Mark Carlson 255's page

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

I often wonder if they are Sunshine Trolls* or real experiences.

How self-absorbed do you have to be to hear that someone has a different opinion from you and think, “This sounds like a conspiracy.”

I can honestly say this is why many people I know have left the Piazo forums and have reduced their play of PF.

Also just saying that someone has a different opinion than you is not a conspiracy and I agree and I do not think that is what I have said.

MDC

Captain Morgan

I understand that this is the beta or alpha-beta (old grocery store joke).

But why do quite a few people feel underwhelmed with the magic items?
Is it simply because of the scaling of the PF B rules?
Or is it something else?

I have also been struck as to the similarity to the magic item feel (IMHO) to Warhammer FRP (I was looking at my book from the 80's) and the tone that was presented their for magic items.
The main issue again is that I have not seen Golarian played that way. I have heard people say that they play G with reduced magic items but more often than not I hear the reverse in that they play a magic item heavy game.

IMHO, basic things such as magic item availability, power, etc have a large impact on the game setting and how people perceive them and I cannot bring to mind a case where a major setting change has gone well. But in fact the reverse is often true in that significant minor changes often alienate both groups that the change involves and reduces the number of players.

I do agree that you do see in Video Games often huge swings of base setting ideas and implementations and to various degrees of success. But again PnP RPG's are not Video Games and when you treat them like that you often get the same result, you play for 10-40 hours and then play another game.

I say the above as someone who generally likes to play a limited number of systems and is not interested in switching game systems every month for casual game play. But I do agee that there are people and groups who love the play this way.

MDC

The APs also aren't the only venues of lore moving forward. The novels, modules, and Pathfinder Society scenarios are also all canon and have moved the story forward in various ways. I would expect, for example, that since the society freed Ranginori, the good elemental lord of air, that he'll be free in the new canon and that will have cascading effects on the other elemental lords since they're now out of balance. Similarly, the Assault on Absalom special involved a significant number of things happening in Absalom, like the manumission of every slave who joined the fight to defend the city, so I'd expect a lot of things that used to be true about Absalom to have changed for the new edition thanks to a decade of growth and adventurers running around.

This does sound good.

MDC

Most of your views are common ones I hear from others across the USA and world.

But having said that there are quite a few people her that have had a different experience.

I often wonder if they are Sunshine Trolls* or real experiences.

*A Sunshine Troll is someone who agrees with bad rules to try and hurt the game for various reasons. A group of us decided to coin a term after one heard a group of people talking about doing just that, up voting bad ideas (that they said they did not like) and pretending and defending said bad ideas.

MDC

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like there are enough unresolved plots on Golarion that abandoning the setting for a new one would be disappointing. A lot of the setting material in 1st edition was setting the stage for that stuff, so when they finally decide to do, say, an AP that gets to the bottom of what sinister forces are driving Galt's endless revolution, it won't take too long to catch people up.

Like, the time to do a new setting is when you've run out of stories you want to tell in the old one. I'm reasonably confident Paizo has not.

For those who've been around long enough to follow the industry, new settings are also often very bad for a game or company as they can lead to splitting the fan base. TSR about put themselves out of business by over-producing campaign settings, D&D 3.x mostly drilled down to Forgotten Realms (with Greyhawk tenuously existing as the base setting and the organized play world) until they added Eberron to boost interest with a more modern and steampunk-adjacent setting. 4E pretty much dropped Greyhawk entirely in favor of making the Forgotten Realms the base setting and org play setting, though they did start pushing out revivals like Dark Sun later into the game's lifespan to see if they couldn't revive the franchise.

There's probably a lot of benefit to a setting like Golarion for a company like Paizo; instead of needing to release books for Ravenloft, books for Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc. they can just release books for the part of their world that matches up thematically. If they want horror-themed stuff they can do Ustalav, if they want techno-fantasy in a predominantly fantasy environment they can do a book for Numeria, so on and so forth. That way the fans who like the game for the horror aspects and the fans who like steampunky freedom fighters can all still sit down and play the same together, and books that are of interest to one should also have some interest for the other, which is particularly relevant for organized play....

