Dark Midian's page

On the whole redemption thing, don't forget that one of the potential after-campaign subplots for Wrath of the Righteous was attempting to redeem a Runelord lich.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Locotomo wrote:

Yes, why don‘t you take 30 mins of your time and update your core rulebook pdf, especially starship combat dc‘s?

That would be awesome, thank you very much

Don't think that's done in 30m

I'm a graphic designer and so have some idea of the process it would require. If given access to their systems, I could have it done in 5. The only thing holding it back is company policy.

^ This. They could easily make an errata PDF like they do when a book goes into a new printing, put it on the product page, and say, "This document will be added to the official book once we run into a new printing, for now people can print it out." The only thing stopping them is their errata policy and the time/money investment of the team doing more errata and someone whipping up such a PDF.

I kind of feel this way, but mostly for errata and such. It would be great if we could get some of the SF team to sit down and do another round of FAQs for the Core Rulebook and the Armory.

It seems to me this is a problem for organized play but in any home game or in the system in general, you can just make the consumable items much harder to find. Though economical from a GP perspective healing a level 10 barbarian twice take a whole wand and game time.

This article seems to be missing key aspects of game design. Does this make the game more fun, more immersive, or more easily adopted. I would say from the tone of the article the answer is no. The most frequent 1st ed complaint about items was that some were mandatory and filled slots that can be used for more fun and interesting items. It is the reason the company wrote the automatic bonus progression, which became a highly utilized rule system.

This is an answer to a problem very few people had. Look at the success of Borderlands and Diablo people love loot and magic items make them fun and helpful but not mandatory that is how you fix the problem.

Ding ding ding. Resonance sounds completely devised for PFS play.

Now that that's all settled, let's get back to some mild spoilers.

Marco Massoudi wrote:

Skeld, which Runelords survived how?

** spoiler omitted **

Marco Massoudi wrote:

Which RLs are fought in which books?

** spoiler omitted **

-Skeld

I'll be blunt: This playtest is not an alpha, not by a longshot. It's barely even a beta. This is more like an interactive sneak peek of their new system, with the chance for us to help tweak a few minor numbers. I would estimate that unless there is some very, very strong universal feedback on certain mechanics like say resonance, nearly all of the major mechanics are set in stone.

Sounds neat, looking forward to seeing the new and clarified rules for them!

... cant shake the feeling though, that stagstep suit looks oftely familiar somehow. Destiny maybe?

Other than the huge stag horns, it actually does look like an armor set a Titan from Destiny would wear. There is actually a Warlock helmet that has horns like that; appropriately, it's called "The Stag". :P

magnuskn wrote:

Honestly, the magic item crafting rules are one of the first things I will look up in the playtest book. They have vexed me for the entirety of 3.X/PF's existance and I hope that the devs have made them less prone to break campaigns.

The designers have made them less prone to break campaigns (and simultaneously less likely to be useless in the way Excaliburproxy noted while I was typing this post).

Honestly, they were one of the first things my group had to houserule in PF1, and one of the only rules I can think of where the PF1 rule wasn't an improvement over the 3.5 rule (removing XP cost as a thing was a good idea, but replacing it with no cost for magic item crafting was not). I feel like maybe you and I have talked about this from before I worked at Paizo, but that may have been someone else in the Paizo board community.

Let me guess, it will likely be like SF where it's practically useless unless you want something customized or need to make something that you can't get at the moment?

For literal years my group got by with a game mat that we all pitched in on and beer bottle caps with numbers and letters written on them with Sharpies for "minis", glass stones for tokens, and any lid we could find for bigger enemies.

If I were going to protect a building that I live in, I'd prefer something less toxic than lead . . . .

But I like the original post recommended solution to scry and fry.

Why do you think most casters go mad? It's the lead in the walls. ;)

Skeld wrote:

And a lot of that went back to Paizo's orginal request of the gaming community (the same request they've made in every playest since and the one they're running for PF2): they wanted playest feedback, not theorycraft. "I created a DPR spreadheet of this attack option mechanic and found it to be mathematically inferior to this other attack action mechanic" will always get less designer attention than "I played this and I had fun." It's baked into the DNA of the playtest: play it and give us feedback.

Saying "that's what Paizo asked for" is just kicking the can down the road. And can we dispense with the pseudo-wisdom that "mere theorycraft" is somehow less valuable than the results of what we can assume are not rigorous tests? Theorycrafting is the result of a playtest with an infinitely large sample size. You don't need to run experiments to find out what the rules of the world are when it's a simulated world whose rules are readily available.

"My Rogue has no trouble hitting" is fairly meaningless for testing purposes. Maybe you did have trouble hitting and don't remember it, or your rolls happened to be mostly good, or the GM used lower AC enemies than usual, or, or, or.

