EvanHarpell's page

My understanding is the the interactive map files can't be used with VTTs. Otoh, you can extract the maps from the AP and put them up on MapTool or Roll20 or what-have-you. The extraction process removes the text, like marks for secret doors, but the actual tunnel behind the wall, or whatever, would still be visible unless you snipped or covered it somehow.

Normally yes, but but it appears that this time they added the "secret doors" on the actual map design itself instead of as tags that can be removed. Poor choice there IMO, but not enough to stop me from liking what I've seen so far. Depending on what VTT you use, it's easy enough to work around it. If you use Roll20 and have dynamic lighting, you can just bring the wall out a little further and no-one will know the difference.

Huh. That’s funny, I absolutely loved “Hellknight Hill” just leafing through it and skimming/reading bits made me WANT to get into PF2E, which I wasn’t planning on doing, like at all. But now I have the 2e Core Rulebook and Bestiary and I’m looking forward to more 2e goodness.

Same here. There's definable lacking, like organization and linkage on related items but that could just be my lack of understanding on how the new layouts were designed to work. Of course it could always just be sub-par design choice but that's subjective to what a given reader likes.

Either way, I am looking forward to starting this over the weekend with my group.

The Sideromancer wrote:

Coridan wrote:

So I may have missed it, but will Starfinder magic still be Vancian? It feels awkward for the setting.

At present, all casters are spontaneous.

I'd prefer power points like 3.5 Psionics or Everquest d20, but I'll settle for Spontaneous

I much prefer the ShadowRun style of Magic.

Having to "memorize" which spells you want is tedious and casting spells with a hard limit and no potential for backlash seems weird. Like you can only channel so much mana (totally makes sense) but what is the random arbitration that determines that outside of the "class gets x amount per day"?

Torbyne wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Also, can you give us a yes/no on this; is X that was in Pathfinder but isnt in Starfinder TWF? Can we not Grammaton Cleric, Dante's Ebony and Ivory, Trinity and Neo? umm... True Grit? i think double pistols are featured elsewhere too...

Two-weapon fighting has no advantage on attacks made per round without taking a feat. If you do take a feat (Multi-Weapon Fighting, which has no prerequisites) you don't gain additional attacks, but do take a lessoned penalty when making a full attack while welding multiple weapons.

So, a Kasatha wielding 4 pistols would still only make 2 attacks per round? Is this absolutely correct?

If I were that kasatha, I might be holding two pistols, one melee weapon, and a utility item of some kind, or potentially two melee weapons and one two-handed ranged weapon for one particular fun build, or one unwieldy doshko and one laser doshko so I can swap out when I move up and when I can full attack, and a few other possibilities. Those four arms really open up your options for some amazing combos, but they don't double your attacks over other characters and leave non-kasatha in your dust.

That sounds both fair and fun. i assume that dual wielding rifles is out for them as well?

You could swing that; it's one of the other "few other possibilities". There's no huge reason I didn't list that one; the first option I sort of adjusted from Mashallah's initial 4 pistol build and the other two are based on kasatha weapon lineups I've seen, but I've also seen dual big guns, especially if the big guns have different AoE shapes and damage types (maybe one for pinpoint targeting a single foe and another for a wide spread of damage to an area).

EDIT: Ninjaed by Luthorne's correct guess about why weapon variety/flexibility is powerful.

I don't think it's about how many you can carry. It's about how many you can realistically target. I know movies make it look easy, but under normal circumstances you are trained (depending on who/what you train with) to put rounds into the target until they drop. Not every shot is a head shot and not every round instantly drops or disables a target. Aiming 4 weapons independently, even at the same target, would likely be quite hard without independently functioning eyes and a brain that could translate all that info as well.

Just my 2 cents, but there is a reason most fighting forces don't actually use 2 weapons (ranged at least) at once.

With melee weapons I'd argue that dual wielding is not about getting more strikes in, but simply a style for opening defenses for the *actual* strike that you make.