I agree in part. By that I mean in the way past mid 80's through mid 90's (often) the setting core set was good but the expansion material suffered. But also some niche settings as you have stated do not have the breadth to survive long on their own. Yes they are fun for a side trip of fun but often they do not have the depth necessary to play continually every week for 2 years. I do agree that there are exceptions to the last statement but if you try and look at data from how people play the game vs a segment (home games in San Diego, Con game, etc) you get an entirely different picture of what people want from their material.

I am trying not to throw stones but the thought that Dark Sun setting would save a system in early to mid 2000's should be a red flag on someones decision process. The gamer population of the time, or now just does not enjoy this type of setting for a long term game (again over all and not taking in small pockets of support).

MDC

Those are fair points.

Personally I have a lot of faith in Paizo, and I also strongly feel that the success or failure of PF2e is going to be in the Adventure Paths, which have always been the flagship product. I don't think what PF2e looks like even matters that much as long as Paizo continues to be the only company regularly publishing quality prebuilt adventures.

But I also don't play PFS, so I can't speak to the trepidation there; I can understand worrying about that, though.

This is a topic of discussion a group of us has, if the AP's or adventures are good to excellent but the main system is less than that, will people buy the AP's or adventures? Is there or has there been any example of this from the past? And does it apply today?

Go4TheEyesBoo wrote:

Why do you assume "PF1.5" would have those things you don't want to deal with? The people clamoring for PF1.5 want exactly that: the removal of fiddly bits and broken things. It would be a system change, not PF1 with bandaids/mods. The only difference is that they want minimal addition of "new mechanics for the sake of new mechanics" or "needlessly limiting character options/flexibility". For instance, there's little reason to minimize character choices by locking people into "role boxes" of feats behind class gates. Or Resonance. Or "level bonus to everything". PF1.5, as people desire it, would have none (or less) of the things you complain about. It'd probably strap on most of the Unchained changes, simplify the grapple mechanic, fix the move/Full-Attack static combat issues by going to 3-action system, rework/rebalance some spells, fix multiclass progression issues, etc, etc. I don't know why you feel a "PF1.5" would be as fiddly as PF1. I know for a fact PF1 wasn't as fiddly as D&D 3.5. PF2, as currently proposed, feels the same as what happened when D&D went from 3.5 to 4E. Namely, in...

I don't think a simple cleanup, as you describe it, would be good enough to fix the problems with PF1. While PF1 is and remains a great game, its age shows, and things that were OK-ish 10 years ago are due for a fix. Namely:

- The game must be made much simpler, in order to be more attractive to prospective new players and would-be GMs. In particular, building a character must be a lot easier.
- The game must become much better balanced at high levels, in order to offer a full experience. It must also become much easier to play and to design adventures for at high levels.

The need for a simpler game is evidenced by 5e's success. It doesn't mean 5e is the only solution, but PF1 evolved too far on the side of complexity.

The need for a fix to high-level play can be shown very easily by checking...

IMHO and from past experience most of the reasons I and we have not just run high level adventures is do to the fact that they do not fit into the story we have going with out PC's.

One of the main reasons we stopped buying adventures in the 80's was the fact they did not seem to fit how our PC's lived in our own game worlds but were suddenly thrust into someone else's idea of a game world.
So (generally) we just designed our own adventures and when a great adventure came along we highly adapted it to our game.
Or we decided to run a mini-campaign, in that the adventure was 3 parts and ran from levels 5-13 so we would just start at level 5 and end at level 13+ when the adventure stopped.

MDC

Ryan Freire wrote:

The proof will be in if it sells. My money's on it wont.

Of all of the varied, thoughtful, and intelligent viewpoints I've seen from every side of the debates on this forum, wishing ill on Paizo like this is the one position that I truly cannot comprehend.

When I say something like this I mean the opposite, I hope that Piazo hears what I am hearing from people in the USA and around the world and how they are saying they are going to spend their money.

MDC

Charon Onozuka wrote:

For all this discussion about wanting PF1.5 and saying that the 2E can't compete with D&D5e, I want to say that one of my players actually flat out told me that if they had to choose between PF1, 5E, and the current Playtest, they'd pick the Playtest without a doubt.

With all the complaints about things in the Playtest, it has already solved a ton of nagging issues my group had with PF1 and has been received fairly well. And rather than seeing blasts spells dominating, buffs/debuffs, save or suck, and terrain effects have had a great impact on battles so far.

