a more powerful and potent spell at a higher level - 5e got THAT right.)

The Book of Races - all the Races from 1e, plus a bunch of new ones - discussing 'half + X' races, so dwarf / human? Sure. Elf / halfling? Okay. Have it talk about how the different races of dwarf, elf, etc, produce different hybrids. I'd love this. We could see tiefling elves, or genasi dwarves.

Looking at this, and the 'four tiers of success', I was wondering - are there going to be explanations on how some of this might work - especially with Rogue Evasion?

The classic example I see in debate is 'stick a rogue in a 10 x 10 x 10 room, then drop a fireball - how does the rogue take NO damage at all?' It isn't like the rogue 'dodges' the fireball, or 'finds the place of least heat' or something like that.

It would be good to pin down the 'physics' of some of the abilities, so people know how it functions. Is it a magical ability which protects the individual? Natural? Do they 'phase out' or 'slip into the shadows' or something?

Hopefully, 2e will put this kind of discussion to bed.

Envoy is essentially a bard. While there's some light social-fu, there's a lot of combat stuff associated with it.

Feint, Don't Quit, Get 'Em, Inspiring Boost, Not in the Face, etc, those are all combat applications. If they had a social-fu equivalent, which didn't have to deal with physical combat, that would be cool.

But so much of what the Envoy does seems to be leadership/combat related material, as opposed to... I don't know, being an actual envoy.

The private eye concept would most likely, at least for now, be covered by being a multi-class Mystic/Technomancer Mechanic.

Basically, a lot of options for more specific things (like owner of your own drone that isn't like the Mechanic) are either "Up to the GM" or possible content for a future book.

Social Hob-Knobs would be the Icon theme as Wraithguard covered, most likely. You even get to theme it a bit. Maybe a famous actor, vidgame player, and so on.

Was there anything specific that felt off about the Envoy? We might be able to find something that works for the concept other than just the Theme if you have more details.

Icon works well, but it was more a class option. Rather than creating combat advantages and having combat abilities, my sister was more looking for non-combat traits - abilities which could influence people, create allies, adjust attitudes, turn people against one another or create alliances. If you remember 3.5, they had the 'courtier' class in some of the books.

Then of course, you could do psychic / magic variants, which could have spells which help do that kind of stuff.

Theme: Icon

Class: Mechanic - Drone

Yeah, I saw the Mechanic, but the thing is - what if you're not a mechanic? For example, you might be am ambassador, who just happens to know how to tinker with store-bought drone kits. Also, of course, what if you want a handful of drones?

For example, in Shadowrun, I had a private investigator - he used magic, but he had a few drones on hand and AR contacts to see what they could see. They were smart enough to get the job done, but he could pilot them remotely.

I was thinking of something along those lines. Go to the tech shop, get a few drones, download a few programs, install some basic AI, connect them wireless to a headset, and away I go.

So, my sister cracked open the book, and the first thing she saw was 'envoy'. This filled her with joy, because she wanted to make a social-fu character - someone who hob-nobbed with the upper crust, made allies and connections, and had a lot of pull in social circles.

Sadly... envoy isn't a social fu character.

I tried looking for a wireless hacker type - someone who connects to machines remotely (kind of like blutooth and wifi in this day and age). I either missed it, or it simply doesn't exist - anyone know where it might be?

The other idea was a 'rigger' (ala Shadowrun) someone who builds and buys drones, gives them a Smart AI that can do some limited thinking, and then runs them remotely. I don't think I found anything about buying and programming drones, though.

Am I missing something?

I think I'd be questioning if I wanted to play with a GM who had goblins acting intelligently or using tactics...Kobolds or hobgoblins (as stated above), sure I can see, but goblins?

Goblins have an Int of 10, and a Wis of 9, about on par with the average human. That means yes, they would act intelligently, and use tactics. They're not stupid. If they had an Int / Wis of 7 or so I might have them forego tactics and just rush.

Some of the advice given, I'm not sure I'd use - I'd certainly not accept them if I was a player. Random dice rolls to see if they'll follow orders? I don't know - as a player, I'd be less inclined to play, because the GM was being 'soft' on me.

