Iseph

Loreguard's page

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber. Organized Play Member. 870 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 870 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

A thought... if these are supposed to be Background skills, perhaps they shouldn't be un the upper cusp of the curve.

So a suggestion might be to push back the automatic advancement from 2/7/15 to something like 5/9/17 potentially. I moved all the levels back, and I got the impression that Expert at 2nd is supposed to be a 'specialty' of various Archetypes that comes with the price of longer term commitment.

I agree this concept waters down the benefits of those classes that are supposed to be skill monkeys by making things that only they could reliably get to become easier to achieve with other classes. However with it slightly delayed that may be less of a direct issue. Also, if the campaign expects more skills across the board, perhaps the skill monkeys can still stand out in their role by (one getting to ranks quicker, and getting an even wider range of skills). Thereby potentially leaving them some room for that part of their niche.

Really, what you are kind of creating is a variant of the old Signature Skills that got some rather bad feedback when it was in the playtest. I think some of the basic concept of the signature skills had merit so was potentially more salvageable than it was given credit for. But this might remind some others of that concept, which might not be seen as a general plus.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

71: A small holo-message cube poking out of a broken null-space container.

Activating the message, it is a plea for someone to help someone trapped in a temporal anomaly. The message indicates a method to reportedly get to those trapped. They were only able to get the message out reportedly if their suspicion was right that a null space container could shield the device from getting fried. (only the null space item broke/died not the contents)

Presumably the rescue message suggests how the rescue party may be able to get to them. The question is, are they right. And are they really who they claim to be?

The message might be for someone specifically called out, but does anyone know who they are talking about, are they even from the Material Plane?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Ok, I hear about people complaining about builds being problematic because of being too MAD making some people feel the build no longer is functional. I don't always feel like things have to be optimal to be functional, but will acknowledge sometimes builds can feel hamstrung by choice limitations.

One thing that I have to admit I have found a little problematic was the concept that if I wanted to feel really good at a skill, I had to up the attribute associated with it, but that investment in the attribute was a very 'wide' investment and affected lots of other skills and aspects. What if I really just wanted the investment focused in that particular skill.

This led me to a thought, and I'm curious if people would feel like it would enable more builds, and more variance, or if it would somehow curtail variance by creating some circumstance that would be too good to pass up.

My idea is that as part of getting "Trained", "Expert", "Master", and "Legendary" at a skill, you gain a 'Minimum' Attribute bonus that gets applied to the users proficiency calculation. At Trained it is +1, at Expert it is +2, at Master it is +3, and at Legendary it is +4.

This means if a user is trained at something with and INT of 10, instead of the calculation at fist level being +0 (int) +1 (level) +2 (rank) = +3, it would be +1 (min attribute bonus) +1 (level) +2 (rank) = +4

Granted, that only impacts someone with a 10 INT, as anyone with a 12 or higher would already have the minimum bonus. However, it makes placing a skill rank in a poor attribute still relatively viable.

As a clarification, the Minimum attribute bonus, I would imagine would always apply as an attribute bonus. However, it would not stop an attribute Penalty from applying. So if the above individual was trained in a skill, they would apply the +1 proficiency bonus provided as a minimum due to being trained, but would also apply the -1 penalty due to INT penalty. This means it would end up being +3 from being trained instead of +2. Not a giant difference, but it actually makes shoring up a weak point with skill as a relatively viable option.

My thought being to allow this to apply to Skill rolls. I could even potentially see allowing it to apply for Attack rolls if we wanted to allow it to apply to weapon and spell attack skill ranks. It would not affect any other values like extra damage determined by attribute value (from spell attacks, or melee attacks, for instance)

While I suspect most individuals whom would get Legendary in a particular skill, will probably have more than +4 attribute associated. On the other hand, I can imagine someone potentially having a 10 in an associated attribute and having a skill at Trained or Expert relatively easily.

If it can apply to Spell Attack proficiencies, it might make people concerned about MAD aspect of some classes, bringing the FLOOR of their strikes up somewhat even if their attribute isn't invested. I'm not completely sold on making it apply to Attack rolls, but it seems like a possibility, but I'm not certain I know all the ramification. I'm inclined to say the minimum attribute bonus would not apply to DC calculations, to still encourage the investment in the attribute in most cases. But this method would give some extra options for having characters with significant investment into a particular skill/proficiency that their natural attribute isn't that good in.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

This sounds a little bit like the mechanics for the Psychic. What was it, Unleash Psyche I think? Basically, you enter it to get some minor benefit (I think it was amping spells) and drawback and after so many turns it unlocks a greater ability you could utilize. [basically giving you an ability you work up to being able to cast, not something you could blast out on your first round of combat each time]

Almost seems like what you want is to Gish the Psychic base, go into Cypher stances, and instead of amping spells, it would provide a minimal energy bonus to your melee strikes, and after so many rounds of successful strikes your stance gets enabled, and you basically get access to that stance's finisher which might be kind of spell-like. Each stance might offer a finisher spell. Might even offer a cantrip spell associated with it that can be cast as long as you have passed the first round of your stance, potentially for instance.

I'm not familiar with the Cypher class itself. So I don't know exactly, and I imagine you might be used to having a larger variety of spells you might cast on a whim after 'charging' and my proposal kind of dictates what spell (or small set of spells, cantrip and finisher) that you are likely working towards, at the start of your stance.

However since you are opening up to casting spells more quickly recovered than traditional Focus requirements (10minutes) you probably need to limit the casting a bit for balance reasons. One way of doing that might be to have them commit to what they are casting earlier, when they enter the stance.

Then you class can collect 'stances' they learn as they level up they choose new stances, and may even have stances that have minimum levels where they can be chosen. And some stances may have finishers with Heightened effects based on their 'spell level' again half the character level round up.

In addition to your Cypher stances, you might have the class have access to focus spells that might provide some 'utility' options, and might provide some flexibility outside of the straight combat process. They might also have access to certain other cantrips. [or have them always have access to the Cantrips that their stances allow, but only have them auto-heighten (otherwise always cast as a 1st level spell, or always cast at 1/2 normal spell level) and they only cast their cantrips at normal spell level when having at least one round of stance under their belt already.

Again granting them some flexibility, but at a cost and making them hopefully not overshadow some other class in their flexibility.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Still, RAW you can't reduce paying the initial half price in materials up front.

I don't think anyone here has advocated that.

The arrowheads are, presumably, the up front materials for this purpose.

Then, the remaining cost "in materials" are the fletchings and shafts, which are Crafted on Day 5.

I think the point here is that in this scenario if staying RAW, you have to concede that the players have access/supply of 'materials' which you concede and attribute to arrowheads. Again, requiring there being a 'stock' of materials, there is nothing saying the players can't have more than 5cp of materials. So if they can have 1sp of materials, representing scrounged arrowheads and potential sticks and feathers for fletching, they can spend the full amount in materials and get a set of arrows in 4 days, all by RAW.

How do you get the materials in a wilderness? I'd say the easiest way would be to make an income role using an appropriate lore or other skill that would be reasonable to gather relevant items, and then the GM rules that instead of getting income in gold, you earn that given value in materials(potentially earmarked type of materials). While potentially stretching into homebrew range it is still you making an income role and getting a given assigned VALUE out of it. So I actually would say it is sticking with RAW with a touch of flavoring, rather than actually using different 'rules'.

With that in mind, an easier way of solving something as basic as getting a supply of arrows would be to allow them to make an income roll, and allow them to create the number of basic everyday arrows their income produced.

Historically, if looking for other ways of making crafting 0-level items more reasonable, you can look back to the playtest rules where the initial 4 day timetable for the first 50% of crafting progress got reduced by 1 day less for each level of the item under your crafting level. (minimum 1 day I seem to recall)

So leveraging a rule that is no longer a rule, a 3rd level crafter could potentially craft a 0-level item making first 50% progress take only 1 day, and open the ability to pay 100% material costs and finish it in the 1 day. It honestly might not be a horrible idea to make 0-level items take the 1 day instead of the 4 days, especially anything like 0-level ammunition/consumables.

So if your goal is to make the game a game of available resources, and crafting and such, that means that you are working with your players to give them 'raw materials' as forms of treasure they can earn so they can craft the things they need.

You can let them recover broken items to convert their value into raw materials so you can recraft them into the items that you need. Again, if your game is delving into constrained resource management, you simply need to make sure you use the rules that are available to get the flavor you are looking for and make sure you include the details of these things in the treasure you hand out, and of course, ideally make sure the players know that will be a component of the game you will be playing, so they aren't blindsided potentially causing their characters to not be able to compete in such an environment.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Gizmo's options seem very viable options to pursue based on your concept.

Based on your story, I'd suggest if you pick a background that is related to slave background, you can easily ask permission to have an ability to skip the improvised weapon penalty on your improvised chain weapon.

As mentioned at a 2nd or third level it is easy to imagine you getting the resources to have your chains reforged into a spiked chain weapon instead of what they were.

Although they are listed as uncommon, the option Gizmo mentioned of having the chain being converted to Poi seems very reasonable option as well. Again, asking for it's uncommon state to be unlocked seem very reasonable with your background mentioned.

So while it does require a bit of GM buy in, it seems like it is something a GM could be convinced to say yes to, and enabling the concept doesn't have to be unlocking a full martial weapon to a non-martial class at start.

I recall in long past, earlier versions of RPG, having a Minotaur whom one of their weapons they had available to them was the shackle and chain from their time as a slave. So I understand the nature of the concept although mine was a more martial character from the start.

I understand you comment about the Trident, but depending on the cultural ramifications, it isn't unreasonable to consider the possibility of wielding a Katana being something that might for cultural reasons might presume a higher level than 1st level. Not that it is the case at the moment. I might have the concept of wielding a sun sword, or holy avenger, but those obviously would not be something I would get to start out with at first level.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Actually it should be part of traditional greetings between worshippers of Good deities.

I have to admit this is one of the reasons that Divine Lance as RAW seems problematic, as the above seems to be the completely relevant outcome of the existence of the spell as it is.

If it can't hurt anyone but someone who is 'natively evil' that means people would feel 'justified' in doing the damage, and so the spell creates that philosophical crisis. Honestly defining Evil within humans is simply a moral minefield.

I can understand people choosing to have only other-planner creatures have 'alignment' as an option. It helps push the problem to sets of creatures that you can 'justify' them being damaged easier. However, by reducing the set of creatures it affects so drastically, it also weakens its general power significantly.

I can see leaving 'Good' damage when it is 'add-on' damage being left as it is. But it does seem like to keep it from being a lower level alignment testing spell, it seems like it should have the capability to damage neutral targets as well.

I've contemplated the 1/2 damage base, and even thrown in no extra damage on a critical. (failure of save, or success of attack) Thus neutrals would get a chance to be hurt, but not as much.