After one, I repeat here, ONE, session I got my entire group of players to convert over to PF2, we’re actually considering putting the extra effort in to convert Kingmaker over to second edition, just based on the playtest so far, I can say that so far the Playtest has brought Pathfinder back to life in my area in a way no 1.5 revision ever could have.

Your example highlights one of the important things I have taken away from the play-test.

Frankly as others have said my experience and observations as well as quite a few people I know around the world differ drastically from what other posters have said their experiences have been.

MD

BTW,
In all my years (Con's, home games, store games, etc) of seeing a player play a Kinder (Dragon Lance setting race) I have never seen the race be played in any other way except a kleptomaniac who acted child like.

The above may be good in books as it can provide humor breaks from the drama but in game settings over the long term it was very disruptive.

Having said that I know of quite a few PF 1 groups that liked to play goblins and their attitudes for a game or two as presented in the free goblin adventures.
And they had lots of fun.
But when trying to integrate that type of goblin into their regular game they found the same issues as the "Kinder race" above but not in the same way.

MDC

P.S. The Kinder issue is one common dividing point among groups that I have seen in that very few are in the middle of the issue.

Derry L. Zimeye wrote:

Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh

Actually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.

I can answer this one.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Yeah, this was never clear before the playtest started, and it wasn't really until rather late in the game (like less than a month ago) that I saw any statement clearly pointing out that the playtest is not PF2 Beta and was never meant to be. I know my entire group assumed that it was, and were therefore very dismayed to see such...

https://imgur.com/XCtPPeJ

This was page four of the playtest book. The book that also said playtest on the front.

I know that when I got my hands on a copy, I stood up in front of my group before we played and explained that this wasn't going to be a normal game of Pathfinder, that it was a playtest. The rules weren't going to look anything like this when it released, so it was important to note things they liked and didn't like.

I don't understand how this wasn't clear.

I think we may have dramatically different views on play tests and alpha and beta play test definitions.

The more I play Starfinder, the more I like the Stamina-Resolve system.

I know 3 groups that decided to play SF and after about 10 months the Stam-Res rules were one of the reasons for quitting the game.

MDC

In general it sounds as if the changes are going to make a number of people I know move away from the statement "They (Piazo) are making it very easy for me to not buy the game (PF 2)" and might make them take another look at the rules.

But it really depends on what the final rules are going to be.

The huge issue I am hearing now is "They seemed to think that PF 2.0 beta 1.0 rules were going to be a great game and it was not for me and my group, so I really have trouble trusting that the new un-play testing version is going to be much better."

But in general most hope that PF 2.0 is a good game and makes the industry step up to a higher publishing bar for their products.

MDC

In general:
1) I know of various GM's who do need to know what various NPC's can and cannot do and those that do not need to know exactly the numbers.
2) The above info factors into how each "type" of GM manages their game and how dynamic and "living" it is.
3) I have found that in general it helps to give each the tools they need to make their game easier.

I have seen this by playing in multiple games at home, at con's as well as watching games being played in game stores since the late 70's. As well as talking to many people around the world on how to improve their games and or improve their play by identifying what type of GM and or player they are and what type of game most satisfy's them.
I agree your experience may differ but I have found that just going to a game store and hanging out and watching and listening can be very informative. I learned at lot about how various younger kids were playing 3.X by watching games while waiting for my next MtG match or listening in while playing MtG.

MDC

I feel like a big problem with not having +Level to untrained skills, is that it means past a certain level you will absolutely never want to try to do something untrained for fear of a critical failure. Sure, this is in part a consequence of DCs going up as you level, but that's always been the case- the DC to identify a CR10 creature has always been 5 more than the DC to identify a CR5 creature.

I think that the game is far more heroic if people are not afraid of attempting things in which they have not received formal training.

Does this not say then that the crit failure rules should be looked at and possibly changed as it limits RP'ing and options to a large extent?

I am not saying that the +10 -10 rule is the issue but in general I know of quite a few people who propose rpg's who insist on core game rules that dramatically affect how the rest of the game is played by players and GM's. By not changing them they often limit the audience who enjoy and continue to play the game long term as hidden flaws become more and more apparent and dissolve the illusion the game projects and players/GM's want to experience.

