This seems like a good place to leave a thought I've had since I first read the playtest, is that the Amp feats should be applicable to any of the Psychic's cantrips (that are psychic origined anyhow) and not JUST the Psi Cantrips that come with their conscious mind choice... that would let the feats be more flexible choices for more different Psychics. Just 2 cents on my part.
I find the 2E Psychic, even in playtest form, WAY more divergent from Sorcerer than they were in 1E. I've actually wanted something to really dig into the Cantrip system of 2E and make it a go-to, and this is the first real foray into that space. Sure, it needs them to lean more into the whole amp system. (The word count of full publishing will accommodate the bulk of that.) I'd like the amping to be available to more of their cantrips, personally (be able to use feat earned amps on your other Psychic cantrips
All in all, as a starting point, I am not unhappy with what I'm seeing here. If nothing else, I'm way more likely to use the class-unique choices on the Psychic, as it is in playtest form, than say the class-unique options of the Wizard. (I think only one or two of the school focus powers would ever hit my own personal table, ever... I can already see me taking any of the three subclass options here and running with them.)
I could see an Archetype for this, other archetypes swipe feats directly from main classes (Archer and Dual-Weapon Warrior) already. Much like Talisman Dabbler being poached by Thaumaturgist, I like letting them have one-feat options on things other classes still get to do, just via Archetyping.
So a couple of random, first impression thoughts that crossed my mind in my first reading. (I won't get to make more informed commentary this week, as it's my turn in the GM barrel at our PFS night this week. :) ) No particular order really. - I am a fan of the concepts of the Psychic, it definitely separates them more from the Sorcerer than they were in 1E. (Doesn't hurt that out of the playtest box I can build a better homage to River Tam from Firefly than I did in 1E, so there's that.) Without having spent time on the balance details or such, I AM finding it jarring that only SOME of the cantrip slots of the character can be amped... First impression says to me, "Why aren't they all amp-able, why make me track which ones can and can't, you could still pre-choose appropriate ones for the subclass choice but let people use feat-driven amp's on any of their cantrips?" - Thaumaturge stole the Talisman Dabbler feat ability without making it commit to an archetype. So called this, and actually quite glad, though the whole half-level thing STILL makes this a bad choice (based on current available talismans, anyhow) in later levels... perhaps Absalom book with its market section will fix this feeling (which extends past this particular Thaumaturge choice, it's even moreso the Dedication that I feel that is an issue for.) - Kinda sad to have Psychics be just as obvious in casting as others, but that's a game balance item and I'm not willing to push on that idea. i expect in the full version they will get access to the conceal spell stuff other casters can invest in, those clearly don't need playtesting. :) - Related, my first reading of Thaumaturge felt a little bad about the lack of utility choices vs combat choices, but this is just a Playtest... this way they can focus on the parts that need balancing (ie combat) and the utility can be worked in later based on what space is left in the design, so I'm not TOO concerned there. - +1'ing the Perception item for Psychics, are they just too distracted by the thoughts and emotions around them to ever improve Perception, or is this an oversight? Seems odd to not at least get Expert EVENTUALLY. - Not gonna lie, I squealed out loud at 'Scroll Thaumaturgy' as a first level feat. Excepting for how brutal scroll costs are at very low levels (where I will be able to test, since I am either PFSing or GMing, so no higher options for me this test), this might be my go-to concept for a Thaumaturgist if I can get time to run one. - Related, can we add a version of Trick Magic Item as a class feat, so we can choose to use EITHER skill or class feats to go that route, in a final version? I don't think baking it in is a good balance choice (you'd have to take something away somewhere I expect) but just being able to flex that in seems like a good compromise. Not a lot of word count needed even, just point them back to the CRB feat of the same name. Well, there's some basic thoughts on first read. Hopefully late next week I will have some actual play experience to work with. Happy playtesting!