Alternately, I've contemplated the idea that a Critical Failure by a Neutral entity might be treated as a regular failure (or critical hit by attack, treated as a regular hit).

That would make using it as an attack, something that has the potential of harming a neutral, even if that is not exactly as the spell is intended to.

So... I like to play my own Devil's Advocate... so I'll Divine Lance myself here... to see if my expectations make me evil. (can I explain away why it isn't used to be a lower level detect spell myself?)

It might be relevant that two people walking up to each other and accepting divine lancing of each other, divine lance is one spell... effect determined by source of power... not by variant of spell... so the tradition of walking up and allowing yourself to be divine-lanced by the other individual might result in both entities getting 'auto-critical' hits on one another, which one side might be expecting, while the other doesn't. So maybe it might be a tradition that if started, might have fallen back to only used by guards of the holiest of holy sites, and potentially only by the guard targeting the pilgrim. Or so it isn't done by a person... thereby having the potential 'moral' issue. Perhaps a temple door might be set with a Divine Lance trap that gets activated by opening the door, recharging each round or minute, the petitioner then having to subject themselves to the trap to enter the inner shrine?

There are some reasons why one might not feel comfortable accepting a complete stranger casting a spell you don't know if it will harm you or not. But it becomes a harder sale to explain when you consider someone of higher authority, and a presumed mentor, you might presume to know their source, and therefore the effect would not harm you, and thus be willing. And it is hard to consider casting an attack spell on a willing target highly unethical. So while targeting myself, I see there aren't some mitigations that might exist naturally, they don't seem to cover some of the edge cases.

As a parallel, let me compare it to something doing only positive damage. That as an attack, would do damage to any 'undead', even if the creature was not evil. In fact, it wouldn't only affect undead, but also anything under the effect of Negative Healing. So if used to attack an area with a baby that was born with a Negative Healing the baby would likely die from the spell. Now, guess what, it is easier to imagine people quickly exclude undead or negative healing aberrant as abominations of life... it might be easier to imagine such positive damage being blasted out indiscriminately, not being frowned upon as much. But it actually might strike a philosophical crisis if someone realizes a baby with such an affliction might otherwise be innocent.

I think fewer people would be as concerned about the Positive Damage thing as the Good Damage one, but again, I think that is because people naturally identify LIFE as good, nearly without question, and DEATH/UNDEATH with evil, without question, so the idea of doing positive damage might come off as 'good' by nature. Note that in 2nd edition, Positive energy is divided into Positive damage and positive healing. A dhampir doesn't take damage from a blast of positive healing. They however, do take damage, like undead, if someone blasts out with a blast of positive damage. I think that make a relevant/important distinction making blasts of healing safer, even around undead or negative healing souls, who aren't out to kill the living souls around them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Hey, just as a headsup. I have looked for the docs that I'd already made. However I believe they were on a computer who's hard drive crashed. I think I have a backup somewhere, but we've moved since then so I'm not sure which drive it is on.

Also, expectation setting, I'd done a preliminary conversion of the first adventure, enough that I think it covered everything except potentially the final treasure (since it was hard to convert, but I think I had a draft). I think I had started on the second adventure, however, I am more an more thinking I may have redirected myself to converting the first 'society' playtest adventure. And I don't remember how far I got into either.

I'll continue to look for it, but letting you know it wasn't where I first thought it would be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

70: A odd-multicolored ball in a sealed transparent plastic bag. It is a MyVirtualPet. It is a tiny drone that takes a DNA sample of the first living object to touch it. It then transforms into a small drone version of some popular pet animal. It will then follow the individual whom it took a DNA sample of at all times. It has 12 HP, 10 EAC, 12 KAC, and a walking speed of 30 and flying speed of 50. However it by design always prefers to utilize its walking speed instead of its flying speed unless it cannot walk to get to its companion. It will attempt to always stay within 5-20 feet of its companion. But will allow the companion to pick it up and hold it, or put it down telling it to sit. (as long as the companion remains within 20ft) Any time the companion leaves the designated radius it begins following/tracking the individual again.

The drone is highly advanced, and can power itself via draining power batteries or drinking power from a charger, and nanites can also derive power from biological processes akin to eating. They also have Solar power backup.

The pet is extremely good at tracking and can effectively track as if it had a +20 modifier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I did Beginner Box and I think I posted a working draft of information in a board here. I know I did enough of a conversion of the first adventure for me to run it for my family a few times. (we used it as a test adventure to do the playtest of Swashbuckler/Witch/Oracle/Investigator.

I don't know what I did with all that conversion information. I'll look to see if I can find it and format it where I could put it up.

I do believe one thing that hit me was that at least some of the adventures were not really written with 'party' survival and 'story' being key important factors in the adventure. So those adventures might not make great standard adventures. My understanding at least one of the adventures (on I didn't get to run through) was more of a test of... how many waves before your first player death... how many before everyone died. What was most helpful in keeping players up, etc. rather than a story about how the players succeed.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

A metamagic action that if last spell cast that was an attack spell that missed, and was powered from a slot or focus point, and required at least one action to complete. (and generated no effect, either directly or indirectly) You spend an action to harness that spells energy to cast another attack spell. If the prior spell's level is greater than the currently cast spell, you get a +2 circumstance bonus to hit to the attack spell you are casting now. If the prior spell was that level or less, the circumstance bonus is +1.

Honestly, I'm not certain that spending a cantrip attack spell and missing, being able to present you with the opportunity to get a +1 circumstance bonus, doesn't necessarily seem overpowering. But I did want to be careful about potential cantrips reaction for free action casting somehow getting leveraged to get a free bonus somehow.

You might even be able to add a rider... that if you are casting the same spell, if you hit, you get extra damage equal to +1 per die damage the prior missed spell would have done on a hit. (the concept of smashing flame attack spells, with the spells getting hotter each time)

Something you would have to be careful potentially on would be the spells that give you multiple attacks over turns, if you miss the first turn or subsequent turns, there was still a spell effect that took place, so it would make that spell ineligible for the bonus for boosting the attack roll on the next spell/attack roll.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I'm not positive you can't get what you want from a small frame, that you
would have to, stick with a tiny frame.
An option you might not have seen, I don't know it is in the base books.
https://www.aonsrd.com/Starship_BaseFrames.aspx?ItemName=Pioneer

Lets just suggest you want an option to make a Tiny frame be able to work.

I think using a weapon point seems potentially problematic as those are just BP to add additional ones.

You might be able to apply a slight alternation and tweak the rules for an External Expansion Bay and say that you can have a tiny vessel (with the weaker HP and such) be able to be fitted with a single 'external expansion bay' and limit it to perhaps specific types of expansion bays. Potentially Passenger Seating and Brig. Potentially, you might be able to offer Guest quarters. You might also say the Tiny bay can only hold half the normal capacity of a normal small or larger bay.

The adding of an external expansion bay would increase the number of spaces before turns by one. Perhaps to account for the adding it to a Tiny, one m ight consider dropping the Speed by 2, and reduce the Piloting modifier by -1.

However, it is possible, you may just want a mall, Small craft, instead of a Tiny craft.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

67: A life-size plushie of a Skittermander/Kobold (75%/25%)
68: A pistol/rifle (60%/40%) modified to shoot the firer, but designed to look like a normal weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Some options:
some people say giving free archetype increases the characters power, and it certainly would have the capability if you granted the entry into the free archetype at 1st rather than 2nd. However, I get the impression, with your mention of more casual players, and not wanting to start out at second level, I'm going to imagine giving the players more choices isn't ideal idea for you. (greater complexity they may not be interested in)

Another option, give the players an NPC, increasing their number without bothering to scale the opponents higher. The NPC would take recommendations for action from any of the party members. I'd probably either make them a fighter, or a healer/support member. I have done this before to fill out a party that didn't have enough members, and it has worked. Alternately, you could provide a party (not tied to a particular player) pet/mascot that any one member of the party can use an action to give it two actions on its turn that they could direct. The creature could simply be an animal of party level or maybe even one higher depending on how much you want to blunt the encounter's danger.

Or simply, work out a plan to advance them to 2nd level earlier in the story (about half way to normal leveling milestone point), and then keep them at approximately one level above normal milestone leveling. During the time that they are 1st level, give them an Untyped 'Adrenaline' bonus to all their rolls and DCs until they finally make second level. This will make them compete very similarly to a second level party in the things that a 1st level party can do. You could limit the bonus to only when dealing with encounters that are a certain challenge rating or higher, or only if at least one party member is down to half hit points. But if you are looking for simplicity, simply applying it until they reach 2nd level should give them a useful boost without forcing extra choices on them from the start.

Something interesting you might do it hand out tokens at the start of an encounter that would help the party and explain their use and any party member can use them (but limit once per round per person) until they are used up. Tokens might be convert a hit against a Mook/minion to a critical hit. Add a +1 (Circumstance | Status player chooses) bonus to a roll against the 'Boss' after the roll is made.

Such tokens might help the party wipe out the smaller opponents quicker and land some debuffs to help take the Boss down, in whichever order they choose to try.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Here is the thing... you can reach stage 1 both at the start of the disease, as well as towards the end of the disease, so stating Onset 1 day would not make sense for when you move from stage 2 down to stage 1.

During stage 1: You have no symptoms, but you technically fully 'have' the disease/affliction, it just gives you no detrimental effect at that stage. You might go down to stage 0 next save (getting rid of it) or you might go back up to stage 2 for instance. But at stage 1 you have the disease, you just don't have symptoms that produce any kind of effect.

Onset would be specific, basically, saying you don't get the disease, or don't get any impact from the disease until after an 'onset'. If they said onset 1 day, instead of carrier for 1 day, then people might argue that someone at stage 1 that used to be at stage 2 might still get the other effects from stage 2 since they are past the 1 day onset?

I agree that per the rules, the developers don't really describe how these afflictions could be contagious. Which leaves it up to the GM of course, which may well have been intentional. However, it might have been nice to at least show an example of a contagious affliction with something showing perhaps something showing an effect at stage 2 and higher saying direct physical contact could cause the individual to need to make a Fort roll. Just as an example. Such an example could also specify if the save is made it is good for 1 day against that affliction of the specified DC/level.

Such would have/could demonstrate, just being a carrier, or at stage 1 doesn't have to mean you are inherently contagious. It also expresses that it is an effect that could be tied to any stage, including stage one for diseases whose story would make it appropriate. You could even have stage 2 be contagious by contact, and stage 3 indirect contact, or stage 4 contagious by proximity range/time.