MDC

Mark me as a fan of Opportunity Attacks being gone or vastly reduced - it and full attack were the top two things that in our games turned combat into almost wargaming set piece battles. The two sides run up to one another, stay in place, and trade shots till one goes down, never maneuvering for better position or performing different tactics besides attacking because it's too costly. That in turn always led to a race for "How could you inflict the most damage to make them go down faster, so you could move on to another opponent?" Makes for fun Napoleonics, I suppose, but it would be a very boring action movie.

With fewer Op Attacks, you're drinking potions, using magic items, casting spells, and encircling; with the removal of restrictions on combat maneuvers, you're also shoving, grappling, tripping, and disarming. In one of our games, when a fighter encountered a bunch of goblins, when they realized what a threat he was, they actually tripped and grappled him to keep him from wrecking their archers. It was something that would have gotten them summarily murdered in PF1 due to their need for improved grapple and improved trip. I don't know about other tables, but I'm seeing a lot more variety in combat because of it.

Most of the groups I know have the opposite opinion of you after their first few years of gaming. Most think that having some restrictions on such things and not allowing dance moves up to and around your opponent are a good thing.

If PF 2 keep this rule, I am very curious how it will be received by the general public.

MDC

Scythia wrote:

You know what would be a cool Thievery feat? At Trained you gain the ability to pickpocket, at Expert you can attempt to pickpocket in combat so long as you're unseen, at Master you can attempt to pickpocket even when the target is on guard, at Legendary you can attempt to pickpocket an item in use.

I think more skill feats ought to have scaling effect based on degree of proficiency (like Catfall).

Stealing a potion or an item before the opponent use it as a reaction would be really fun xD

Except when it becomes common place and keeps happening to the PC's. Then it sucks.

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

I think you have valid points especially 1 and 2.

After reading the survey Q's I was very surprised to not see a simple question, "Did you have fun in this section?"

MDC

"Fun" is not a terribly useful metric, one player might only find combats which are never challenging fun, while another player might find ones where the party TPKs fun. Fun is so variable that its almost impossible to have something that is found universally "fun". You're better off striving for a particular approach for your game and letting the audience for that game find it.

I agree and disagree with this; quite simply it is how you ask and where you ask did you have fun with rule X, Y or Z.

Simply asking if core rule's X, Y, Z are fun also gives very important feedback to the dev team (if the data gathered can be guaranteed accurate and not biased in any way). For example I know of dev's that love a rule or rules and it works great in their games but when it is brought out to other's the feedback they get is others do not like it in any way. Some dev's have an easier time of getting rid of the rules and or redesigning from the ground up vs others.
Note: Again accurate data and asking the right questions in an un-biased way is very important.
MDC

I think you have valid points especially 1 and 2.
After reading the survey Q's I was very surprised to not see a simple question, "Did you have fun in this section?"

MDC

A PC with a charisma of 15 can pretty much intimidate anyone with just a small help from the dice - that is totally unrealistic.

And I realize that Fantasy Role Playing Games are just that Fantasy. BUT, it should not be so EASY to max out at first level.

That was my point of the original post.

I was thinking about the opposite situation, in that how easy is it for a NPC/PC/Monster to use a skill to "charm/enthrall/etc" a group of common people?

Note: it vastly depends on how the game defines the common people, ie all level 1 people or common people tend to be levels 1-3.

MDC

It seems a lot of spells have problems with meta-magic rods, feats, etc so why not modify those instead of the spells?

MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

I know of 18-24 groups that have had the same experience as you have. Most of the groups do a fair amount of testing of new rules or have GM's and players looking to create new games.

Honestly?

I personally know 122 to 231 groups and they all enjoy the Playtest so far.
It's okay to not like the playtest but this fantasy novel you bring here is quite amusing and made my day.

I can see your experience's is vastly different from mine but facts are facts.

Maybe you can pick up their spending at Paizo to make it even for the company?

MDC

John Mechalas wrote:

I don't understand the aversion to having meaningful differences between players, each with complimentary strengths that cover individuals' weaknesses. That's how real teams work.

Many don't seem to want that anymore.

One of the many complaints I heard on 4th edition is that everything (class, damage) seemed to become the same or have the same feel after a while and was one of the reasons they stopped playing.

I am curious if this design style can support a TTRPG long term vs a short term video game as in my experience when I talk to players they do not want a "Replaceable Part" PC.