I think next time something like this comes up, I'll just lower the number of goblins. Yes, there ARE warbands in the area, that much the PCs knew ahead of time. Yes, the players SHOULD have been using stealth tactics, since they knew they were in hostile territory - but even if I dropped the number to 6 or so... the PCs weren't being sneaky, the goblins got their spot checks at range, the PCs blew theirs, and the goblins got surprise attack, and enough distance between them and the group to get a second shot if the PCs charged, and enough mobility to get the PCs if they retreated. It was just a bad scene.

For a typical level 1 party encounter, I'm probably going to use the most basic and brute force based tactics possible. And I'm going to be having goblins who are injured or who see a friend die rolling will saves to see if they break and run.

That's what actually happens in combat.

Then wouldn't the most basic and brute force tactic be 'shoot the hell out of your enemy'? Using the military example, a group who sees the enemy 'way the hell over there' would be more likely to pull their guns and fire, then run up and engage, right?

Fair enough. To add some detail though: The PCs knew there were goblins in the area, and that it was a major encroachment, not just a pack of goblins running around and causing trouble. So they weren't going into this blind. I'd used a randomizer to determine what type of group was coming in, and it was 'warband', though I didn't use the goblin dogs. Even if I used 8 goblins, it might have ended up the same.

The thing is, I tend to run my monsters more or less as 'PCs'. IE, if appropriate, the monsters will use tactics, set up ambushes, and behave more or less as PCs would if the roles were reversed. Goblins are Int 10, Wis 9 - they're not idiots by a long stretch. So, after finding out encounter distance, perception checks, and the like, it made perfect sense for the 'pull out bows and fire'.

Still, I wanted input, thanks for that. :)
As for Master Lee - well, that was a movie, and taking dramatic license. I don't think the goblins would be of a mind of having anyone risk themselves if not necessary. Shoot from a distance, and loot the bodies (otherwise, why give the goblins bows?)

The 1st level PCs are investigating goblin activity in an area. The encounter incoming is a goblin warband, 15 goblins. You roll for encounter distance, and get a reasonable amount of distance between the two groups.

The goblins make their perception checks to spot the PCs. The PCs fail.
The goblins go into surprise round, and rain arrowy death on the PCs. Then you go into normal initiative - and the goblins have most of the PCs dead by the end of that round, and will get another shot or two off before the survivors can engage in melee, and can easily continue the attack and hound the survivors if they flee.

So, presuming all dice are rolled in the open - what would you do differently? I'm inclined not to fudge / cheat, myself, so...

The thing is, these are viable races, meaning there's enough to make a sustainable population. On top of that, the biggest and baddest of the terrestrial creatures are evil, and can drop entire kingdoms. Sure, there might not be 100s of great wyrm dragons flying around - but you don't need hundreds. You need 1 to 4.

It's one of the things going on in my games... when the PCs encounter enemies, the enemies think like PCs do (within given allowance for Intelligence and Wisdom attributes). They make allies. They have minions. When the PCs encountered a dragon enemy, the dragon had summoned and bound creatures working for it, it had entire tribes under its command, and when it came time to fight the PCs, it took to the air, went invisible, and used tactics which caused over half the group to die before they even got the chance to fight back.

And if you run the entire world like that - where the intelligent monsters use intelligence, tactics, build up forces (whether they're chaotic bands of orcs with goblin minions in the front, or fire giants with hellhounds and other nasties), then things tend to look grim.

I'm running an invasion campaign currently, and I'm looking at this and looking at the PCs, and going 'not a hope in hell'.

In my Golarion there's lots of good non-human races, I just don't need stats for something the PCs aren't going to fight.

That works if you're altering the setting and adding elements. Of course, if the PCs do wind up wanting to fight someone who's Good (since it can happen, there's nothing stopping Good people from being opposed to the actions of other Good people) - what then?