Actually, specifically thinking of the ghoul affliction, as an example, it might be nice to know if the literal reading which is that the afflicted person has to survive past some pretty nasty layers and live until they actually just outright die, for them to come back as a ghoul. Or does anyone who hits a certain stage (even say stage 4), and dies rise as per stage 6. It seems like they don't but it makes the risk seem really low for anyone by higher level entities, meaning in theory there would be few peasant ghoul infestations.

I don't know if for example the Slithering is an example of a disease that its stat block may well have included information about how it is transmitted. Although I will probably be the one who eventually runs it, I wasn't 'assuming' as much and reading through it for details yet.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

For an AP, how about, you wake up in a stasis bed. You know more or less who you are up to a certain age, but you don't know why you are where you are. You wake up with several others in a stasis bed/medical bay. You aren't allowed out until the droids give you a clear medical report (which is close to just time spent) but even if the droids get destroyed, the door will eventually unlock. You appear to be a crew of a ship. But the computer/robots refuse to provide you with any information/communication from outside the room.

When you do get out, you find the ship outside is badly damaged. There are potentially signs of fighting, potentially signs of biohazard conditions, likely even signs that there may have been fighting between members of the ships crew. (but maybe also signs of some external hostile)

The crew works to get the ship back into control. Works to get their memory back, and look for their way home. (or maybe this is a colony ship, and the end will require fighting to carve out a space for the colonists to be able to survive on the surface of their new home.

There are plenty of potential hidden truths that could be under the story. Maybe it was actually a prison ship, holding frozen political dissidents that were stashed away, and the original society decided it was time to dispose of the no longer needed non-conforming citizens and so they were being sent to be decommissioned and some 'agents' managed to redirect the ship but died achieving it.

Alternately, it could be that the stasis beds were an experimental time travel device that the current colonists decedents finally managed to finalize. They send you back in time, to be the saviors of their history. Armed with the knowledge to make the future an even better place since you know what mistakes you made. What wasn't known was that your brain undergoes a strange change through time travel and you forget such details. And this explains why in your history of your past, you made decisions that appeared to be mistakes to those from the future.

But the question is, will you meet the destiny of saving your people, or will you prove time travel doesn't work, and doom your future to an untold story that they will never know they had it better. (or was it worse, who knows)

Or maybe you were intended to be the Coupe de Grace destroying the ship... being a planted team of insurgents/spies intending to destroy this colony after the ship goes into lockdown due to the arranged set of catastrophe's it was set upon with. However, a glitch causes them to lose their recent memory and mission profile. This leaves them only with the 'covert/cover' information of the team being the 'trouble' team to take care of, an fix the ship and get things back/right in the end. Leaving them until the end before they have a chance to understand 'who' they were really before the mission, and what the original goals were. Do they about face and honor their original goals, or do they honor who they have since chosen to become, and continue to save the lives of all those they have met and become friends with?

(sorry if I am giving too many spoilers for the concepts)


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I think in part balance reasons... but also control reasons. They may have wanted to point out in a fantasy realm, poisons and diseases don't have to be entirely mundane in nature, and may be able to affect more than what would make sense in 'reality'.

In your example, maybe an Automation that is affected by a Vargoulie poison might not sprout leathery wings and slimly tentacles. It might sprout hard foil wings and mesh tentacles. Mechanically like your typical Vargoull, but potentially notably different appearing.

On the other hand, I don't think it is unreasonable to have the GM decide, lycanthropy can't affect Automations, or some other disease won't affect a certain type/category of creatures. The game is just making sure that the GM isn't expected to grant immunity just because someone can make an argument that perhaps it might not apply.

There is precedent in game for a disease that doesn't affect non-humans. So there is no reason why you as a GM shouldn't feel free to rule certain diseases, toxins, poison's, conditions, etc. might not apply to certain types of creatures.

I had a GM in a game decide that after I got taken down by a critical hit from a spider bite, but saved vs the spider's poison via a critical (nat 20, it was before critical success in rules). They decided that may character was naturally immune to that particular species of spider's venom. It was a 'little thing' that contributed to the uniqueness of the character over time after they narrowly escaped dying in that encounter, getting drug out of the spider lair by the person I'd just interposed myself between them and the spider.

I'll be interested in how they deal with some of these topics in Book of the Dead.

Why do poppets need to eat? Maybe they need to have a portion of food... so they can participate in their tea-party ritual where they are given a serving of the meal, and the meal is later thrown out. But the interaction of the shared meal is what they poppet 'eats' or gets fueled by. Of course that concept wouldn't work for a loner poppet concept, unless they are going through the ritual with their imaginary 'real' friend. *snicker*

Anyway, I agree the lack of easy across the board immunities, is in large part a design balance decision. But I think it can often be explained with some work, and might in certain circumstances be fine to grant appropriate individual immunities. But it would be kind of amusing to allow someone with a 'cold' to allow the party's automation and their Poppet to 'catch' the cold and have them sneezing after a day or so. It would add the the Fantasy genre that science or natural laws aren't exactly the same there. And it would make the occasional instance of (Yep that isn't going to affect you, because it makes sense to allow you to be immune) have more story meaning to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

This is actually a pretty interesting idea/concept, thanks for sharing!


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

@NameViolation
I agree with your suggestion, adding to it probably the crash occurs after a drift drive malfunctioning during transfer back to normal space, exiting into an unknown world in the vast. It also damages the drift drive significantly enough that it can't be fixed without uncovering some relatively rare components. (at least rare on this world)

After a book or two they might be able to repair the ship enough to use it to travel along the planet. After another one or two they gain capability to travel up to the world's moon(s)/ring(s)/satellite(s)/station(s).

Might introduce a planetary gate somewhere in one book, allowing them to jump personally to a new world to get another component. Maybe that world might be littered with some 'mechs' and giant robot monsters. that might be guarding useful components.

The end of the AP you finally get to then end and discover someone trapped you in the system... responsible for your getting pulled there. Turns out they are trapped and are hoping for a rescue. [do the players assume the person responsible for pulling them and creating the situation that trapped them, is evil?]

The individual needing rescued has the last component needed to fix the drift drive, and they can then finally leave and return 'heroes' or at least potentially more wealthy now they know where a system that can be scavenged from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
MindFl*yer98 wrote:

....

Deer/antelope ( a fast support companion that is not a mount)
....

Sorry, now I just cannot help but think of Reindeer, which would of course need to have the Mount property so that when it gets a magical flying ability, and potentially a magical innate Light cantrip (with reddish coloration perhaps)

Then we need a magical sleigh that can allow an AC to lift another so much in bulk over any (or just flying) movement that the AC possesses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Inquisitor:
Salim Ghadafar : an atheist warrior forced to solve problems for the goddess of death, to track down the missing souls.

(source material Death's Heretic and The Redemption Engine, novels by James L. Sutter, line above taken from the wiki's quote)


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

18: This atmospherically sealed door, with transparent port-hole viewing inside. Warning labels in numerous galactic languages are set on the door, and it is locked.

The area outside the door is only large enough for one medium sized creature to stand and look into the portal. A second door is set outside it, and the outer door cannot be kept open and open the inner door, similar to an airlock.

Any creature looking into the airlock will see (an illusion of with a difficult DC appropriate to the character's level) the corpse of a recognizable species, whom appears to have been affected by whatever contagion the individual fears. Any tools or sensors used to scan the chamber will corroborate the contagion's presence as far as the viewer is concerned if they failed their Will check against the illusion.

While others, after hearing what the first person says they see/experience. It is possible they will sense the same situation, if it was described to them, and they would likewise fear it. ie However, if they have no, or little fear of the situation, they will sense something that will strike fear in them, assuming the prior individual was mistaken, with their own explanation of why they were mistaken.

The actual contents of the vault are protected by invisibility, and can't be sensed or interacted with, while individuals are still perceiving the illusion.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

102: A file containing a set of coordinates claiming to represent a distinct place in the Drift. It includes a method do utilize the coordinates, but requires gathering a set of rare materials to create a device to render the coordinates.

Should require at least three rare materials and a relatively high level crafting to put together properly.

What is in the location isn't clearly defined. (is it a treasure, or was it meant to be something hidden due to its danger)


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Probably not exactly the 'look' you were wanting, but it is something that 'could' exist in The Diaspora. generally the asteroids in the Diaspora are without air, but it might not be outside the realm of potential fantasy to have stretches of it that might actually have a captured an atmosphere and might be able to allow for living islands floating around the star.

Again, may not be what you were first imagining, but it might be an option. The Diaspora existed long before the Gap so it should exist in the Pathfinder timeframe. And it would be easy to claim that some asteroids with an embedded fragments of ancient or raw Aeon stone might 'attract' an atmosphere to surround a long stretch of several island chains, and enable them to house what might be considered traditional fantasy life, and have some fantasy magic or technological floating ships to traverse them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

@Midnightoker
Thanks for the feedback, and your idea. I love that your idea pointed out the mental flaw that I was sort of presuming these feats needed to reflexive and enable actions both ways.

However, it is very easy to imagine someone being proficient in opening up opportunities to strike enemies with their knowledge of acrobatics, and that doesn't necessarily equate to getting to strike someone when someone else tumbles by the enemy. I feel like although I might not exclude the potential of something more basic being more open and reflexive, it should not be the standard and assumption.

One thing I'm not clear on, is your Acrobatic Cooperation activity/action something that includes the tumble, or was the statement of tumbling, a flavor statement? At least first read I was interpreting it as with investment in this general feat, you get a better tumble action that can be used to trigger an opportunity for an ally. And that seemed reasonable.

Then I questioned if it included the action, or if the one action was supposed to be a setup, allowing you to then later tumble. If that were the intent, then it seems awfully weak, especially given the limitation of it only being usable once a day against an opponent.

I'm glad you mentioned the topic of General feat. I think I agree, however, I confess I was probably 'thinking' class feat by a not well thought out default. Only thing I don't like about general is how few you typically get. However, I could imagine it isn't a bad default structure. If players really like to utilize this type of feat, then (granted it is already homebrew) it wouldn't be hard to give bonus Teamwork feats at certain levels, such as how free archetype (or double class feats, etc options) I would want it baseline to be available, but not overpowered, so I think general might be a decent target. If there was an archetype, it might allow you to spend class feats to buy teamwork feats, and potentially get some 'perks' based on how many you have bought, potentially bringing up the results from the investments. I'd generally imagine general feats being weaker than class feats normally, so there might be some room for perks going that route.

While I like your cooperation trait, and talking about having to maintain that cooperation relationship, somewhat like a stance, I at least question if there shouldn't be some teamwork feats that aren't limited to only two individuals. Certainly, I can see a default of someone only being able to be a part of one 'cooperation' group at a time. (with potential options for specialists invested in teamwork to increase this for themselves) I don't think that we should exclude the potential of having some cooperation abilities being able to center around more than just two individuals.