While catching up to this thread, a thought occurred to me, that several of the class concepts people have championed (like Inquisitor and several of the Occult adventures, like Medium and maybe even Occultist) could steal a page from the Stances rules architecture, in differing ways, as a basis to branch off. Medium, for example, could have various 'Stances' (which may be more of a long term thing than just encounter mode, I realize) to choose as they make connections to various spirit types, and perhaps have a 'whichever one you chose first this day' (not necessarily at spell prep, depending on how hard or simple they want to make choices) is your primary one, but with a a 'Stance' like option to engage a different one later in the day temporarily, with some drawbacks (like your 'I was here first!' spirit might back off some of its granted bonuses/abilities once you let go of the 'secondary' spirit cause they're grumpy at you). A similar 'I choose you today but can opt to borrow later' idea could be applied for Shaman spirits. Inquisitor could have a 'stance' based Judgement system, and you pick and choose via feats which ones are available to you. Because the Focus system just wouldn't do as well to represent, I think, but that is their other likely method (I'd save that for Bane effects or other 'stronger' advantages). An action to activate, and then potentially change, your Judgements, feels like it would be a good fit. Random thoughts are random, after all. :)
{. . .} Witch is potentially interesting, though cackle every round to sustain is super annoying {. . .} To be fair, Cackle will only be used 1) if the Witch is themed to be a maniacal crazy person, or 2) your situation says 'don't use concentration traited actions if you can help it' because otherwise 'Sustain a Spell' is just as fine and without the annoying sounds. Now if Cackle maintained MULTIPLE sustain spells, then it'd be a different thing, but it doesn't, so *shrug*
Have you guys read any of the novels? Varian is a devotee of Desna, not Asmodeus, and Radovan is consistently described as small and overly charming/seductive, not hulking and brutish. There IS a comment about some stretching in the first paragraph - when in Cheliax, one at least pretends in 'polite' society to have some 'Hail, Ming' going on towards Asmodeus, and earlier on in his career he put /some/ effort into being on the right side of politics, even if he comes to veer away later on (in more notated portions of his career). I can't as much in defense of Radovan, but the /art/ I've always seen of him doesn't live up to charming/seductive, and honestly, his own descriptions in the novels led me to think his charm was more intimidate based, along with his effect on those ladies who like 'bad boys', and not actually seductive even if he convinces himself he's a charmer. :)
The more usual updates to Additional Resources was that updates would come every 2-4 months (stretching to 6 in rare rare cases) and those updates often would carry multiple months of product (depending on how long since last time) - without there being monthly drops in addition to the big ones, and with the 'we don't need to wait to get through the formatting and art departments' part of the new web page plan, I expect it will come sooner. As noted, there's actually very little /so far/ that needs actual tuning for PFS, even if they still need to read through it all to be sure. I will also echo Hmm's optimism that they have incentive to make like bread carts and haul buns on sanctioning things, and have little doubt they will have more for us soon.
As a note, I am reading The Absalom Initiation, and in this one, at least, they are providing Critical Failure information for the Gather Information/Recall Knowledges that are called out in addition to the success/critical success information. So if that trend continues, at least some of that load will be reduced - and I can already see how the examples here will help guide me on monster identification Recalls down the line.
Just received my downloads from my subscription for this and the other Gencon PFS scenarios, and I just want to say, I love love LOVE that full page art for everything we meet is included in the appendix. PLEASE keep doing this. I cannot click like enough on this particular change to scenarios.
Aww, thanks so much NightTrace and Owen. Linda and I try really hard to make it informative but also friendly and approachable for people to come talk with us and help steer the episode (and now we have a squirrel emoji Linda drew for when we get distracted by community questions!). Tomorrow morning's episode is going to be all about GMing for Organized Play, so if you've been considering checking it out now that PF2 is coming out or starting it up in your area (which is easy and we'll tell you how!) be sure to check it out. I'll post again just before the episode as a heads-up. SQUIRREL! You're all welcome. :)
My understanding of the Playtest 'tone' was intentionally regimented to test the framework (ie how sturdy are the poles of this pavilion we are erecting) and a bit less about how nice the cloth is that we will mostly see and notice when we're done. I went into reading it with the expectation that the final would be a bit more 'conversational' in tone, though when they tried to make it a 'common sense' read in the original Core, we learned that a sufficiently large audience is going to be all over the map on 'intention' of rules. :) So there does need to be a bit more mapping this time, and the 'overdone technical manual' of the Playtest was a starting point they could then pull back from; how much to pull was part of what the surveys were for. I am hopeful that a good balance ended up being struck, because I have become very tired of the 'RAW vs RAI' battlefields I've been thrown into... I love Pathfinder, and I love the diversity of people and ideas, but the original ruleset (and its attendant tack-ons due to the source of the river) did leave a bit too much room for accidental and intentional misreading.
The fuller text of Silent Spell above (from Cyouni) has in its last line 'stacking' for that - Copying from above:
So that covers you masa_gib, I believe.