Captain Battletoad wrote:

1) The comparison to WoW is pretty inaccurate, given that in WoW the enemy players (which will always be filthy Alliance) are always actually trying to kill my (and my party's) characters. In Pathfinder, that is seldom the case. If a GM really wanted to kill my character, it would only take them as long as they required to pull up Baphomet's stat block and then say "you're dead, kiddo". In WoW that's not in any way the case.

In a fight, the enemies are trying to kill the players. Odds are stacked for the players, but the enemies are trying anyways. The enemy is a wizard, same as what the party wizard could be in a level or two.

If your party has the option to fight a wizard 3 levels higher or a fighter 3 levels higher which would you choose? The only people I know that choose the wizard are either thinking they can surprise the wizard and kill it in one round or are super anti-magic dwarfs. And even then they'd probably choose the fighter as it's an easier fight, especially as you progress in levels. or even compare against an equal level wizard or fighter. Which is harder 4v1 against a wizard or a fighter?

Captain Battletoad wrote:

3) The point about classes being imbalanced is a matter of perspective, use, and situation. At low levels, a fighter or rogue might be significantly more useful to the party than a wizard, who will most likely be more useful by the end of the campaign. That doesn't make the wizard imbalanced at high levels any more than it does the rogue or fighter at low levels.

This is so funny. First, wizards are fine and powerful at low levels and then scale into more power. And a rogue is always less useful than an Investigator/slayer/etc. And the fighter is also worse than his counterparts at early levels.

So this means that the wizards starts off good and gets better. While the rogue's best shot is early levels, where it loses out to any of the classes that do roguish things.

I disagree. The fighter is extremely more powerful than the wizard at low levels and while they do taper off at higher levels, their advantage is the sustained DPS that they can dish. Wizards, depending on how many encounters happen at lower levels, have to be very careful about "blowing their load" in any given fight, unless they are well aware that this is the "boss" character / end fight etc.

Ok, so I stand corrected.

I once had a player who's character died in a fire. I then proceeded to set his character sheet afire with my lighter.

I thought it was fitting. He did not. That did not end well.

Hmmm....

I cant say that anything I have ever done was worse than anything all of you have encountered. As a player however...

I have shown up to games where we were made to roll our characters the old fashioned way. Only to notice that some of the other players had RIDICULOUS stats. 4 18's and nothing less than a 12. So sure, it's possible but VERY unlikely. Even my rolls were well above average as I happen to be a very lucky roller but this was insane. Also, while I do not claim to be the smartest person in the world, after a few sessions you get a real good idea of what another character(s) is capable of. After watching them roll you get a sense of the bonuses they have. So it would stand to reason that a DM has a VERY good sense ( unless your like me and keep records of the characters bonuses in which case you have a flawless sense ) of each characters bonuses. Then watching said characters manipulate the bonuses to achieve the results they wanted. the DM was either completley oblivious or just did not care. After a few weeks I simply did not return.

The trick to being a great DM, which I like to think I am, is to be a evil dick that frustrates their players, while making it appealing and challenging to your players at the same time. My group has a very strong sense of THEM vs. ME. I will veto things I do not think are right, only to be corrected by my players searching books, forums, and errata. Not so much because they want to shove it in my face, but because they feel they need every edge they can get vs me

Lawful Neutral DM: "Bringing order to the gaming table one torn character sheet at a time."

I'd be interested. Let me know if you get something started. Thanks for the reply.

Did either of you get anything started? If not and you are still looking for a game we are starting something this friday ( and every friday from here on out :) ) If you have the time and the inclination let me know and ill forward more details..

Kyle

Actually, there may be now, if you are willing to make the trek to St. Pete. Were off the 38th Ave exit over by 4th street north. If you do not mind making the trek, you can join at our table. BTW we are starting a new Pathfinder game, rules will be mostly stock unless all sides agree to changes, with a semi-homebrew campaign in the stock world. If anyone is interested just reply and i'll forward you some more info..

Kyle