FWIW, the preponderance of baddies doesnt lead me to think the universe is over-run by evil. I dont think the Bestiaries are intended to 'flesh out the world' (I think the campaign setting and player's companions serve that purpose and most of them are more heavily focussed on good guys than the bestiaries are). I think the bestiaries are intended primarily as game aids and secondarily as background material and thus are skewed towards providing what Paizo think most people need for their game.

Skewed, most certainly. However, they add creatures from the campaign books into these bestiaries, so I'm willing to believe that the bestiaries help to lay out what PCs can encounter in the setting, which means that they are a part of the ecology. Hell, I ran a campaign until the PCs were about level 14-15, and it got to the point where I was looking at impending encounters, and went, 'there is NO way the local civilizations would survive under these conditions - if the PCs don't stop this thing, the entire barony would be laid to waste', and then had to figure out how the region would survive under *normal* conditions without the heroes present.

But that's more an issue with a level-based system, than one involving the presence of an overwhelming number of hostile forces.

@Christopher LaHaise

Have you seen the Summon Good Creature feat and the adjusted summoning list in Champions of Purity yet? :)

Unfortunately, no I haven't. I'll go peek at it sometime soon. :)

From the summon nature's ally I spell (CRB page 354): "All creatures summoned with this spell without alignment subtypes have an alignment that matches yours, regardless of their usual alignment. Summoning these creatures makes the summoning spell’s type match your alignment."

Hope that helps!

Huh! Actually, it does. Thanks! (Still doesn't deal with the general issue, but it does help in this instance)

Reminds me of UO - you start out as a blue player, one of the "good guys". You work up your character by going into dungeons and forests and killing monsters (or animals, as the situation requires it). You fight red players: the bad guys, players who kill other players.

At some point, blues usually give up on good and go evil, joining the reds to kill the usually-weaker blues.

Reds don't need to bother killing monsters, because they've done that before. They're better off going after the more organised, presumably more intelligent armies of good guys, showing off their power and turning them to the dark side.

Having never played UO, I never knew this. Huh, that's actually kind of interesting, and depressing. Thanks for sharing though, appreciated.

Why didn't she just summon the evil ones? They're under her command, so they won't do anything she doesn't want them to do, and the alignment descriptor of the spells is meaningless to an arcane caster.

She was treated as a divine caster, since she was using the druidic spell list? I'm not certain. I do know (if I were GMing), if she summoned evil creatures, even if she wasn't evil herself, they'd follow her commands, but they'd act according to their alignments. Meaning, if she summoned a CE monster, and she commanded it to attack her opponents, it would do it in the most horrific and brutal fashion, and possibly take out innocents along the way if necessary.

Depends entirely on your game world. Nothing says you have to use Golarion, and even if you do, you don't have to use anything in it. It's your game; the PF Canon Police aren't going to break down your door if you decide that the typical drow in your game is LG. Canon is just a crutch; it's your game, do what you want with it. Don't feel restricted by other people's ideas.

I'll presume you're being earnest and aren't talking down to me. ;) You're not telling me anything I don't already know - I've been designing and running RPGs for almost 30 years.

The point is, as I had said before: I do not want to have to resort to house rules. I would rather not have to use 'handwavium' to ignore the fact that, if you play out-of-the-box, the PC races would have died a horrible, tragic death ages ago.

If you look at the setting from an ecological point of view, there literally is *nothing* stopping evil creatures from destroying civilization. They outnumber the other races, and they use tactics the other races would never consider doing.

Fine, I get it, that's the canon setting. But, beyond the 'faerie court' thing, here's an example.

My sister decided to play a sorcerer that uses druidic spells instead of arcane spells. She specifically limited herself to the plant list. Then she looked to see about summoning spells to summon plant monsters to serve at her side.

Digging through Bestiary 1, 2, and 3... almost every single 'aware' plant creature (animal intelligence or more) was evil. I think we lucked out and found one, maybe two neutral ones, and no good ones (I might be wrong, I can check again). Sure, the GM could have hand-waved it away, and allowed her to go with 'good' variants, but why should that be a requirement to playing the game?

I think this thread does sort of drive the point home - reskinning, rebranding, and shifting the rules points to the problem as a whole - that this is almost necessary to fill this niche.