Ideas I used in the Playtest are itching to come back as fleshed out characters... I had a Joan of Arc like character (inspired by Heather Dale's 'Joan' song) that I was using to explore the multiclass archetyping with cleric and fighter (paladin/champion causing too much restriction on the crazy illogic lol), and a gnome sorcerer with delusions of Draconic proportion (was convinced he was a silver dragon cursed/trapped in a gnome's body).
I do not believe there is anything called out specifically for this, but my thought would be if you dig deep enough into Recall Knowledge checks you might learn this about creatures, or the Warfare Lore one of the backgrounds shows us when dealing with martial fighters of a humanoid nature. I would not expect it to be the most iconic information of a creature, but you can repeat Recall Knowledge to dig into less well known facts. (Monster Identification is talked about on Page 338.) I would let your GM know if this kind of information is high on the priority list of your character so they can adjudicate their choices appropriately.
Natural 1 on skill checks being a fail, even if your bonus would mean that you would succeed (or critically succeed) at the roll, is something of a sticking point for myself (and for some others I know, a point of intense rage). I get the new system, new paradigm, but with this and the move to assurance over a Take 10 rule, I'm less and less enthused with skills. (To be clear, my 'objection', if one wants to raise it to that level, is one of perception and feeling, and not so much the mechanic in and of itself. And is for skill checks only, not the general critical system.)
A critical failure on an attack roll can have a consequence, /if/ fighting someone who has a reaction that triggers off of it. It's not looking to be a common (or even uncommon) trigger, but it's there. (I, for one, look forward to moments like that with a monster I've not fought before, wondering if they have a special sauce for that occasion. :) )
The numbers look right, though I find it amusing that 'Asleep' you also automatically critically fail reflex saves, but not if you're unconscious... that may need to go on the 'overlooked' list. On the other hand, hitting someone just lying there is going to be quite easy on the first swing (with that 6 pt penalty) and much more likely to crit, which will move their Dying condition 2 steps... so it won't take long to fix (the problem of them being still alive), likely faster than coup was in the previous edition actually. Another comment for dealing with 0 hp folks - the rules call out that in most cases, they're already dead when they hit 0 unless they are higher challenges (bosses and the like) or there is regeneration or party healers involved.
Except that Battle Medic bolsters the target against doing it again (ie, you can only do this for someone once a day).
Late to the party, but I feel that I should vocalize my opinion given that I've spoken up in a couple of places recently about things that have made me sad (including some of the style and choices of writing that have gone into the blogs). This, is the first class blog that I don't come away feeling that someone is trying to used car salesman me on how the new class is superior to the old class despite the change of paradigm the class is being set in. (Put another way, it didn't try to sell me on getting pieces of the old version back over a longer period of time as something exciting and 'better'.) Instead, it focused on how the playtest ranger fits into the new paradigm, and what the new system does for me/us with regards to the class. Sure, spellcasting was taken off the playtest version - but that fits the /playtest/ as we need to test out the non-casting parts of the new plan more than we need to test a few magical tricks for THIS class. (And I am of the school that looked funny at rangers being a spell casting class by default, so I am not uncomfortable with this particular experiment.) Bringing back 'magic tricks' via spell points, given the direction of the paladin that way, works fine for me, and is easily gotten back up to speed for the CRB and beyond. This also gives me the feel that of all the classes so far previewed (and that is mostly all we have, and not a complete playtest version) that the ranger is the first class to be really comfortable in its new home; maybe I am anthropomorphizing a bit much here, but this class actually looks like it will THRIVE in the new format relative to its comfort level in PF1. Maybe it was because the PF1 ranger was too much 'partially this'/'partially that'/'partially another thing' for it to feel right straight from its box (ie, without significant archetyping for specialty and more useful functionality)... anyhow, this is a class review I can actually feel HAPPY for having read. (Fighter wasn't bad, but not exciting. Most of the others... well. 'nuff said.)
I would prefer to see wands become more of a 'metamagic rod' focus item than spells-in-a-can. If you attuned yourself that day (for your initial RP cost), they allow modifications to your spell casting. 'Bigger' influences might need an on-the-spot RP cost, while other minor ones might not. The wand can be spell specific, or school specific, or metamagic feat specific; they might allow you to apply one of your metamagic feats known without adding an action perhaps, or provide a metamagic feat you spend a Resonance on to add to your spell. Yes, it steps on the 'rod' section of items, but as I can't stand the idea of consumables (actual consumables) still needing to spend RP on top of their limited-then-done uses, I don't mind it. (Bonus benefit - Harry Potter fans will love it, and a homebrew could take the idea and run with it to suit that setting.)