MDC

This is always an interesting topic in game design, how prevalent, powerful and necessary are magic items for what PC's, NCP's and monsters want to do?

In the past it has generally been defined by settings (but modified by GM's for in house games) and as most settings have vast influence of design's of the game and its rules moving forward gradually become more intertwined as time marches forward vs having less crossover.
Some examples of limited to no magic items (IMHO); are Conan and Call of Cthulhu and that fact greatly define how things work in the world and how characters interact in it.
The thing is is PF core world this type of setting? Or do you need a specific amount of magic item interaction to make the setting go? In my experience Golarion is more of a magic heavy world and thus needs more magic items and such things.
Note I am not saying you cannot play in a magic zero or magic very lite mode, but from how I have played the game and seen the game played and enjoyed in game stores, conventions, free play as well as home games magic items and a fair amount of them are required.
MDC

math scale:
IMHO it can vary greatly based on the group, with some having no trouble with basic math, others very math phobic and the last group loving college level advanced math formulas.
In general too simple math turns me off to a game that promises true drama, ie a d2 just does not have the range to reflect life or RPG life in my opinion.

Mathmuse:
Your example of a player not showing up:
I know of quite a few groups that do not play if a player cannot make the game and I also know of GM's who will play the missing player's PC in very minor ways to advance the story or even have the missing player make rolls and then send them over the net so the GM can use so random method to use those rolls.

I saw EN Henery (I think that is the right poster) post something like you issue above and he was proposing something I saw as a "Replaceable Part" PC idea as is in PF2.
I (playing since 78, many games) have not seen a "Replaceable Part" idea work in a non-video game situation.
Yes I am curious if it will work but from the people I have talked to 100+ they do not like it.

MDC

Treadmill vs Video game:
IMHO these two things are a bit different, treadmill is as a person stated above the need to keep doing something to stay in the same place as you were. Faster treadmill you have to give more resources to stay the same, normal speed you have to spend some resources and slow in which you can spend less resources to stay the same.

Video game:
To me the video game's can be a huge trap because they generally (yes there are some exceptions or games with much more detailed in game rule sets) function as a reduced set of rules in highly structured environments (the same as books, play's and movies) and most home games are not this highly structured.

A common theme I used to see in V-games is what I call red city, blue city and green city. That is the idea that you are in one city for levels 1-3 clear it out and then move on to the blue city for levels 4-6 and then green city for levels 7-10.
In each city there are level appropriate and only level appropriate encounters, treasure, people NPC's and monsters.
The thing is again video games are highly structured, have great graphics and sound in essence offering a vastly different experience than TTRPG's. (Yes I do agree they have common elements that are the same)

In general I can say most people I know who have been excited to play pen and paper versions of video games have been vastly disappointed after playing such games.

MDC

4th edition and treadmill vs PF2
Note: (IMHO) This is not a dig at 4th but a valid data point in PF2 design.
I see a few people above who seem to like 4th and PF2, I will have to see if I can find someone in the 100+ people I know and communicate with fairly regularly, who like's 4th and like PF2.
The big problem I know of right off the top of my head is most people that come to mind who play PF1, D&D 3.x and D&D5th do not like 4th in any way.

If people did like 4th and did not buy in to the game, and common elements are in PF2 and 4th, what has changed so as the designers of PF2 think this time those same rules will be better received by the public and thus PF 2 a financial success vs 4th?

BTW, smart, well informed, educated people make informed decisions that turn out to be flawed all the time. A good example of this is a Chinese warship from the late 1800's that was recently found, having great armor protection but a lacquered deck that was highly flammable. After constructing 2 ships people agreed it was a serious if not fatal flaw in design.

MDC

GM's Playing to Win,
I have seen a lot of games (Con's, in game stores and home games) since I started playing in 78.
I can say that I have seen and played with a lot of good GM's and I can say that I have seen and played with some GM's that I hope were on the road to being a good GM's. And I can say that I have at times been a poor/bad/other adj also GM. The thing is how to help GM's be the best GM based on how that game wants to be played. Yes this is different from how the group wants to play as the more you deviate from the core rules often the less products that group will buy which is generally different than what the company wants.

Monsters actions,
In general I prefer monsters should be played according to their nature. Problem is very few games expressly list how creatures react in all combat situations. So the GM has to make value judgments and decisions which can vary from combat to combat as well as table to table.

