Darth PUGS!'s page

Before the PFRPG came out I made myself a document based on the various Tyranid models I had. The I had was to take Tyranids and blend them thematically with the Slivers from the M:tG universe and work in a whole storyline for my game. Well, it worked sort of, but during play test it just proved too complicated the way I had done it and I never got back to refining the idea.

Ultimately I did about 20 or so pages of work on it and it has sat gathering digital dust ever since. If you are interested let me know and maybe I can email you what I did, or post it in sections, or whatever. If not, I will not be offended by any means.

In the mean time, here is one of the stabs I took at the Lictor for 3.5. Mine came in at CR 16 (though I suspect even that is subjective); hopefully you can get some ideas from it.

LICTORS
Lictors rove ahead of Tyranid ground swarms seeking out pockets of enemy resistance to be eradicated and native life forms to be absorbed. Lictors are often referred to as Spooks or Mantis Stalkers because of their unnerving behavioural patterns and combat techniques. Lictors are intelligent and possess highly developed sensory organs so they can see, smell, hear and taste their prey long before it becomes aware of their presence. Lictors are highly adapted to survival in hostile environments as an apex predator. Stalking Lictors exude a pheromone trail which draws other Tyranid creatures in their wake. A larger concentration of prey stimulates a stronger pheromone response and brings a larger group of trailing Tyranids.

LICTOR CR 16
Large Magical Beast (Tyranid)

HD: 9D10+54 HP: 103

Initiative: +3
Speed: 40ft.
Synaptic Range: 300ft.
BAB: +9 ; Grap +21 (+9 BAB, +4 Str., +4 Large Size, +2 Multi-Limbed, +2 Flesh Hooks)
Attack Actions:
+13 melee (1d10+4, heavy bone-claw), or
+12 ranged (3d4, fleshhooks), or
Full Attack Action:
+13/+13 melee (1d10+4, two heavy bone-claws) and +9/+9 melee (1d8+4 two claws [POISONOUS]), or +8/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8 touch (1d4,...

I would definitely be interested in your conversions, I am going to be running a starfinder campaign and wanted the tyranids in it as well as the swarm

Hey all!

Wanted to let you know that based on user feedback, our User Collab team made it so you can modify how you automatically roll (or not!) for critical damage. http://roll20.io/12Nov2019

There's some pretty nice progress on the PF2 sheet so if you check it out, let me know!

thats a pretty awesome change/addition, I'm looking to run some 2nd edition at some point on roll20 so will definitely be checking this out

We'll definitely be working on Age of Ashes as soon as we're able, and Bestiary is currently getting worked on.

I know there are some text-only games or play by post. You could always try the LFG search, or you could create your own post for it? Loud households are definitely not conducive to using voice chat.

And yeah, modules are kind of heavenly as an adult. I love doing homebrew and world-building but oh wow there's only so much time in a day.

when will paizo finish adding pathfinder 1st edition and starfinder adventure paths to roll 20? yall made this huge announcement about the partnership and lil to nothing has come of it. meanwhile DnD has all their stuff added to roll20 pretty much shortly after launch if not at launch.

I'm, not trying to be a jerk or anything, just curious as there is only one module to an adventure path for starfinder on roll20 and that been out for a long time now

Bards were 6-level spellcasters in 1e and have become 9-level in 2e. Paladins were 4-level in 1e and now don’t get spells at all (but always start out with at least one Focus Spell).

I like the new bard, and I recently converted my 1e warpriest (a 6-level spellcasting class) into a Liberator. I was a little worried about losing true spellcasting but the PCs focus was always on his weapon damage anyway. The spells were just to augment him; or for utility. So I gave him all the domain Focus Spells and Mercy/Liberating Step feats and I’m pretty happy with the result. He can’t cast real spells but he has plenty of flavorful magic options and is great with his weapon.

Anyway, my point is that I’m not losing sleep over not having partial spellcasters in 2e but I’m wondering if we ever will get them. Will it just be 9-level or bust? You’re either a full spellcaster or your only option is to have Focus Spells if you want to be somewhat, but not completely, magical.

What do you guys think?

Did you look at multiclassing cleric and fighter at all to try to get the same feel of warpriest or did it just not work?

So differences between 5th and 2nd.

Action economy (the basis of pretty much all combat design, of which most of the game is built around)

Power scaling (power scales faster and harder in pf2 by a massive factor)

Doesn't use 5e core adjustment mechanic (advantage and disadvantage)

Multiple character choices at every level (5e depending on class you might not make any choices for 2 or 3 levels)

Multiclassing isnt level based (it is in 5e)

Characters have multiple scales of competence (5e is binary)

Similarities

The same similarities all dndlikes have.

Proficiency shares the same name.