Honestly, if this type of relationship was always limited to pick a single person to train on this with, I think rather than being called Cooperation or Teamwork, as trait, it would need to be named Partner. However, honestly, I think there is room for teamwork feats that can potentially be granted/leveraged to the whole party.

Those specific abilities granted to a wider set of individuals might be lower power tier than perhaps ones that might have a tighter limit on who it is shared with, but I think there is room for both types.

Also, you came back and changed your mind, saying you felt they need to be Class feats, do you think it might be possible that they might exist in both realms? Potentially have feats based on granting actions/reactions to others that are your allies, having specific feats that might be considered general feats, and certain others that might be class specific? I think this is what TheMetricSystem was suggesting. It adds some complexity, as you are not saying all 'X' type feat are 'Y' type, however perhaps that is best. On the other hand, adding that complexity does make the idea of making a set of teamwork feats free a bit more difficult given that general and class feats have different times they arise, and different expected power levels.

Allow the framework to help you define who has the feat, what ability it grants that individual, what ability it can grant to others, and under what sort of requirements. Setting out a handful of examples, such that something might be dependent on a partner, while something else might be more general and might get granted to a whole set of their allies. [and if necessary, a limitation could be placed that only one ally can leverage that individually granted trigger for that incident.]

Again, I don't want this type of feat to be seen as too powerful, but I also don't want them to be too niche that they are considered almost invariably unworthy of the investment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I loved the idea of teamwork feats, but I think they ran into an issue that it frequently required two people to coordinate their builds from the start to make them useful. Alternately, having a class that could grant them, or could override requirements via Solo Tactics.

Combine this with how some of them we probably rather niche in their effect, most people probably discounted them quickly leaving it unlikely you would get to work with someone else who would have happened to chosen the same feat.

My idea is that rather than requiring a Teamwork feat to be had by both characters, the teamwork feat would be unlocked by one member having the feat. There might be something special that might get unlocked if both have the feat to start with, but don't 'require' it to be able to make use of it.

The initial idea I have, that I'm trying to consider. A character with a Teamwork feat keeps an eye out for a condition that makes him and a known ally in a specific condition (an ally is attacking an opponent you attacked during last turn, who is flanking the opponent with you). The individual with the teamwork feat spends their reaction, granting their ally the reaction in the feat.

So if we reinvented something a little akin to Precise Strike, you could do the above.
Enable Teamwork Precise Strike [reaction]
Condition: (an ally is succeeds on an attack against an an opponent that you attacked during last turn, and that is currently flanking the opponent with you)
Effect: the ally gets access to preform the following reaction Execute Precise Strike to modify their strike.
Execute Teamwork Precise Strike: [reaction]
Roll 1d6 and add it as extra precision damage for that attack (only to that specific opponent)

So net, one feat would allow two teammates flanking an opponent, if one has the feat to each spend their reaction to add +1d6 precision to a successful strike.

I for instance consider would it be too powerful to allow an ally you have trained with recently (shared morning preparations, or spent a certain amount of exploration time training as a group) to allow activate the Enable Teamwork reaction when the person with the feat could get the reciprocating use. (The individual with the feat attacks an opponent whom they are flanking with the other individual, who had been attacked by their ally.

Basically, 2 Reactions for +1d6 precision damage in a given circumstance.

And at least, potentially I'm considering would it likewise be too powerful to say if both individuals have the feat, the enable reaction becomes a free action, and only the one doing the Execute is the only one who has to spend the reaction to get the Execute reaction's effect?

(would in the given explicate circumstances, and both having invested the feat, to get the bonus damage for the cost of 1 reaction.)

Other potential examples:
Enable Teamwork Scuttle [Reaction]
Condition: you end a movement action/activity next to an ally.
Effect: the ally gets access to preform the Execute Teamwork Scuttle reaction.

Execute Teamwork Precise Strike: [reaction]
Effect: Executing ally gets to preform a free step.

Enable Teamwork Outflank [Reaction]
Condition: You get a critical hit on an enemy which you are flanking with at least one ally.
Effect: any allies which you are flanking that opponent, are treated as if they have the Attack of Opportunity reaction for this event, and your critical counts as a trigger to provoke an Attack of Opportunity from them. (they do not keep access to the reaction, it is only available to potentially resolve this event)

Enable Coordinated Maneuver [Reaction]
Condition: Your ally is preforming an attack maneuver against an ally in your range.
Effect: You grant the ally the Execute Coordinated Maneuver [Reaction]

Execute Teamwork Precise Strike: [reaction]
Effect: Make an equivalent attack roll as per the same maneuver, and treat it as an Aid action you had prepared for your ally, potentially granting your ally a bonus to their roll.

I'm trying to think if potentially two reactions is too much for the effects, for instance. I'm also considering if sometimes it might make sense to have the 'granting' action be a premediated action such as a single action and have it grant the reaction to their allies, which for instance would leave their reaction for other usage. (for instance some classes might really be forced into not being able to use teamwork feats, if they have conflicting reactions they need available) So maybe by default, it might be that you can use a reaction to grant the reaction, in a circumstance, or an action to grant it to your allies during your turn and they have it available until the end of your turn.

Another complication I've considered, is what if you wanted a teamwork feat affecting Shield Blocks. Since they are already using their reaction, so generally they can't 'pay' a reaction. So in those cases would it be ok/necessary for it to be niche enough to rely on it only costing the allies reaction to help? Requiring a setup action, especially for something shield related would be really expensive, since it already costs to raise a shield, unless you simply give them a different setup action, but then it really isn't really costing extra action, it would just potentially make it not work with things that work with other raise a shield actions.

Basically, part of the idea is to make teamwork feats include an aspect of their sharing as part of the feat itself, so it doesn't 'Require' people taking the same feat. I'm curious what others think the benefit of coordinating and have overlap should be. (reduced action cost, such as down from two reaction to one, like suggested) or if people both have the feat, having it have a 'Heightened' effect listed that is a bit better in those cases.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Keeping in mind however, that going from 1st edition to second edition, things that were packaged in and progressed for everyone of a class, in many cases in 2nd edition become a choice or path. With Druids and their animal companion, their shapeshifting and their elemental costing focuses.

So while they might have gotten use out of the mechanic, I know I specifically did. I wouldn't necessarily say that mechanic was core to all that was the inquisitor. That it isn't hard to imagine an inquisitor without that specific mechanic, and I don't know I'd feel like it was missing something 'flavor-wise' because of missing it.

Someone mentioned the thought of making an inquisitor have to choose a path, deception, intimidation, or diplomacy. Ok, honestly, I generally don't imagine most inquisitors being iconic diplomats, unless you are talking about 'McCarthy' as a diplomat. I disliked that idea, because for me, an inquisitor might need to go undercover at one point, or go angry intimidation in another chapter, and wouldn't want to have to choose. But I don't know if I may be falling into the same situation where, I didn't necessarily love the idea of a druid having to choose between wildshape and a wilderness companion. Which in then end, while I wouldn't have thought I'd have wanted to go down that road. When it was the official path, within all the contexts of all the changes, became a reasonable design.

With that in mind, while I loved using solo tactics and teamwork feats on my inquisitors. Those aspects weren't as important of flavor and mechanics to the Nature of who the were, that if some pieces had to fall off and become more generic options to be picked up with general feats or an archetype of some sort. Teamwork feats and/or solo tactics type implementation seem like pieces I'd give up sooner than having a sort of edge (not necessarily enormous) on intimidation, something bane/smite-like, and an ability to buff/debuff things supernaturally, such as judgements/spellcasting.

Now, as worded... maybe someone who has to come in and leverage the people to go out and hunt and kill this supernatural evil who is besetting a poor village, might very well be a character concept someone else had, and maybe solo tactics might have actually been central to that implementation. I just felt like in the concepts I knew, (and they all used solo tactics and teamwork feats) it was one of the least important parts from my perspective.

I'm also probably drawn to the thought/question of in addition to rewriting the inquisitor for 2nd edition, are they willing and ready to reimplement teamwork feats for everyone in 2nd edition? Hitting both of those, makes me willing to look at an inquisitor without teamwork feats as viable, even if future supplement includes teamwork feats, and potentially includes something like solo tactics to help an Inquisitor use them as a separate option in that publication. Marshall archetype might get some other benefit towards such feats as well they could invest in.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I originally liked the origninal Teamwork feats, Precise Strike, and I think Outflank, maybe Pack Attack. I'm pretty sure I had an Inquisitor with Precise Strike, and may have had a Marshall that offered it as a shared feat.

I'd love to see teamwork feats where having a feat allowed you to share a reaction with a team-mate. Likely consuming your reaction to share it unless the other individual shared the teamwork feat.

But allow having a teamwork feat, allow you to spend a reaction to give a reaction in certain circumstances to an ally.

However, I have to admin I don't see Solo Tactics/Teamwork feats as central to the identity of the Inquisitor. It was just a part of the prior class due to the book introducing teamwork feats was with the Inquisitor, and they probably invented them in part for the Cavalier, and figured with Inquisitors being secret agents/solo actors, invented a way for them to leverage them too.

Instilling fear, seeing through deceptions, something smite-like, and offering team buffs/debuffs seem more core to their identity.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Kekkres wrote:
focus emphasis could be interesting especially if their focus spells are one action or reaction spells so they dont get too clunky in martial gameplay, I think it would also be interesting if they had some sort of mechanic that basically said "this has access to the divine spell list for purposes of wands scrolls staves etc" to allow them to stay caster adjacent without spending too much of their power budget on being a caster

Actually, having class features that might be very similar to having a divine sorcerer or cleric archetype might be viable.

Give them access to divine (or potentially primal) cantrips, along with the ability to cast spells from the divine list from scrolls, wands, and potentially even staves. Then access to focus cantrips and/or other spells. This would give them access to much of divine spellcasting, but via equipment that those divine forces would would have access to loan/give to the Inquisitor.

Perhaps have class feats to give them an actual spell slot they could use, but it would be an investment that they would choose to go down, rather than assuming the class would utilize it. (this would however, of course prohibit it from utilizing flexible casting archetype option, as it wouldn't be a full caster)

I'll confess there is still a part of me that likes Inquisitors technically being Occult, despite being normally part of a divine infrastructure. It seemed very important that how they got their spells and their connection and constraints to their deities Anathema was somehow different for Inquisitors. That Occult connection was a potential reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

KIBWE/Slithering:

KIBWE, Mwangi SETTLEMENT 6
N CITY
Mercantile city-state where diverse interests rub shoulders
Population 3,885 (71% humans [predominantly Zenj], 8% elves [predominantly Mualijae], 5% orcs, 5% lizardfolk, 11% other)
Government representative council
Trade Hub Items of up to 11th level can be found in Kibwe with diligent searching. Items higher than 6th level, when found, are for sale at 90% + 2d10% of their normal price.
Languages Common, Mwangi

Abuyone Munme (LG female human) Council Representative for the Zenj Trading Alliance
Clatriani Orridik (LE male human) Bloodman of Bekyar Block and former slave-trader
Darvian Estabar (LN male human) Lord Magistrate of the East Mwangi Mining Company
Kosa Et (N agender elf) Council Representative for Whitemarks


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Litran/NotGD:

LITRAN, Galt SETTLEMENT 12
CN | CITY
Agricultural hub and headquarters to a grim guild of
executioners Government civic administrators overseen by the Gray
Gardeners
Population 4,990 (84% humans, 8% halflings, 3% gnomes, 3% elves, 2% other)
Languages Common
Rampant Suspicion No one in Litran knows who might be a Gray Gardener in disguise. NPCs are reluctant to make deals openly and begin with an attitude one step worse than usual toward everyone.