With (most) of the general information for Resonance out for us to read (not necessarily much detail that interacts with it, but the baseline of it) I am still in the place I was when I first heard it... I love the idea of it for permanent magic, and I despise it for consumables. Full disclosure, I am one of those who collects consumable items for 'break package open in case of emergency' because too often (particularly for my PFS experience) my parties need rescuing on a regular basis. And in some cases, just for the fun of it (I am collecting 'unusual uses of feather tokens' stories from personal experience *grin*). Consumables should continue to be regulated by the fact that they're gone once you use them. That may continue to be helped by cost, or perhaps the need to use Resonance as part of the creation process (even, perhaps, temporarily suppressing the creator's Resonance for a time as they recover from the effort). But unless, somehow, Resonance for consumables really blows me away as a cool and comfortable method to 'control' their use, this may well be (without hyperbole) what decides my retirement from Pathfinder Society play going forward. I'm collecting enough reasons without adding a mechanic I cannot abide (regarding consumables).
I agree that, superficially at least, the private feats look weaker/narrower than what I expect the class feats they're replacing offer. The only caveat is that they are granting signature skills and from what we've heard so far its possible, but semi-rare, so that might be a large bit of their value.Pirate is definitely the most situational archetype in the book, since if you aren't a pirate, chances are you won't want it, but it's also a really useful example archetype to learn the concept because of some of the simpler ways it comes together. I think people will be making a lot of use of some of the non-previewed archetypes, but they pretty much all have something about them that makes them a little idiosyncratic, whereas pirate is very prototypical aside from its niche of a nautical campaign being narrower than the others (which is less important for demonstration purposes). It may be good as an example of baseline for archetype design, but as with a number of previous preview blogs, it's a bit underwhelming for purposes of grabbing attention. A little bit like movie previews, the expectation is the preview will be highlighting some of the better offerings of the movie, and if the preview is a bit flat, then the reaction tends to be less enthusiastic than the preview maker wanted. And while I love you guys long time, too many of the previews have chosen to show things that aren't very sit-up-and-notice, and then try to sell us on how that piece is amazing and awesome. (I've been wanting to say that for weeks...)
For an early accessible feat, we have a bonus to a specific circumstance, weapon proficiencies we may not already have, and a signature skill we didn't necessarily have tagged as such before. That seems like fair weight for a feat. It isn't combat crunch, no, but if one were in a Skull and Shackles type campaign (either the AP converted or a similar often-at-sea setting) this is setting up some good flavor with some options useful to the expectations of that game. If this is generally typical of them, it's not terrible if you find one you like. There may not be many archetypes (at least early on) that will satisfy a more numbers-driven builder, but honestly the old rule of thumb for archetypes was they shouldn't be strictly more powerful than their base class, so I don't know how much room archetypes will have to deliver 'wow' options vs 'mmm tasty'.
Prestige archetypes look to be taking the place of prestige classes, I can get behind that. Putting the Gray Maiden in for testing begs the question - does the book come with any guidance on how to join them, or will such RP requirements on this (and potentially, other prestige archetypes) be left up to the GM? It's possible that the RP requirement will be waived in official playtest work and so isn't included in the playtest book. I could be tempted by this route for the playtest...
I realize that blogs are partial, and we as a community end up chewing them to death trying to understand the missing information. But on the weapons training subject, I am wondering if the general view is perhaps a bit sideways on the info... is it possible that Monks will have trained weapon proficiency in some weapons (I would guess 'monk' tagged items) and just never advance THAT proficiency by class leveling the way they do unarmed... and that the wording of the weapons feat is so that you link your weapon use to your unarmed proficiency, and so giving you advancement in weapons past the 'basics' as well as letting you buy unarmed feats that then stack on your weapons due to that linkage? I will fully agree that a dev type should at least comment on the 'trained or no' on at least some weapons, just to clear up the angst (or justify it) on the weapons front.