Honestly have zero clue where people get the copying 5e from, seems totally unfounded. Unless you haven't read one of the rulebook.

the action economy is exactly the same with 3 actions per turn.

but this is getting off topic of the ops question now.

I will have to disagree that it works with any list. I found the psychic lists had a different 'feel' to arcane or divine lists, entirely separate from its different components.

I agree that the current occult list probably fits best of the currently available lists. I would still prefer that 'psychic' have its own source though.

maybe ultimate psionics will get converted to second edition and take care of that for us.

Unfortunately, there is no way to have Large fists on a Medium or smaller body, so no Giant Instinct.

Someday.

if only we had fist weapons that counted as unarmed strike and powerful build.

Darth PUGS! wrote:

its pretty much a carbon copy of 5th edition

Saying it over and over doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

Saying its nonsensical does not make it any less true

Marc Radle wrote:

Hey there Captain - can you expound on what you mean by ‘the language and steps to make the game more inclusive’?

There are two full pages dedicated to being considerate of others, basically. It includes suggestions for classic devices like X cards or Lines and Veils, the Pathfinder baseline for expectations of objectionable content, talking about what limits people have ahead of time, etc. There also little touches like pronouns being included on your character sheet that I really appreciate.

The bestiary is also very gender fluid with its pronouns. and even has mobs like the succubi, which has traditionally been female only with incubi being male only, as being gender fluid and identifying as male or female. My opinion this was entirely unnecessary as this should be a no brainer but I know there are a lot of people that appreciate the nod to them and inclusiveness.

I'm trying to withhold judgment until I get to play the final version of the rules, but I'm going to have to avoid champions for a while. I just came off a PF1 campaign with four paladin PCs, and so when I see that you need to use all your class feats up to level 8 just to get the stuff that PF1 paladins got automatically by level 2, it soured me to character creation a bit.

I would have preferred if they took paladin, monk, or druid, figured out all the abilities those classes got in the first couple levels, and made that the baseline that everyone else should match.

I agree with you there, and all the feats you have to blow too to even remotely feel like a paladin should is stupid.

I am at odds with a lot of things in 2nd edition. But some of the biggest things that strike me is how several martial classes used to have feature a, and b baked in now choose said features as a feat and can't get both, its either a or b and they are mutually exclusive to one another.

Its a mixed bag for me, some monk features for example i never used, others i used all the time, so now i can just pick and choose what i want, but at the same time i fell weaker cause it used to get it all for free.

It takes a bit for me to get used too. Its a cool concept i just have to theory craft more to really wrap my head around it all i guess. it feels very much like a weird take on 5th edition.

That seems like a really superficial take (and a little bit nonsensical in general with the 5e comparison).

its pretty much a carbon copy of 5th edition, with just a few changes here and there. Not that that is a bad thing, i just don't think we will see the partial casting we used to see.

I do not recall anyone from Paizo ever saying that. That being said I don't expect it to take to long for them to do a third edition. Pretty sure they ran out of ideas for first, decided that 5th edition was the best version to copy and refine due to popularity like they did with D&D 3.5 for first edition and eve online for pathfinder online and will re-release a lot of 1st edition stuff in second edition format, and then release a third edition when its clear second edition was a move in the wrong direction or was a critical success but can not monetize it any longer due to running out of ideas again.

I don't hate second edition, I just don't see a reason for it over first edition since it feels so much like D&D 5th edition.

pretty sure what we see now is what we get. kinda sucks that paladin lost its spell casting, then again paladin does not even look like a paladin anymore.

I don't think we will ever see the magus as we had it in 1st edition or any partial casting classes. they went all in on the DnD 5th edition copy paste with the weird new mechanics to pathfinder it.

Not that a critical mass of people now have their books, I want to ask a general question.

Is Pathfinder 2 a better game then its predicessor Pathfinder 1?

That is like asking if D&D 5th edition is a better game than pathfinder 1st edition.

From what I have seen of the new edition play test blogs second edition of pathfinder is looking like 5th edition D&D with the same action and reaction economy set up. The simplification of monster stat blocks also remind me of D&D 5th ed. Then we have Backgrounds like in 5th edition.

Do we really need a new edition or is this just a case of keeping pace with D&D? Will all, if any, of my current 1st edition books be compatible with second edition? How much of a change are we looking at here? is it the same level of change AS D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder 1 or is it more similar in scope to D&D 3.5 to say 4th or 5th ed?

Will Pathfinder first ed continue to be supported at all? I have stuck with pathfinder because I found first edition to be the perfect system and stuck with for so long because each subsequent edition of D&D just got farther and farther away from what was great about 3rd ed and pathfinder.

** spoiler omitted **

Do I need the society adventure path books as a player for society play?Or are these geared for GM use?