And yes, the main campaign setting is supposed to be 'mostly evil, for the heroes to rise up', which is fine - but if it is played straight - as in, the GM doesn't slant things in the PC's favour, and allows the world to regulate in a mostly-realistic fashion, civilization would be crushed. Sure, evil beings would fight evil beings, but they'd also mulch good beings through sheer population disparity.

Actually, the comment about the fae was a good one as well - try making a faerie court, and see how far you get before you have to start house-ruling.

And the 'race' thing has always been a problem - it's one reason why in my setting intelligent races aren't inherently good or evil unless there is a literal supernatural force driving them. Free will, and all that.

1. I don't think that the intent is for any game world to have a significant population of EVERY monster ever printed. It's more of a menu of options. "LIke those, like those, don't like those ..."

2. The baseline assumption is that the PCs will be good guys, so good guy monsters don't need stats because the PCs won't be fighting them. They just do what they need to do based on the needs of the plot.

3. Any monster can be any alignment, so long as it has free will. Even so called 'always X' alignment creatures can change if properly motivated.

1) If they're in the Bestiary, for example, then they're in the canonical setting unless said otherwise. Mind, it's a big world, so not every creature will be found everywhere, but the case stands that the evil far outweigh the good.

2) That's a bad baseline assumption. I've not played a 'good' character in two campaigns now - one was true Neutral, this one's Lawful Neutral. Even if the opponent is 'good', we may be at cross purposes - and even if you're good, and you encounter someone else who's good, you may be on the opposite side of a confrontation - the sheet is still necessary.

2a) Plot?

3) Yes, there can be exceptions. That's not really relevant - we're talking about societies here. Sure, you can in theory run into a Lawful Good drow. The odds of you running into a Lawful Good drow society? Ehh, not so much. And I'd rather have something down in a rulebook, rather than having to use handwavium.

Christopher LaHaise wrote:

I'd rather see a bestiary that's spread across the spectrum, more or less in equal parts.

I disagree that most monsters in a Bestiary should be the "helpful" kind though.

Not 'most'. Just an even spread, covering the entire alignment spectrum. A few creatures that are horrific and evil, a few that are good and helpful, a handful that are neutral, some that can be all the above.

Yes, most gaming groups are non-evil. That's actually not the point though. Sure, put some new adversaries into the bestiary - I'm fine with that - but don't make that the majority of the book. It's a pain in the rump looking for creatures for PCs to encounter that are 1) intelligent, 2) non-evil, 3) non-hostile, 4) not the normal races. If I want to throw a monster at the PC, sure that's easy but if I want to throw something else? That's a lot harder, since the list available is much, much smaller.

The NPC Codex doesn't cover it - I'm not looking for specific characters, I'm looking for monsters, races, and so forth. Guardians of ancient lore, caretakers of foreign lands, wandering heroic figures from lost civilizations, and the like - none of which are necessarily evil, and none of a race the PCs have ever seen.

Sure, some of these could be PC races (Android was an excellent example), but the fact is, the books are weighted towards 'things to kill', rather than 'things to encounter', and this makes, canonically, the world a horrific place filled with evil that outnumbers the humanoid races by a rather large margin. If I played it straight, the human cultures wouldn't stand a chance.

I'd rather see a bestiary that's spread across the spectrum, more or less in equal parts.

I agree to some extent, and dislike the notion that members of a non-Outsider race would be evil at heart, rather than evil by upbringing.

However, one thing to keep in mind is that the evil races don't necessarily only go after those who are good/neutral. When the evil races conduct attrition wars against each other, a nearby civilized society may survive just fine on the outside of the war.

That is something I considered as well - if they're against one another, they're not necessarily against a civilized nation, but just the sheer number of things out and about doesn't help things much for the demihuman races.

And yeah, I'm less inclined to accept 'X non-outsider race is all evil'. I can accept a society as being 'evil' in that the people in charge might be, but that shouldn't mean the majority of the race is as well.