For those asking about the feedback plan in this thread a short ways back, Paizo has given us a basic plan that heavily includes links to surveys that are written for each phase of the playtest, which will stress test different sections in different time windows (but the surveys will absolutely be still available for 'Phase X' even if we're up to 'Phase Z' at the time you can playtest and answer), in combination with forum postings. The surveys will help give them mathematically crunchable data and comment boxes in the survey as well as forum threads will give them more details and descriptions of the actual events being commented on. Then they will be telling us about what they found out and what they're changing based on that feedback as they go along (I think they will lean into their Twitch stream, esp on Fridays, for this but likely forums as well). They've asked that players NOT read the survey before playing the part of the playtest adventure that is being targeted, but that the GMs who are going to run that section DO need to read it so they know what kind of data Paizo is seeking from the GM so they can notate it as they run the session.
My two cents on the Legendary subject... from what I have read, and what seems to have been said by developers, barring Legendary across the board from your tables should be one of the easiest and least-labor-intensive changes one might make to the rules for home game consumption. About the /only/ thing I am seeing that an anti-Legendary GM (not a slight on any with such thoughts) is MAYBE needing to have an alternate way for Legendary level magic items/weapons/armor to exist in your campaign, assuming that you actually want what they turn out to represent in your world. It appears to me, at least, that they've done a good job of fencing off the Legendary part of the whole system such that it can be left out without any real pain. Not so true of other levels of proficiency, mind, any changes there are going to cascade onwards, but this part looks like it will turn out to be easy to say no to. And in a way that doesn't 'rub the wrong way' simply because it's Core but you're not allowing it... Many did that with Leadership out of the PF1 Core and the rest of the rules suffered not at all for its exclusion.
Just my personal expectation - 'evil action' will still relate to your alignment as it always has, and if you drift enough to leave an allowed alignment you will be punished for such. I think anathemas are more of a 'quick route to excommunication' vs a slippery slope slowly downwards...
Looking at the questions about the 'Item 1' entry and such... my personal thought is it is identifying the level of the recipe... we've already seen that there will be a LOT of recipes to learn. I suspect that your level of rank in Alchemy will determine what levels of recipes you can learn. I'm rather hopeful that they're not getting into the way access in Starfinder is tied to item level, but we shall see.
Worth noting—and I don't see it in the final text—I'd intended for gear to meld with the oozemorph's form when in fluidic form (rather than floating helplessly on their oozy body or however that would look). The melded gear is still non-functional, however. That's definitely worth a FAQ click. Unless and until a FAQ does come of this, I for one am happy to default to the polymorph general rule of items melding into your new form; this may even be why words were not put in the book (as saving word count for flexibility in fitting things can be important). Extending that to attunement is more stretch (for PFS) than I would make, however, until more official commentary happens.
First off, thank you for keeping us in the loop! Second, I see you've already answered (intentionally or not) to some of the feedback this and other topics have generated, in the use of a Player version of the GM support boon. Also something to thank you for. As to suggestions on 'getting races out there', something I poked at in a thread recently was the idea of allowing a purchase via Fame of a boon for applying to a future character. I've since been able to think a little longer on that particular idea, and I could see the opening of a small list of races that are either already considered 'known' or are in the process of becoming introduced to the campaign via scenarios that Starfinders could be committing their personal influence(via Fame purchase)to recruit into the Star League... er, Starfinder Society. Perhaps each faction has a race that they 'hit it off with' early into First Contact, and so if you have a certain tier of Reputation with the faction, the Fame cost is a little lower (giving each faction someone this way, though I think the Wayfinders should either have a slightly better discount or more than one option to represent their 'shtick'). Likely I would suggest a chronicle boon downloaded with the rules of the purchase (and a note to photocopy the original character's chronicle noting the purchase to keep with it for proof of purchase) as a way to be able to get it out there outside of when the Guide is done/redone. I'll leave the math of what is appropriate costs to the professionals. :)
In several posts both Thursty and John have indicated there will be a blog Soon(tm) to discuss how Alien Archives will be integrated into the campaign. No specific time has been given, because of managing expectations, but I would expects within a couple of more Monday's (being the most common day for Org Play blogs)we should be hearing something. (My personal vote would be for purchasing a Social boon with Fame on one character to 'discover' an Archive race member to serve as another of your characters, with a small discount if the purchasing character has Level X reputation with the Wayfinders faction. Serves to make the option be not locked behind conventions, but makes sure the Core races are represented at least some by a player before they truly branch out into the Cantina of races, and have 'gotten their feet wet' with the Starfinder rules.)
This, right here, is almost temptation enough to start running PbP. But first I have to PLAY the format before I try to RUN the format... I should get on that.