Babry Wrenolus (N male human bureaucrat 9) Finance Minister
Keznin Nevarmo (NG male tengu herbalist 9) Proprietor of Soul Mother’s Herbs
Otvald Gharmino (LN male human judge 11) High Magistrate
Raina Carlezio (CN female human duchess 7) Patron of the arts
Zintaya Calbieste (NE female elf advocate 14) Secretary of the Farming Cooperative

Source Night of the Gray Death


Hope settlement blocks coming to us outside of specific AP are still in scope.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Hey, I can explain the whole Magnimar thing... the universal setting identity suddenly realized that the city wasn't taking care of the little shrine to Sarenrae that is struggling to be... and so the powers that be, decided that there must be repercussions. (yes this eventually leads to a big legal battle that ends up all records of it being shredded and worlds... ohhh... wait... I'm not supposed to talk about that, forgot) [line goes dead]

While population changing super significantly probably need more specific explanations, changing of level I can imagine to a degree with political shifts and economic upturns or downturns.

As you mentioned, Breechill becoming a new trade center offers it the possibility of having a new baseline level that is higher, even without necessarily taking into an immediate population increase, etc.

I'm even willing to say that after a successful AP when adventurers stay in a particular settlement the settlement may have a sort of temporary rise in level potentially as news travel and influence spread's with the information. Then whether that increase stays and becomes a new baseline, or fades away would be more of a question of the needs of the story, and how the party and/or settlement deal with the occurrences.

Events could even provide temporary boosts or modifications of settlement stats. Sandpoint during the festival may be considered a level or two higher due to the increased trade and traffic due to the Swallowtail festival. Absalom may be even bigger than it normally is during the Radiant Festival.

I think events should easily be able to boost a city's normal level up by one or two, or depress it by one or two levels easily. I don't think that should need to be a 'continental tidle wave' level even to move a level up one or two levels.

A militarized city, preparing to be laid siege may well have a higher level as resources get poured into making sure there is adequate defenses. On the other hand, after a City that has been blockaded for a time may net a lower effective level as resources have become depleted.

And separately, after a city has been over-run and laid to waste, there might be a huge population left over, but very little infrastructure and available resources, so it could drop from a really high level to a level more like 1-3 to represent nothing being left but ruins and people struggling to make ends meet with what little is left.

Again, this does sound almost like a Pathfinder the Settlements subgame sort of material that could be its own book. it could list settlements in a general area as an example, and talk about baseline settlement blocks and how you can justify tweaking them various ways to have them fit the heroic story you want to tell in the area around them. I'm also, however, curious how the kingmaker city building rules will end up working in second edition. That may end up being an important factor to understand before they do a lot more with the settlement block recommendations. Granted, that will be for building PC cities, and your average city is analogous to an NPC (so different rules). But we like them to be able to seem to have some of the same flavor allowable when balance can allow it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Honestly, and I may get Boo'd for making this statement, but I think part of it has to do with flexibility of play, they have probably intentionally been vague on not hard-stating many of the settlements. The level of the settlement has an impact on the things the GM is going to make available at any particular time in an adventure. If you stat'd out 75% of the nearest settlements to Absalom as much as it gave you information on several settlements, it might also invalidate the use of some settlement for your GMs adventure, or invalidate it for a future adventure path where the writer wants to set it in or outside that settlement, but the level given for it makes it no longer fit.

If every settlement you traveled through and had an encounter in got statted. Then you might have issues where you start having people complaining there are contradictory stating (in AoA town is is 3rd level ish, while in BiB it says it is 7th level, and in CuC it says it is 5th, which is right?)

Certainly, on the other hand, one way we get used to making our own settlement stat blocks is by seeing examples. Without those examples, many will find it hard to feel comfortable feeling like they are doing an adequate job. However, with that being said, we'd like to see more stat block, we need to be prepared to allow the setting to be somewhat in flux to make the many stories that will be published in the future, such that we don't unduly burden the authors of future adventures to be chained to specific stat blocks that might have been provided in different contexts.

As an example, I've seen little town names in one adventure sounding like a one cleric town, where most shops would be homes. To another where, while still small would definitely have people who take care of business while someone is away, and have some specialists.

One thing that actually might even help would be to point out that settlements are sort of 'living' entities and so that any published STAT block is an example of its behavior at a particular point in time. And GMS should be wary of falling into the trap that these values can't effectively go up (or even down) over time based on numerous factors, not limited to the catastrophe's the characters are normally occupied foiling.

That means when the players start out, this village may be level 1-3 and after leaving and coming back, (and then they are hometown heroes and 10th level or higher, the village may be behaving as a 5th level village at that point. Subsequent adventures back at that town, may have it back down to 2nd level with a different party.

Anyway, I'm all for more stat blocks, but wanted to point out that there may be a hesitancy, because every piece of information they put down as hard cannon, may be seen as reducing the flexibility of future adventures. On the other hand, vague names and descriptions are instead seeds for future adventures. So that might explain the tendency to lean into the vague inspiration writing, vs. the detailed concrete information that might become future limitations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
TwilightKnight wrote:
fanatic66 wrote:
Alignment damage...

....

Lots of good points
....

I agree having good damage and evil damage causing damage to neutrals is one of the things that seems to do the best to eliminate the divine lance method of quick and easy alignment checking. If you would do damage to an otherwise innocent (not benevolent perhaps, but still clearly innocent) it really throws a very real wrench in the argument it only hurts the 'guilty'.

As you mentioned, it makes neutral seem a bit overly susceptible to both good/evil damage leaving you to wonder if you should make it half damage, which seems like a reasonable option.

Another option might be to have Alignment damage have a special rider/rule that alignment damage done to neutrals never gets doubled/boosted on a critical. In such a case, you never double the damage from good/evil typed damage when getting a critical, leaving base-line damage the same, but allowing the neutrals to be more vulnerable from more angles, but less extreme in their vulnerability.

Another optional rule to consider with respect to alignment damage. Some would/could argue that certain creatures, such as baseline animals are not moral/ethical creatures. Creatures that don't have an awareness of morality and ability to make moral/ethical decisions and aren't otherwise tied to potential powers that have their own moral ethical intrinsic values. Those are frequently listed as being 'neutral' with respect to alignment. One might consider making these creatures either immune to alignment damage, or was considering giving them 1/2 damage from alignment damages (however, in retrospect, it might be more P2 way to simply grant them Resistance 5 (or 1/2 level or something like that ) to Good/Evil damage for those types of non-moral creatures.

Certain things like mindless undead, might still be vulnerable to good damage, not because they are specifically capable of moral choice, but because their power source is sort of inherently evil, thus tying the mindless nature to an alignment.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Thinking about another question about lances and reach from Large creatures, and the recent discussion about Tiny riders and small mounts, made me contemplate a potential resolution that might be relevant for both situations.

Riding large creatures reduces a riders reach by 5' make a medium rider on a large creature with a lance have less reach than a small rider with a lance on a medium creature.

Other than that specific situation, the purpose of the rule doesn't seem that hard to fathom. You are after all on something that requires a little extra reach to reach out of your immediate space, so reducing the space seems a little reasonable.

The other situation that seems troubling is that small creatures and large creatures can wield swords to hit adjacent creatures when mounted. However, Tiny creatures are expected to cohabitate the square to attack someone with a sword or other similar melee weapon.

However, Tiny creatures on Small creatures aren't allowed to cohabitate with small or medium creatures an longer, meaning they lose the ability to strike them from their mount at all, unless they have a reach weapon.

What if 5' of the reach lost by wield a reach weapon from a large (or larger mount) could be bought back by the mount spending 5' of its movement moving towards the other square, but not entering it. Allowing the attacker to treat their next activity as if their weapon had 5ft (normally all) of its reach restored for the purpose of a single target.

This could even be potentially used to solve the Tiny issue as well, if you allowed the small mount to spend 5ft of movement to move to the edge of its square, and allow the rider the opportunity to complete one activity as if a single target was within your reach.

I say an activity, but maybe it should only be one attack, but I said activity because I felt like it was worth asking, why not allow a double slice, for instance.

I think that this helps the issue of a small rider on a medium mount having more reach than a medium rider on a large mount, but it doesn't eliminate there being a cost to using the larger reach, but 5' of mount's movement seems like a reasonable investment into getting that reach back.

Anything obvious on how doing that would destabilize the balance of things worse than they are now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I have to admit I have mixed feelings on it. One I agree that effectively losing reach property from a weapon, especially a lance when riding a large mount is a big deal. I think it makes sense to have a lance have some sort of advantage when mounted or braced.

On the other hand, the loss of reach from any weapon at all seems like it is a relevant and big loss for all such weapons. Although wanting a lance to be a strong option, I don't necessarily want it to be like in 1st edition where it was almost necessary for a mounted individual who was going to charge, kind of had to choose lance as their weapon if they were going to be effective.

My goblin cavalier, who owned a Horsechopper, was kind of required to keep a lance around for challenging boss encounters that they were going to need to charge.

The current process of allowing the lance to be used one handed from horseback for the cost of one step in die size seems reasonable. And the circumstance bonus for using it mounted makes up for the die lost size lost from using one handed, although it also doesn't seem to require you to only use it one handed, so if you can keep 2 hands, it is just bonus damage.

Adding in the Horse support damage it makes the damage quite significant, using it from horseback.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

63: Small hover baby carriage. It floats a meter above the ground and follows a small leash device that can be attached to one's clothing or armor.

It can hold a Tiny or Diminutive creature or a couple bulk of small items.

Depending on the model, it may provide environmental protections to the creature inside similar to armor. (air, temperature protections, etc.)

64: Malfunctioning Doula droid is present in the room. It is relatively easy to turn on. However upon scanning the party, its programming is malfunctioning and it will determine that one random member of the party is pregnant and in need of its services. (due to its failed programming, it could perceive anyone as being pregnant)

It will encourage them to eat generous portions of nutritious food. And discourage them from preforming actions that are too physical. It will preform aid other actions to try to stop others from hitting the character. But will also attempt to stop the character from hitting others.