I have noticed in d20 / PF gaming, that when monster books come out, the vast majority of the entries - especially the intelligent ones - are evil. Pages and pages of horrors, villains, and adversaries to pit against the heroes. That's nice and all, but that kind of skews the idea that the entire ecology of the world is designed to wipe out the demihuman races, and for all practical intents and purposes, they'd win.

What I'd really like to see are more entries slanted towards Lawful and Good creatures. And I don't mean 4-5 in a book, I'm talking a good quarter-to-half of the book, showing creatures you might encounter that you could team up with, interact and trade with, and generally don't need to sweat encountering.

Or, perhaps, creatures whose alignments swing through the entire spectrum, much like humans, elves, dwarves, etc, have. Basically, 'just people' - a society that you can encounter where the entire race wouldn't be bent on killing you. The Bestiary books are cool, but my world-building looks at all of this and asks me, 'how on earth would anyone survive?'

I'm actually quite familiar with the pipefox. It had nothing to do with pipes (for smoking), and were fox spirits contained in tubes that were worn on the belt (pipes, as in piping). A kitsune-tsuki would call on the powers of the fox in question, and was effectively a magician.

This is an... interesting... interpretation.

Sorry to necromancer a thread, but I'm actually curious about something else involving Bestow Curse and the 50% not-to-act effect. Does this apply outside of combat time? If someone has a 50% chance of not acting, does this mean any desired 'goal' which involves a series of actions would simply take longer?

For example, 'I open the door and head to the bar' -- he has a 50% chance of being able to complete this action on his turn -- if he fails, he might take a bit longer to actually get where he's wanting to go.

Or is it restricted to only combat time?

I really don't understand those people who complain about guns in a fantasy setting. Fantasy means 'magic' and such exists in the setting, it doesn't mean 'middle ages but without technology'. Steampunk is fantasy, and there's guns. There's 'urban fantasy' which is set in a more modern period. There's historical fantasy.

Gunpowder and the advance of technology happens, even in 'fantasy' settings. Worlds evolve, and there should be nothing wrong with introducing gunpowder or any other advancements in society that we've seen.

Hell, if you're going with 'middle ages', hit some history books or the web, and look at what kind of technology existed in different parts of the world - you'll be surprised at what you can find.

The one thing that gets me is this: Why is the Shadowdancer the only thing in Pathfinder which can suffer XP / level loss? This makes no sense, considering that Pathfinder strives to ensure everyone, at all times, remains the same level.

I can see a temporary negative level perhaps (a month, maybe?) but a permanent level loss seems a bit much.

When to 'cheat'. That's certainly a matter of opinion, since my idea usual opinion is 'don't'. Even as a GM.

So, finished Easy with all the magic types, I'm finished Cleric on normal, and going through Necromancer on Normal. Oh, the swearing my wife heard when I was playing the Cleric though... that was incredibly frustrating!

I noticed that when you win a card, you automatically have that card assigned to your next game. And you keep that card, I think, until you've won a game with it in your pool. I might be wrong however, but I noticed that I wasn't getting my Fire Elemental when I was going up against myself... again, and again, and again, and...

I had Duels of the Planeswalkers (and the other expansions for the Magic computer game), and while Sealed Deck was interesting, I was more of a deck-builder. I loved designing decks, handing them to the computer, then playing against them with other self-designed decks, trying different themes and strategies. (Oh, how I wish that game line was still supported!)

Different people, different preferences... I can respect that. :)

I've gone through everything in the campaign mode on Easy, and I've developed a number of strategies, but I won't be able to really say much about them until I'm in Normal mode. We'll see. :) Besides that, I still stand by my review (4/5 stars), and still think this is a good time-killing game.

I keep hoping something will unlock if I go far enough. ;)

Hi, I am one of the designers of Spectromancer and wanted to post a few words on this game.

I would also like to mention, since it is a topic in this thread and one on other forums I have been involved with - there is no deck construction. I like deck construction (I am kind of obligated to), but I also like games that don't have deck construction - like Sealed deck Magic, or Bridge. In these games players must sometimes play out of their comfort zone to do well - they must figure out how to use what they have been given to the fullest.

Wow. :) Nice to finally get a chance to talk to you. I'm honoured.