Without giving away too many details, recently my partner and I were in a session where 'something' was spying on the party through the eyes of statues and murals... how would you react? In the case of my witch with a wand of unseen servant (which is always burning a hole in her pouch looking for shenanigans to be involved in), she took up one of the broken stone statue heads the 'something' used, gave it to the servants she resummoned once an hour, and provided it with an ongoing 'best angle' to the actions of the party. Meanwhile, my partner maintained a monologue conversation with it as we went along our adventuring ways... Needless to say, we amused our GM and made the others at the table shake their heads and wonder at our sanity.
There gonna be an option to start as pathfinders for this maybe as a trait or such? The way a GM hooks their player's characters to an adventure is always malleable - I expect, like many adventures, it would work fine to have your GM adjust the start to allow players (individually, or as a collective) take this kind of track. Without having the AP to actually read, it does feel like it could absolutely accept a slight premise adjustment that the PC's are a team of Pathfinders attached to the venture, with the Society as an 'additional investor' into the venture whose requirement was to be able to send their own team along with the colony to be an on-site expert to make sure anything valuable isn't wrecked by accident before it's cataloged and preserved... Which would let you play with the faction rules published for general use, and use the Society's version from those. Or even some of the other available factions, that might play well with an Andoran mission.
On the subject of sign language... there is a fluff reference to a 'Pathfinder Sign Language' (I don't recall the exact book atm, it is one of the Pathfinder Society oriented books) BUT it is referenced as a set of pidgin hand signs, more like what military personnel would use to indicate specific concepts... "Stop!" "3 hostiles that way", that kind of thing. Not as a complete language. (However much I wanted it to be, I was convinced through discussions in a few places that it did not, in fact, validate it for PFS.) As a personal experience with 'Deaf' for Oracles, my character Prism did not do the talking too often by choice, and roleplayed out the impacts on her speech to make sure it was clear. (If GM's applied penalties, I never knew - and would have been perfectly fine if they did.) Also in the anecdote department, Prism (who was a Heavens Oracle) wasn't actually 'deaf' in character - in the story-space, what was actually happening is she was hearing the heartbeat of Golarion, the starsong of the Sun, the breathing of living things all around her... she heard EVERYTHING in the song of the universe. Can you blame her if she can't filter your one, tiny voice out of that celestial chorus?
I've always found Torch to be a very interesting NPC. As a player, I appreciate the complexity and deeply-played Game of Houses of the character. My primary 'character with a connection to Torch' was essentially a hitperson who worked for him part time before his stint as a Society faction leader, came in at his request to be a 'trusted wetworks agent', and stayed as a mole when the Shadow Lodge disbanded. As for the reputation of Ms. Heidmarch, it is best shown in the Season 4 special, where she shows just how blatantly she is willing to break laws to get her way (not to say the Society NEVER does or asks such things, but she's obvious about it). There is also a theory floating around, which I personally half-believe, that she was/is a secret worshipper of Lissala and was actually working towards the goals the Society was then attempting to stop. (Might not be canon at all from Paizo's point of view, but if you go back and read all her Season 4 mission briefs, you can see where the potential is there for that point of view.)
Harkening back to the original topic for a moment... Strange Aeons - I love the idea, my problem is that I do not have a GM locally (other than myself) that I trust with this idea. I know one or two that on the technical side would be good, but what they would produce in the current conditions of our lives I wouldn't necessarily want to see happen. Ironfang Invasion - This one I am likely to skip even buying. Without some kind of crazy power behind the invasion, by level 12-13 my local gang of plot-train-derailing hooligans will demolish any such invasions, and if such a power was behind it that they couldn't before end of AP, then said power would have triumphed long before they became a threat (or if not, my suspension bridge of disbelief would have collapsed under its own weight). (My crew is one who, as a PFS module, completely dismantled the entire premise of 'City of Golden Death' from the beginning, and made our GM cry into her dice pool the entire time. Then 'deigned' to move forward without the initial premise to goad us, and stole all the things thrown at us to make us more awesome.) (This was an extreme example of our play, mind, but not nearly the only one.) Ruins of Azlant - this is the most exciting one for me, as a player. I will revisit my Undine HydroKineticist build for reasons! Water rules (as is or redone) do not bother me so long as we know going in that there is a lot of involvement with that medium. Starfinder AP - I don't have enough interest in SF as a game right now to be too excited, I will buy the rules and AP, but my limited Adventure Path slots right now are already full and the waiting list is getting longer as seen above. :)
|