It is also very good at helping to determine possible baby names for just about any known cultures from Known Space. It reduces the DC to pick a name by 5, as well as any DC to know historical meanings of cultural names.

It has 25 HP and is AC15 but has no weapons.

During rests, it will fetch pillows, food, drink for the character in its care making any rests far more enjoyable, if they don't mind the extra attention.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

62: A pre-gap science fiction min-video series. This 10 hour or so long storyline seems to unbelievably describe aspects of one of the adventurer's prior adventures. The characters in it are seemingly very recognizable as caricatures of themselves in the video. However, they are portrayed as shallow and ingenuine. Their characters are portrayed exhibiting gratuitous violence, sexuality, weaknesses, romance, and selfishness. (especially if such aspects would be offensive to the actual character) The video actually is however, oddly enough shot from the perspective of the characters actually being the villains of the story arc, and details the true 'hero' (or potentially plural) of the adventure, unraveling what the band of 'villains' have done to their 'family/home/community' through a variety of means as flashbacks and investigation. The last video appears to be corrupted, leaving the disposition of the Hero of the Arc in question. The end of each 1 hour block includes 'previews' from up-coming story. It is possible that the fourth hour's previews, might include clips of action that have not ever seemed to have happened. (that might foreshadow details that might be coming up)

The video has a very odd mix of comedic and tragic aspects.

While details being off, there are too many uncanny similarities to make one not at least wonder how the story came to be, and if the 'hero' of the video actually exists, and is hunting down the party.

The video series might actually be able to be sold to a media corporation for distribution. However, doing so may generate some Infamy and poor reactions from people who associate them with the villains of the story, as the series seems to oddly become a sudden hit for some reason.

Dare the adventurers try to find out if the 'hero' of the story, actually exists and is hunting them down? Or do they grow paranoid about things when they can neither confirm nor deny them?

[Ok: definitely inspired by #61, I liked it a lot, but I thought flipping the narrative, making them out as the villains, was a worthwhile add.]


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Spindles: I think you could make an argument for them having reasons for being more common that perhaps presented, but I imagine there are plenty of reason why people might choose not to rely on them, and prefer the old fashioned method of keeping oneself from getting hungry.

Interesting enough, one could imagine the really poor workers potentially being issued one to reduce the cost of feeding them. [just deduct the rental from their pay] and it reduces the supply costs and potentially keeps them from needing to take lunch breaks and such, potentially leading to other potential increased productivity.

It also makes perfect sense for colonists to have a significant supply of them, if not one for everyone.

Healing: Serums etc. Keeping in mind that in Starfinder, NPCs don't necessarily follow all the same rules as players. Just because if a player ever gets injured, by default, they can always be healed by a healing serum or Hypopen, that doesn't necessarily follow that NPCs never get injured in ways that they would require more treatment than a healing serum or hypopen. So having a medbay/hospital may still be a necesity to treat the NPC injuries that occur. Not all beings in Starfinder have Plot armor allowing them to almost always be able to be healed by simple means.

Gate Ritual: I'll have to look up the details on them. But I agree that Gates would make sense to be owned and used by many large organizations, be they corporations, societies, or governments. I'm not sure their limits. (placing them on a mobile platform like a ship seems like it might be pushing a limit, for instance) But I don't know the defined applications, originally defined being allowed.

Tiara: I'd agree there would be definite use for these. However it is worthy to note that with the random chance of mishap could make them very dangerous. Perhaps safer than in a war zone/blockaded area, but there would have to be practical considerations (like wearing space-suits for travel) when jumping to a different planet, as if they go off target, they may be in deep space for 24 hours, assuming they don't happen to pop up inside a planet, asteroid or star due to their being thown off target. But they certainly would be very useful in time constrained transfers between areas that people are very familiar with.

As for some other things:

Things like Morphic Skin: for 370 (1st level) seems like a very reasonable item for many sorts of criminals to have, almost as a basis. Being able to never appear the same would make identifying them very problematic if they didn't get caught in the act.

I think the gill sheath and some of the other augmentations would be popular for particular situations where a species is going to live in an environment that wasn't their typical. But that kind of is more to be expected given the fantasy setting so I don't think it falls into the unanticipated.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I think that one reason why we haven't seen a whole AP dedicated to exhaustive exploration and definition of details of Absalom Station is in part due to the fact it is supposed to be the pivotal point for many home games. They have wanted to leave it very nebulous and open from most of the specifics standpoint.

I don't think they want to map out most of it yet since they may not be sure exactly what all various undefined/nebulous portions they would need to leave systematically to insure that they leave room, not only for the future APs they will publish, but for all the home stories people will branch off into.

At the beginning it merely needed to be defined as humongous, thus outside of scope of being able to be detailed, beyond the generic portions such as having higher class areas, having commercial areas, having slums, and beyond that having portions that are pretty much seemingly destroyed and/or completely unexplored because they are past lock and key that are no longer known.

Doing a book would hard code quite a bit of what is there and limit their ability to make an important, but as of yet unmentioned area on the station. Sure, in some cases there could be a story reveal. [wow, last year an asteroid broke through defenses and tore open an believed uninhabited portion of the station, opening it up. It turns out it was (perhaps a section inhabited by isolated androids just living their life preforming routine maintenance for the last centuries. They didn't realize there was an exterior to the station. Or perhaps it was a morgue section of the station that had intelligent undead who were delighted to learn there are living beings who might eventually rebuild their dwindling stock. But some event might reveal an otherwise unknown area of the station, but would be dependent a significant event, opening up access and knowledge of the new area, if it wasn't talked about in the 'Station Book'.

It is easier to add a whole new 'region' with its own flavor, if you haven't already published a master list of districts.

What might be interesting would be a book talking about a variety of different districts that 'could' exist on Absalom station. (not necessarily requiring they exist) Allowing the GM and players to pick what parts of the Genre they want to leverage. i.e. examples being Horror, Intrigue, Rebellion, Exploration, Trade, Economic competition regions, etc.

They could even include rules for specific types of minigames or expansions of current rules to help make that region play a greater part in the story as a whole.

Honestly, I haven't had a chance to read through it, but I look forward to Liberation of Locus-1 as being a great starting point for a wider home campaign, with a home that can develop with you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

It seems clear to me, that it is intended to grant the characters the knowledge of the 'fastest route' through the hex. That knowledge seems like it should be persistent. It however makes perfect sense that one might attempt to fine an even faster route by making multiple thorough investigation attempts if it were allowed, which the last part seems clear is saying it is not allowed.

Although your interpretation is perhaps not syntactically improper, it doesn't seem to really make sense based on the description of the reason for the bonus.

It doesn't make sense that knowing the 'best route' would help you once, and then subsequent attempts to travel the space would take as long as someone who had never been there before.

It seems to me that it actually is changing the value of (number of activities to travel the hex value. This value is intrinsic to the nature of the hex, and once it is known/mapped it is easier to traverse. It however can't be further mapped to become even easier to map. Does that make sense? So it only applies once, but it applies to the actual value held by the hex. IT doesn't seem intended to modify individual traversals of the hex.

Hope that helps.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

It is character level. It being based on character level was actually supposedly to make it more clear it wasn't dependent on having spell slots of that level for purposes of what level the cantrips you cast are cast at. (to avoid the thought that someone who was 10th level, but only had the basic spellcasting archetype feet, not the expert one, that they would still be casting their Cantrips as 5th level spells. Ironically, I think it attracted lots of attention and confusion, rather than necessarily making it completely clear.

The level of some other class isn't really a thing in second edition with the archetype process. You don't have 'levels' in any other classes. You just have the class you started, and levels in it. Your archetype simply adds breadth to your abilities. (and sometimes access to certain other classes abilities are at for instance half your level, instead of full level, to keep some class identity and niche in place)

Why have a ranged weapon? Well casting TP ends up taking up 2 actions, so if your other action is doing your inspire, you have no actions left. If you use a weapon, you have an action left over to move or do something else. Also, using a weapon, the weapon can have runes be they striking or property runes. Granted, the spell does decent damage, there are ways to find a weapon and runes doing notable damage and effects, for potentially less action cost.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Had to go read through the article in Secrets of Magic to see what people were talking about.

I think it helps me with my understanding of what they meant, although I don't think it changed a whole lot of my understanding as I think much of what I was operating on was along its lines.

Both Arcane and Occult deal a lot in respect to Information or Knowledge. I agree that Arcane is the more structured, systematic easily categorizable, systematic knowledge. Not necessarily simple knowledge. I think some people said arcane magic is simple and reproducible, and I doubt they meant that to its extreme, as they make it clear most people "can't" seem to comprehend the arcane mysteries. There are some very hard to absorb/understand facts and concepts a spellcaster needs to know to be able to wield such power. Now being able to recognize aspects of arcane magic isn't necessarily that unknown, but despite the Arcane being more about material and reproducible processes that anyone with the same perceptions, knowledge, and resources should be able to reproduce, so basically being very closely related to the modern concept of the Scientific Method, but applied to those cosmic abilities that are called Magic. It is about processes, formulae, and reproducible systems, and the knowledge of these things.

Occult is intended to be a mystery of mysteries. It is built on knowledge, but rather than knowing how to preform addition (an analogy of a concept one might attribute to a more arcane type process) it instead is knowledge of numerous dates of founding of various nations. Dates of the deaths of various people. Knowledge that could prove useful, but isn't really formulaic in nature, it seems more arbitrary points on a graph of questionable purpose. Occult is being able to look at all that arbitrary data and see the mystery (spiritual potentially force) that is hidden within all that knowledge that they have consumed. So the Tradition talks of teh 'systematic' methods those practitioners use to access their occult abilities, but the occult itself isn't so much a natural 'system' that everyone accesses the same systematic way. Instead it is more of a personal journey/process of learning to access your ability to use the knowledge you acquire over time to affect and gain the power you are seeking.

I think a key thing for me is that 'learning' and diving into the Occult, peering into and acquiring occult knowledge is more like looking at a giant 'Where's Waldo' image, and if you're lucky you spot something, and learn something new and hidden that was hiding there in (maybe not so) plain sight. But someone else could look at the very same information, and not be able to see or make out what you see. Maybe if you have shared knowledge of Occult, you might be able to help them come to spot what you think you saw, but it is hardly a given. (and they might honestly see something, but something different than what you saw) I think, however a KEY aspect of true Occult knowledge is that Occult knowledge isn't really something you just know. True occult knowledge by its nature actually changes the learner, affecting how they see future things. Although a little too practical to be truly an Occult example, the knowledge of what Soilent Green is made of may change a person. It changes how they will then ever interact with it. Occult knowledge is a web of such seemingly obscure facts that are interconnected and provide the practitioners who have learned the ways, the ability to affect things, but manipulating these fundamental pieces of knowledge they have acquired.