Lots of people have fun playing RIFTS or WoD, partly because playing games with your friends is fun in general, and partly because the settings of those systems are fun for many people even though mechanically the systems are tire fires. "It's not fun" is often a good indication that something's wrong, but "it's fun" is not necessarily an indication that nothing's wrong.

You. I like you.

While the devs can say that "theorycrafting takes a backseat to in-game data" all they like, a group of several hundred players doing number-crunching is much more likely to find errors in the system's basic math than the roughly dozen people they have working on this book, assuming everyone is devoted to the crunchy number bits. Sure, you're going to get people who are going to use theorycrafting to try and say a class is over-or-underpowered, but that's a good chance for someone like Mark Seifter to pop up and explain a class's math and why the previous claim is either correct or incorrect.

Paizo did the right thing by making single-classing attractive over the 3.x Frankenstein's monster builds of yesteryear.

I'm legit hoping the final AP has the PCs building up to fight a rampaging Tarrasque, and PF1 ends with the entirety of the Inner Sea region devastated and rebuilding.

Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:

Madclaw wrote:

Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:

NetoD20 wrote:

They are changing small aspects of their costumes. I would absolutely love if Ezren were to get a pointy-hat.

Assuming he's not too old to adventure now.

Are you kidding? Ezren may be getting older but he still keeps in shape. I mean have you seen mythic Ezren? Dude is swole! His adventuring days aren't done yet.

It's been 10 years since PF1, and he was already really old by then, he could've died of old age by now.

I figure his age is kind of fixed in time. Like how Batman has been in his 30s since the 1930s.

Batman is at the youngest in his late 30s, if not early 40s. Dick Grayson and Jason Todd are both in their early-mid 20s.

None of these are basic, common or sense to me. They're more of "a history buff is mad because they want a simulation of medieval Europe and what they get is some Gygax guy throwing names at things at random" frankly.

Hey, I'd love to do away with "studded leather", rename it "brigandine", and make it obvious that the metal plates are the main protective component and not the leather. :v

The other ones really are kind of pedantic, especially the dagger one; what, did you want the dagger to be 2d6, x4 crit just because people used to finish others off with it?

Xenocrat wrote:

A Reddit report from Garycon said there’s a limit on how many use activated magic items you can use per day, which included wands. His was only 1+Cha, so spamming CLW wands won’t work anymore and you’ll have to invest in higher level cures at some point. It also makes shields more valuable if you can’t heal cheaply between fights.

Terrible idea. I'm definitely going to be against this.

Yeah, it sounds like they're trying to enforce simplicity by saying "No magic item healing after a certain times per day." I hope that this gets absolutely shredded in the playtest, because I don't want to see a repeat of SF's "You can only have so many magic items on you at a time" deal.

I imagine they’ll be... cautious on rolling out Mythic or similar, given the response last time.

No public playtesting on a brand new power system PLUS doubling down with an entire AP based on said untested power system. The response they got was entirely their own fault.

Backgrounds as a replacement for traits, archetypes being prestige classes, bulk, magic item limits.

And WOW, that last AP is a DOOZY.

Is Golarion exploding to make way for Starfinder's story? Or is this like an Order of the Stick scenario where suddenly there's a flash of light and everything's updated to the new edition? ;)

Just please, make the cleric/oracle spell list suck a little less. Clerical magic took a big hit in 3e when the list got stretched to nine levels, as opposed to six previously. Also, more diverse clerics!

1. Okay.

2 & 3: No. Nononononononono.

We're not going back to the days where you couldn't multiclass out of monk and paladin. They got rid of those rules in 3.5 by the end anyway, once you took a feat you could multiclass out of paladin into specific other classes.

The "one chance" thing is a flavor thing; it literally only matters for 1st level characters since there are no multiclassing paladins in your theoretical campaign.

Do all of this in your home games if you like. Don't make it canon.

Honestly, if there's another thing that I'd like Paizo to take notes on from 5e, it's "Use errata as clarifications/fixes, not balance passes." I get that PFS is a thing, but please, PF2e should let the practice of nerfing things into the ground for no reason die, especially when errata itself is so rare because of the book reprint requirement.

Really, I just hope that this isn't Pathfinder: Starfinder Edition and that the devs actually take note of complaints in the playtest, as long as those complaints are conveyed respectfully and positively.

The last playtest we had, toxicity aside, we had devs basically tell us, "We don't need you to crunch numbers for us, we don't need armchair devs." Well, considering this is a new system (If it isn't SF-based), that's exactly what's going to happen. A few thousand of us fans crunching numbers compared to a few dozen devs is liable to catch something someone missed.

Dark Midian wrote:

Hey Mark, simple question this time.