Fair enough, and I can understand where you're coming from - but for some of my friends (and admittedly, myself), deck-construction is a big part of the draw for us. Perhaps, somewhere down the line, Spectromancer could have 'constructive' play, and the normal 'sealed' play, giving people an opportunity to try the game in either style, as per their preferences.

I've tried 'normal' difficulty, and... gah, that's actually pretty hard with the normal style of play. Going up against the archmage in duel mode is frighteningly hard, and while I do like a challenge, I don't like the 'odds' that spring up when I'm trying to play. I like a sense that my tactics and the decisions I made going in play a lot more into my chances of victory than a random draw and what I can do with what I have.

Don't get me wrong, I've been able to beat my opponents with cards which I'd normally overlook, but I notice that I've got a few 'standard' tactics that I use (phoenix + fire 10+ being a staple, or meditating to speed up to getting elementals, then buffing said elementals).

In campaign mode, deck construction isn't a big factor until the middle/end game, when there's enough variety that the cards you're accustomed to start to 'disappear', replaced with other cards you've collected. That is where the frustration sets in -- I'll get Armageddon in Fire - when I have no interest in it. Or my Air Elemental vanishes to be replaced with that 'nuke one creature' spell. Yes, these spells are nifty, but the benefits from the elementals interests me much more (increased mana gain is awesome).

I can see stepping away from Magic (and such) by limiting the randomness and deck design, but that intellectual aspect of the game was a big draw for it, and the play was just icing on that cake. Admittedly, Spectromancer doesn't have a huge amount of cards for design, but there's enough to make personal styles of play, I think. Some people like the 'big boom' of Fire, while others like the increase damage / mana gain of the elementals, orcs, and minotaurs (as an example). Personal tastes, I guess.

Still. Nice game, and I think it was worth the money I put into it. Once my friends can get over (we're in a bus strike right now, zero transportation in this city... :p), I'm looking forward to showing them the game and playing hot-seat to actually play against one another.

Kudos. :)

Oh, one last thing while I remember it: Those undead dudes should probably not sacrifice their jar first turn. Really. They shouldn't do it at all. ;) I was really shocked when it happened, and was like 'err, sure, give me the easy win'. ;)

Okay, I've tried online duelling, and I've even tried the one-on-one against the AI. I'm definitely going to have to back my earlier assessment, which is to say: random cards doesn't work. I've gone into a few games, staring at my cards, and not finding any synergy (such as, for example, a complete lack of 'heal creature' or 'heal self' cards).

Seriously, the idea behind the game works, but the randomness of what you get to use doesn't. If a used card 'vanished' to be replaced by another card of that element type, that might be something, because then you could cycle to get what you want (hell, even toss in a 'dump card', which could be used once per turn to replace it with something else), but I still prefer the idea of 'build your own', which allows you to select what cards you'll be using in a duel.

I didn't even bother with the demo, I picked up the full version just from what little I heard about it. I generally trust Paizo's judgment in this kind of thing, and Richard Garfield didn't go wrong when he first made Magic.

I posted my review (4/5) for it, and my only quibble is the randomness of what you get to use for any given duel. If this game allowed 'deck building', I'd have given it a 5/5. I'd have been pleased as punch if you were given the option of making a 'deck' of 4 cards for each Element, and could go into each duel with that 'deck'. Once you get a new card you like, swap out an old one for a new one.

I see cards I use consistently, and a few I ignore completely because they don't fit my style of play. Keeping this completely random makes some encounters in Campaign mode especially annoying, and you have to 'shuffle' to get a combination you can use. That, I think, detracts from the game.

Online play, I think, would fall into the same boat (admittedly, I've not tried this yet). Player versus Player becomes a combination of skill, and a huge bit of luck when it comes to the draw. Did you get cards which play off each other well? Did you get things which actually hinder each other?

So far, I'm okay with the game, but I'll like it much more if a future version allows 'deck design'. Beyond that (okay, I admit, there's also a few typo and gender-pronoun mix-ups in campaign mode), good game.

I just have to try this now.
Snork.
Ha! Snorks are immune!