So yes, in the more Cthulhu related mythos, various knowledge can drive someone insane, and that sort of knowledge, I would argues falls into the Occult variety, and the persons couldn't stand the changes it caused to themselves. Arcane knowledge does not inherently change the person as much as it may eventually enable them to wield power that might affect the person. But in such cases, it was secondary process that eventually caused the change. So, yes an odd wizard could go insane without dabbling in the occult, due to anything senility, or pursuit of specific types of power that just aren't perhaps completely morally right, and drifting their nature to socially unacceptable nature, as an eventual side effect.

Occult knowledge on the other hand might drive them crazy as an integrated and primary part of its process, depending on what they are looking for. Note, not all occult secrets are bane and destructive driven, so not all occult delving is going to drive people to become murderous lunatics. Turn the table, and you could have an overenthusiastic occultist who believes everyone should be free and happy, who in pursuit of power to help achieve this very prospect, they might lose sight of people's ability to deceive them and have malicious intent. This sort of loss of could certainly endanger them, and so could be an example of one of any number of potential side effects of going over a sort of deep end of their immersion in the occult beyond perhaps their capacity to contain it.

And again, we don't define how much Occult knowledge any particular individual can have/contain. So a PC doesn't have to be subject to any such idiosyncrasies unless the player wants them to. (or your are playing some sort of horror genre where such knowledge/effects get defined past the core)

So Arcana is knowledge based on the systematic use of knowledge to enact reproducible magical results. They would typically cast very systematically, and think very systematically. They might have to adjust for important factors that might keep things from always being identical, but they would probably tend to argue you need to know the things they know to properly cast the spell, because it is a system.

Occult is knowledge of seemingly arbitrary facts and the ability to see mystical truths underneath these facts, and to leverage these mystical truths to find an otherwise arbitrary reasoned path to implement the needed a mystic result in their current situation, based on their confidence in their own knowledge and their ability to get to the needed result. Not specifically because a singular specific set of identical steps should produce it, but that they know they have enough points of knowledge to be able to as a 'art' craft the necessary we of knowledge to achieve what they need. An occult caster would take the perspective another caster doesn't need to know what they know, they just need to know similarly useful knowledge to unlock the ability, not the same specific information.

Oooh... another way of potentially looking at it.

Arcanists would probably say they possess/own or the information they use to drive their magic, so they collect their knowledge, and they build their processes, and that in the end builds their power.

Occultists link themselves to these occult secrets, but from a more purely occult standpoint, they don't own the knowledge, but partner with the knowledge. (many evil occultists become very jealous of their knowledge and actually start treating some of their knowledge more like it is arcane, and I think the more pure Occultists would probably argue, that is why their spells go astray and they get wrapped in tentacles and taken away in the end so often.) This kind of goes in hand with witches having patrons. Whom help them access this occult power, but it may not really be coming from that power, just that the patron acted as their catalyst who helped them get in touch with this occult abilities.

Divine practitioners of course don't really feel they own the knowledge or power they receive, instead they share the faith in their divine patron. They don't focus on the details of the knowledge at all, instead focusing on maintaining their relationship to their patron, allowing the patron's knowledge to enact the true magic.

Primal practitioners don't so much feel like they are building a specific relationship, as they are already a part of something greater, a gestalt force that they are a part of. They rely on the gestalt, and focus on its overall needs, and insuring that they maintain themselves as a healthy part of that greater whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Might be that something does exist but a small subcontractor forgot about signing a NDA, or some employee, not aware of the NDA posted something about the project on their page, and now heads are rolling.

It might have also been some company thinking that Pathfinder Infinite meant that they could make a digital game using the universe and license it as Pathfinder Infinite, and didn't actually read the details.

I'm hoping that if it was an overstepping of a NDA, by a subcontractor, I hope it doesn't impact the potential of the product continuing to be developed. And I would think that owlcat would be able to reuse much of the framework for starfinder, that they built for pathfinder 1st ed.

It is worthy to note however, also, that Paizo is already working with Amazon on the audio game for Alexa devices. I had fun playing through the intro game with my kids.

It obviously isn't a Isometric video game, but it is a computer game version of Starfinder. It also I'm sure makes licensing details important for any other companies wanting to partner on Paizo computer games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

After listening to Jason Tondro's Fly Free or Die Developer Diary series as far as it has gotten, he talked about the meta-universe effect of the sort of publishing standard of placing new spacecraft on the back inside cover of adventures, and how it has created fat, flat spacecraft being the defacto norm for many adventure, and how he'd like to see things switched up a bit.

Certainly, you can make the effort to make them sleek and slender and/or push them to be two story and find a way to split up the page to put the multiple floors on it. You can also push for less symmetrical and more bizarre designs for the uniqueness. But I know that all could have impacts their sort of informal standard (a page for the starship), and likewise would have other impact on page counts and layout for instance.

However, I'm also wondering if in some cases a basic design could make a ship feel far more two dimensional by doing even some minor things on a normal map. Such as the dotted lines on the Oliphant that was intended to represent the greater storage due to the new technology equipped on it.

I'm also thinking what would stop you from having a corridor with staterooms off to each side, pictured as a single map, but show how the main corridor's hall to the stateroom splits, one portion heading up steeply and the other down steeply. With a pair of basically identical staterooms stacked on top of each other than one is a half-floor down, and the other half-floor up and the doors are offset a bit in the horizontal. This can even include having a corridor opening into a area (science lab) and have clues that show this portion of the ship/chamber or system is much taller, potentially showing an upper catwalk, or coloration to show it is labeled as a 3 story tall cargo bay, with tether points on the walls etc.

I guess my point is, I don't know that all levels have to be separately mapped in all cases. Having important parts mapped, and somehow showing there is a layer of storage accessible at 13 points above the main floor that range in partial height to almost double height at certain spots might be enough to help give a more 3-dimensional feel.

Also trying to remember give a lateral view of the ship on the map might help encourage them to be less 'routinely' a fat, flat, symmetrical wedge. (with a corner cut out for both the compass point and the legend)

Even encouraging it to be build with a sort of split level, where technically not more than one floor at any one place, it would help the design be more 3 dimensional and varied, and things like engines and other infrastructure of the ship can explain other depth not otherwise being specifically mapped.

For some designs, what is wrong with instead of a traditional flat map like a blueprint, it is a map with labeled components representing the ships rooms and passages or other rooms/components with arrows marking where this bulkhead is the same as the one there. Where that design lets you have doors in the floors and ceilings reasonably depicted and used, without worrying about flipping pages or counting squares. You have the components that are nearby one another depicted nearby. Especially if much of the shape or surrounding space is not character accessible anyway, so you don't have to have it on a flat 2d blueprint grid type map.

I love the idea of some more varied craft designs, but I'm wondering what are some ways to open up and display these new designs that would be easy to interpret, and use in adventures.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Your concern bothered me as well when I first read the starship construction rules. It made it very had to imagine space travel being so ubiquitous but so potentially risky, but presumed safe.

But someone pointed out how easily protections are assumed to be built into even the simplest of armors in starfinder.

Then I started coming up with my own idea for escape 'rafts' that could be used in emergencies. As it turns out, they already exist but in a more generic nature.

Hotelier Tent in AoN

For 50 credits for each you can have an emergency 'life raft' that will allow you to get in it and it inflate and hold 2 medium sized creatures(more credits listed as producing larger ones), protecting you from the ravages of vacuum and other basic dangers (as it is supposed to be similar to that provided by armors, probably small drifting shards, etc.) The thing is good for just under 7 days off one battery, for some extra money and perhaps weight that might be extended, or there might be a way to power it off the ship if the shell of the ship has any emergency power left to siphon off.

My version of the item I was working up included an emergency beacon, and the beacon's had a special ability to work in gestalt to have a greater range when more than one was within range of one another increasing the range of all of them collectively.

So if you consider the existence of emergency rafts like that in the halls or rooms, in addition to vacc suits/i.e. flight suits providing environmental protections. I imagine a few people in suits can service the needs of several sets of non-crew potentially in life-rafts shuttling new batteries to power their particular rafts, etc.

So as mentioned, the actual need for get in metal box and go drift into deep space with nothing but an inch or so of steel between you and the void, may be viewed as less useful than staying in the shell that is probably still several layers of metal and other materials, and hope that the larger object catches the attention of rescue teams.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

@breithauptclan

Quote:
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.

I would expect that if the wording you are suggesting, was the intended meaning it would have been written as the following since it is actually shorter:

A Theoretical Edit wrote:
A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, as the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature.

So I think, especially given the official statement, of the Lead Designer, that the intended reading is they have the ability, is that the extra clause is open to future utilization, but not really that relevant now.

It might have been better if the text had included a "for any other applications." after talking about spellcasting class feature. I suspect they wanted to leave open the ability to require certain other class abilities tied to 'spellcasting class feature' option that might exist in future classes that may not come immediately upon the dedication. So it seems unnecessary, a restatement of what was already said, or somehow limiting the prior statement, but might have been an attempt at future proofing the statement in the core, since they may have a potential case that will potentially be coming up later. But I suspect they wanted to future proof it, but didn't want to get as wordy as I do. (looking back at the wall of text I have at this point)

I think part of it that makes me feel sort of this was is the (the same way a member of a spellcasting class can), since the normal spellcasting classes that currently exist, they start with that ability. If had a spellcasting class that didn't start with the ability to use scrolls, wands and staffs, at the beginning, you'd have an argument that the first clause may not grant it and it might only grant it at the Basic Spellcasting feat, as it granted the official spellcasting class feature that grants it by default.

But at the moment, we don't have any cases that trigger any of these extra clauses... so they seem unnecessary, and even ambiguous.

Of course, if we do see some new spellcasting class that doesn't, out of the gates have access to scrolls, wands, staves, I suspect that their actual class feature definitions and multiclass dedications will make that extremely clear, rendering the original core rules clause to still seem redundant. However if they didn't put it in there, someone would either claim the multiclass archetype never gains the offical spellcasting feature, so doesn't have access to something tied back to spellcasting feature.

I think the intent however was to insure that some class features in the future classes could be tied to the Spellcasing Class Feature and allow that to be triggered later in the Multiclass Archetype.

Archives of Nethys:Learn a Spell action wrote:
Requirements You have a spellcasting class feature, and the spell you want to learn is on your magical tradition’s spell list.

So the reasonable question is... based on it, Learn a spell, is based on you having the SpellCasting Class Feature. This means we may actually have one item you get at Basic Spellcasting due to officially getting the spellcasting class feature, as a MC archetype. You may only stay with the 'cantrips' you begin with from your archetype dedication until you choose to grab the basic spellcasting one.