In Starfinder, whenever the core rulebook says something like, "You pay 110% of the item's base cost", does that mean you simply pay an additional 10% over the item's base cost or do you actually pay double the item's cost and then 10% extra?

I am really really not an official source for Starfinder, even more so than being not an official for Pathfinder. That said, 110% of something mathematically means 10% more than full.

See, I knew that math degree would count for more than being an SF guy. ;)

I guess saying "Pay the full cost + 10% extra" would have been too much wordage.

Oh lookie here...

So technically, if Ghost gets a +1 to Stealth for trick attacks when supposedly it wasn't really supposed to because it gets a Dex-based skill for TA, wouldn't/shouldn't Daredevil also get a +1, because it gets a Dex-based skill for TA?

Hey Mark, simple question this time.

In Starfinder, whenever the core rulebook says something like, "You pay 110% of the item's base cost", does that mean you simply pay an additional 10% over the item's base cost or do you actually pay double the item's cost and then 10% extra?

I only saw one major thread for this about five months ago, so I figure I'd give this a shot once the dust had settled for the Core Rulebook being out.

The rulebook states:

Now, normally, upgrading your computer makes the thing bulky and hard to transport, but doesn't cost anything more than what the table for tier costs says it does.

To upgrade a comm unit however, you have to pay over double the cost of the tier AND presumably it still makes your comm unit bigger so you basically have to pay for the miniaturization upgrade to transport it anywhere? Is there a reason for price hike?

Also, are upgrades subject to the 110% umbrella?

Fallout is what people think of for futuristic power armor? Really?

Not Doomguy or Master Chief? :v

It's as it says. You can activate it as many times as you like, but these kinds of abilities usually have a clause that says you have to use it in round/minute/hour increments. So if you activate it once, there's a round. Deactivate and reactivate? Another round.

1. If you mean "Can I use Explosive Missile to infuse an alchemical item?", no. The most recent version of the Explosive Missile alchemist discovery specifically states it has to be an "arrow, crossbow bolt, or one-handed firearm bullet."

2. Correct.

3. Correct, except the part mentioned in #1. You can't use Explosive Missile on alchemical items.

4. It's up to you. It would cost the user three uses of their bombs, so it would be a "nova" option that would very quickly get outclassed. Technically, as long as the weapon being used is ranged, it would be fine rule-wise.

Hey Mark, less of a rules question on this one. What are the chances of the Void kineticist element getting printed in a hardcover book? Did you ever bring up the idea for it to be in Planar Adventures?

A. 5th edition D&D is doing very well. One of Pathfinder's biggest niches was "Hey, at least we're better than 4e, and we're still roughly like that old system you liked!" Now that WotC is actually putting up good competition with a recognized brand, it's natural that PF sales will slip.

B. Pathfinder is bloated. They're scaling back the amount of books because they finally realized that putting out books at breakneck speed is not the best way to go about things when everyone's already overworked AND they have a whole new system to worry about.

C. On top of B, Paizo has recently lost a number of high-level employees in the past year or so. They literally only have one forum moderator and seem unwilling or unable to fill the positions that are left.

Jason Keeley wrote:

John Warren wrote:

My question is, will this be Starfinder AP #7, or will the numbering start over for each Starfinder AP?

The Starfinder Adventure Path will be numbered like the Pathfinder Adventure Path; frex, Pathfinder Adventure Path #7 was Curse of the Crimson Throne 1 of 6.

I tried to get them to number the Starfinder Adventure Path volumes in binary, but was told there wouldn't be enough room on the spine for Starfinder Adventure Path #111.

The real missed opportunity was not going metric for Starfinder.

I'm envisioning the 80s "Satanism" backlash to D&D, only this time it's because Paizo would be trying to teach our innocent, impressionable youth about the mathematically-precise dangers of metric. :v

Believe there was a special clause in most of the ninja mooks's text in certain parts of the Jade Regent AP where they specifically said, "If it looks like they're about to get taken captive, they attempt to commit seppuku at the first opportunity, which is treated as a coup de grace attack on themselves."

Pretty sure it was one of the devs who mentioned it, but changing the "handedness" of a grip on a weapon is more or less a free action. All of this seems pretty legal to me as long as you have Quick Draw, although it is the final say of a GM as to how many free actions you can take on your turn.

Also, for future reference, it's "feat", not feet in this case. :v

Murder, but you also had to be basically the previous Runelord's apprentice. Think the Sith.

Old FAQ is old.

Three, I believe - Sorshen, Xanderghul, and Alaznist.

ye, that's what I remember JJ saying.

There are three categories for the final set of Runelords. There are the three lower level ones, who are all sub-20th level but have magical shenanigans to make them more powerful than they normally would be. These three are Krune (Sloth, dead), Zutha (Gluttony), and Belimarius (Envy). Each of them is at least 17th level.