So, the more I look at it, it says, yes you can use scrolls, staves and wands like you are a member of that class, but it will wait until basic spellcasting to learn new spells above those granted by your dedication.

Actually, this makes the difference between the sorcerer and wizard and such archetypes far less onerous, since I had assumed multiclass archetype wizards would start with their four spells and immediately learn a dozen in the first level or two. Since cantrips are basically spontaneous (don't get consumed when cast) the sorcerer's archetype dedication seemed way too restricted.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I agree with those who mention that creating new spawns, quickly in encounter is a very powerful ability. I agree about having it create a more minor version of the originating creature's level (perhaps the lessor two levels lower than either the creating ghoul, or level of the victim). That way it can't start taking out peasants and build an army from tons of week minions. I also don't know if I think it is at all a good idea about the rising immediately. I'd be tempted to have that be rare, perhaps only occurring on a critical failure on the saving throw against rising as a ghoul. (would make it possible, but uncommon) Otherwise, on a regular failure of the saving throw, the ghoul would rise 1d10 minutes later, probably after the fight has concluded.

An interesting option, might be to allow people who rise as a ghoul to be cured of the ghoul affliction and returned to normal life (despite almost having really died) if it is caught within x days, and some cure is administered while it is kept asleep in daylight for at least 8 hours.

I think humbleGamer is thinking you are saying if you go to 0 HP you have a chance to become a ghoul. I think that isn't what you meant so say, but it does bring forward that you may need to present your intent more clearly. (if others are to use it, and not just you, because you obviously know your intent)

I did have the question, does one only have a chance to rise as a ghoul if a ghoul bite was what took you from conscious to 0 HP and dying? I don't know if ghouls have the traditional claw attacks as well, if a ghoul attacks with its claws, taking down a foe, with it attack with its bite, and would that bite (foe already at 0) qualify the foe for rising later, after the target reaches dying 4.

You mention that your ghouls are mindless, but call them stupid, and mention them dreaming. I think rather than mindless you really seem like you are saying they are very limited animal intelligence, at the more vermin type level, than strictly mindless. You don't allow them to have class abilities from past life, and they don't really have tactics other than to shamble over near things to eat.

Your immunities seem reasonable enough: Bleed, non-lethal attacks, fatigue. With your immunity to bleed I question if they should have any resistance to any physical damage types. If so, probably small numbers, like 1 or 1/2 their level perhaps if you do. Probably unnecessary, but the immunity to bleed made me at least ask.

But I'd make a set of tiered Ghouls for your various levels,

If they are Mindless... what sense do they have? What drives them towards their food. Do they have lifesense and more towards living things and consume them if they don't pop up before they are done. Or do they use conventional senses and look for visual motion, noise, and/or smell to seek out their food.

Are they entirely carnivorous or do they consume all sorts of food, such as plants and such. And that question may also bring forward a question of if Leshey's are likely to be targeted by these ghouls. Mutant Ghouls that aren't undead and don't limit themselves to just animal/people as food, but who also consume the competing living beings foods might be an interesting difference. Throwing a large basket of fruit at a mob of ghouls and watching half of them stop and start tearing through the fruit seems an interesting scene that might otherwise be unexpected.

For ability bonuses, I'd stay low for most, maybe make CON high, perhaps moderate for STR or DEX. Depending on meaning of mindless, might go with Low Perception, but if they have acute senses and hunting animal instincts it might justify a moderate or high perception. I'd probably say use moderate or high for HP. Probably low for AC, indicating they prioritize satiating their hunger over avoiding pain, if they really understand that feeling. They'd probably have Low Will save, Moderate or low Reflex, and high fortitude, making a guess. Skills maybe might consider giving something other than low to Athletics or Acrobatics. Stealth, it sounds like your version of them aren't 'smart' enough to really be particularly stealthy. Survival might be something else they might get high or moderate skill for, and that might allow them to instinctively track a food source, for instance.

Attacks I'd probably use Moderate attack bonuses, and moderate damage for the bite as piercing damage, and low damage for claws as agile slashing damage.

Might have a variety of ghouls, each variety having a different special ability, be it being stronger, (with more strike damage or a power attack type strike) or a leap/jump attack, or maybe even a disguise ability, that when they aren't moving they re-form into normal non-ghoul like appearance similar to when asleep in daylight, and can then disguise themselves as being normal/asleep, potentially catching people off-base, thinking they might have found survivors.

That doesn't give you specific numbers, but you can look up the level you want, and check the tables and build the appropriate stats for a ghoul of that level. Examine the special abilities and make sure they seem appropriate and thematic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Well normally people are doing one thing at a time, even juggling which is manipulating a number of items becomes a focus on doing a gestalt action of keep all the balls up.

With that in mind, extra hands definitely has quite a lot of potential for abuse by actively using them for multiple things. However, having four-arms need not enable you to 'by default' be able to wield two two handed swords, or a bow and a two-handed sword, or even a two handed sword and a shield at the same time.

Let them hold the bastard sword, the bow and the shield. But in any 'turn' limit their use to two hands in the turn. So if you shoot your bow, you can't simply use an action to tell your third arm to actively seek out incoming strikes with the shield on it.

Maybe the racial 4-arms ability, has an action investment. You can spend 1 action with sensible traits to unlock the use of a third hand for active use during the round.

Thus your bow user might:
1: shoot bow
2: focus additional hand
3: raise shield (with third hand)

It ends up being possible, but costs an extra action due to the extra focus required. Otherwise, it just gives you extra hands (at the ready). So as mentioned, you can have a variety of 1 handed weapons with different damage types to be able to select the best for the circumstance, and maybe have one holding onto a potion or other magic activation item.

The extra hands might also be useful for counting as being able to wear 2 additional toolsets at the time if not holding other items.

Not that we are getting Skittermanders: But even their 6 hands could be handled similarly, and further limited.

Single skittermander hands can only individually hold and use objects of light bulk. They can hold items of 1 bulk but can't use them effectively. However, they can use 2 of their hands combined and treated exactly like 1 normal hand use for most objects. To use weapon that requires 2 hands normally that isn't light, would require either a total of three or four hands. I'm thinking four, two pairs of skittermander hands working together making 2 normal hands. That leaves 2 skittermander hands that can hold two 1 bulk items, or together hold something larger, but again. Multi-hand use (more than 2 effective active hands) ends up requiring expending an extra action to enable it.

But note, using 4 little skittermander hands together to preform a 2handed action counts as 2 active hands (normal) not 4, so they aren't paying extra action to enable the two smaller hands extra movement.

Now you have a cost associated with having extra hands, if you want to use them actively, otherwise their benefit is having more choices readily available up front. Which, yes, that is, in itself a potentially pretty strong benefit, meaning Kasatha may lose something elsewhere to keep them from becoming a must-have.

It seems like many of the tail feats provide an extra hold, or an extra natural weapon based on the limb, and doesn't involve any action cost to access, but their choices of what can be done with that extra limb is far more limited. So I see a bit of a tradeoff between a limited prehensile tail only able to be able to do certain specific instinctual actions, vs more functional hands, but them also potentially taking more attention to use due to their more advanced capabilities.

Anyway, I think multiple arms is something that second edition is in a far better position to deal with and leave with some reasonable balancing factors than the prior edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Ok, slotless caster that isn't limited to Cantrips.

Cantrips, we already have regular cantrips, and we have focus cantrips (although they may have flavors/hex/composition/etc). We might have a new variation on cantrips that have AMPs coming.

But what if there was a Stance type spells.
you start the casting by Entering the stance potentially spending an action, choosing the stance spell.

The spell defines the entrance and completion requirements. Some parts of the spell might likely have to be decided at entering the stance. Most stances will require paying an action to sustain the casting. The stances include spells (cantrips) that can be cast in lieu of sustaining to maintain the stance. Casting these specified cantrips, either take the place of sustaining the spell, or empower the spell, making its eventual unleashing more powerful on its completion.

Any round following a round that a stance spell has been started, where the stance has been maintained, the spell may be completed, by paying the spells completion cost. It produces the effect defined in the spell. In addition to heightening of spells based on spell level the caster is capable of casting, commitment of certain other actions and spellcasting can increase the effect of the spell via Empowerment as defined in the spell.

So a Primal caster might start combat entering a Flame Strike stance. It takes 1 action and has to choose either a Melee or Ranged version of their spell. To sustain their casting they have to spend an action sustaining the casting it, or cast a primal cantrip with a fire trait. If the spell takes two or more actions it counts as being empowered that round. After starting the stance, and casting a couple produce flames for a couple rounds, they cast another produce flame and then complete their stance spell choosing a target per the completion requirements (and the target having to be ranged or melee according to their original choice).

There might be some Stance Focus powers that might be bought with a feat that might let them use a focus power to 'reset a choice required to be made at the start of a stance' for the cost of an action (equivalent to sustaining) and a focus point.

They would be a caster who commits to building up power by casting cantrip spells to unleash a planned spell later on.

Concept being perhaps building up such spells pulls energy, above and beyond that normally used to cast the spell to the area. These casters specialize in siphoning and forming these energies into the spells they want, rather than powering them with Slots of stored energy they cart around through themselves.

Maybe These stance spells might be relatively few to start, and limited in what they can do, but perhaps the casters as they gain level, gain different boosts they can deliver into the spell via their empowered actions. (like maybe a spell starts melee only and with an empower it gains the option of gaining a range)

There might thus be action cost/commitment to a particular effect... but granting the flexibility to build up its power by using your appropriate cantrips (again, limiting your choices some, thus a strategic cost) and the end benefit is at a subsequent round getting to let lose a relatively strong spell without using a daily resource.

So play for the character would be different from round to round. Ideally starting a stance, and building to where they have a strong casting potentially with buffed circumstances, and take down a foe, or do significant damage. Then start the cycle again likely with a different foe or such. A build and release cycle.

In retrospect, it is a little similar to some of the Ampd concept, but that was kind of binary, and this seems like it offers options to build up more than one boost potentially, to provide some extra variance in strategy based on how many rounds you can build before completing the spell.

AS a separate note, although it might be able to be included in the above concept as a particular 'stance', I liked the idea of characters being able to build 'auras' to buff allies or debuff their opponents as a supernatural ability, kind of inherent to them. I think they could make definitely reasonable stance type effects, giving people within so far from you some sort of buff as long as you maintain your stance by staying within certain limitations. Something akin to an Inquisitor's judgement ability might make a reasonable stance, and flavor on the judgment could provide limitations on the inquisitor's actions, in return for the buff. Could replicate some concepts enabled by the Marshall or Dragon Shaman (or as mentioned the inquisitor).

1 to 50 of 870 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>