The one in the middle is/was Karzoug (Transmutation). He was 20th level.

The 20th level + mythic end has Alaznist (Evocation), of whom JJ mentioned that she had just barely scratched the surface of mythic and was more of a warmage than a traditional wizard, and then Sorshen (Enchantment) and Xanderghul (Illusion), both of whom were strongly mythic with Xanderghul being stronger.

It's an older meme, sir, but it checks out!

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Perfect Tommy wrote:

Oh and buy 5-6 grey ioun stones. Paint the other ones.

Then coat them in enough wax to distort their shape so they can't be identified that way.

Just implant them.

Problem solved.

Implanting ioun stones is a gigantic pain if the GM sticks to all the relevant rules for starvation and dehydration for the fasting bit, plus the DC 20 Charisma check. Not to mention the high checks for the actual implantation bit.

Just saying, not to excuse your brother but if your homebrew world's story is "f@#$ing dead" from three characters dying, it might not be a very good story despite your attachment. It sounds rather like you had one "canon story" set up for your world; real games don't pan out like that.

You're better off writing a novel.

0.5: Pretty sure immunity to mind-affecting effects is just for harmful effects. Normally there's a clause somewhere in there that says if you're immune to all mind-affecting effects including beneficial ones like morale bonuses.

1. It'd be like having a follower, only you assume direct control. Separate initiative, separate spells, and so on. Your GM would have to be willing to play ball, of course.

2. No idea, probably not for sake of ease.

3. This one's a little awkward, since it isn't a possession effect but it says it functions similarly to possession the spell. I would say it doesn't work with this particular spell.

Man, the one book that would make sense to have the Void kineticist reprinted in.

This should be over in the Advice forum.

Also, you're looking for this: Erastil's Blessing

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

It's worth noting that playtesters tend to be a lot more toxic when they don't think they'll be heard. Just ask poor Mark Seifter, upon whom I once unloaded all my ill feelings about an Unchaining—only for him to pop in and graciously make me feel like the garbage I was! No excuse, of course. And don't forget, having Paizo staffers get active in Paizo threads costs money and time Paizo doesn't necessarily have.

Oh crap, I'm sorry for making you feel bad KC! When was this?

@Playtests and toxicity vs when people think they're being heard (or responded to), I think this is definitely true. For example, during the occult playtest, Jason got a reputation for not listening to his playtesters in the threads (you can see it if you look back through archived posts) because he didn't really have enough time to post more than rarely. But during redesign he read through every comment, multiple times, and cross-referenced everything he'd read to find common themes, leading to his being very responsive to playtest feedback, probably second only to me with the kineticist playtest in that regard (obviously since we had to scrap my original medium for space, I couldn't be as incorporating of feedback on the playtest version though I did use feedback from the people who had wanted a drastic redesign to help with that part). But it was not evident during the playtest because he didn't have time to both really crunch the feedback and be visible, so he chose the former, whereas I had time to do both due to spending way too much time out of work on the boards (like now posting at 11PM I guess X_X).

I realize this is another entire thread topic, but I got started with hardcore Pathfinder design as a playtester on these boards and am now a professional designer, so I'm deeply interested in the idea of playtesting, but it's also very tricky to do that and have people understand that getting no response doesn't mean being ignored. I have a few ideas I've been brewing over time in that...

To be fair, the bit about not being heard kind of continued into the Vigilante playtest, which aside from asinine comments like "This class doesn't need to exist, put a mask on your character and they're a vigilante!" mostly felt like there was only one dev talking to us on the regular and even outside of office hours. You were easily the most vocal, interactive dev working on that class. Jason, from what I remember, was busy with the convention circuit and doing promotions out of country for a great deal of the playtest, despite being the dev lead for the entire thing AND the avenger specialization (And you'll honestly have to forgive me for not remembering who did the warlock and zealot specializations before they were rolled into archetypes, that's how little I heard from them.)

By pure RAW, it's a racial feature that doesn't specifically say it functions as or like the class feature.

In practical RAI, it's the same damn thing and honestly any GM who tries to pull the "It's not the same thing!" semantics card should be belted with the Core Rulebook.

So, is it just me or does the gag order in the product thread for Ultimate Wilderness feel like damage control so that the book's first-week sales don't get hurt? Sure, people were getting a little salty, but what with the sandbagging reviews and the general discontent, it feels like a band-aid on a sword wound.

Alternative: Just go antipaladin with the tyrant archetype. 100% core, and now you can flavor yourself as a paladin of Asmodeus without being a dick about "Well, you guys don't have any real arguments against something clearly disallowed by the rules and common game sense in general!"