Monster Difficulty,
IMHO as it is now creatures are a lot more like the old video game Thief where generally once you were detected you were dead. Some liked the style some did not, the thing is does this style represent the PF group that plays now or will it grow the group significantly that will play PF2.

MDC

If so, then it should be clear to you that D&D/PF in all its iterations is a tactical wargame with some role-playing sprinkled on the top. There's some insignificant variation, but it's the same old-school Gary Gygax and his d00ds decided to make their miniatures wargame a little more adventure-y stuff. Once you get around a bit and play stuff like FATE, Amber, Dogs in the Vineyard or Ten Candles, D&D variants start to blur and arguments about one being inherently superior to another in terms of being a better representation of any aspect of the GNS spectrum tend to look silly.

GNS:

MDC

Your player is not alone,
I know of a blind play test involving 10 groups in which they said they were testing an unknown game with Piazo materials. 5 of the 10 groups decided to quite after 3 hours as they said the game was un-fun and they did not need to see more (some at that level and some at all).
The blind test also lost 5 groups out of 10 but not necessary the same ones who quit after 3 hours from the 1st test to the 2nd do to lack of interest and in the 3rd installment they were down to 2 groups out of 10.
At the start all 10 had planed on playing 3 separate test over 2-3 days (4-6 hour sessions each) using the provided play test adventure and each group had 1 GM and 4-6 players.
MDC

IMHO, right and wrong way to play vastly is determined by your group and GM.
Having said that it is important to have labels to identify what group you fall into to maximize everyone play experience.

I have been playing since the late 70's with various groups as well as having seen quite a few different games and groups in Con, Game Store and even a Game Home (many different games being played at once) settings. And IMHO specific games tend to promote more Role vs Role playing experiences but in general yes the games could have been more of the option that people chose not to promote but for some reason it always seems the system itself promotes one style vs the other.

IMHO, the goal should be to have interesting and meaningful mechanics and rules that make it easy to promote both types of RP'ing. I do agree that that is a very polly-anna or I am in heaven goal as well as a very tough thing to achieve. But it should be the goal and when and if people are telling you something you should listen.
Note: the other thing is that the game by design is not focused toward you and your play style (yes this does happen) and this is generally a business decision or simply "this is the type of game I can create" condition so this is what I am going to publish decision.

In general I have learned to ask myself; "Can I see me playing this game as written now (ie who cares if they plan on supplements to fix problems I am having now in the future, because they may not come) in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years from now or is the game just a filler game I might play for 1-3 months before switching to something on my top tier of RPG's?"

MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

I thought this was going to be about a group of all operative PC's and how they had trouble and got wiped out in the first game.

MDC

But how could you tell?

"Sir, the Ninja Division has been wiped out."
"Dammit!"
"Or, possibly, they succeeded. Or they might be taking comp time."
"Well? Which is it?"
"We don't know. We can't find them."
"Dammit! I told the brass this was a bad idea."

I was looking at the title while thinking about a group of all operatives and the possibility of them having trouble.

MDC

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

I thought this was going to be about a group of all operative PC's and how they had trouble and got wiped out in the first game.

MDC

Or that they are behind enemy lines and the scenario is to go save them?

Could be but I think I just jumped to the worst case right off the bat. Not a good point for me I should say.

I thought this was going to be about a group of all operative PC's and how they had trouble and got wiped out in the first game.
MDC

I agree with all of what you have said,
but I was confused by the statement that basically said something like "not often, but at times androids are built to look like other races"

So I was very curious as to just how the designers really intended the statement to be used when creating a PC.

I agree,
1) 4 arms is an advantage, which is why I asked. And that if I modeled my android on Kasatha race then it should be a valid option based on the description.
1a) I also agree that you can add arms later with equipment, from memory it was over level 10 items.
2) Small, agree again that it has no rules benefit as now but it can have RP benefits such as moving into small spaces, hiding behind smaller rocks, hiding behind larger PC's, etc.

Thanks, your comments were about what I was expecting.

MDC

My PC is going to use sonic TP.
It is a free attachment that is included and snaps on to my Lt Reaction Cannon.
MDC

In the book it states that Androids often are created to look like other races.
But can I start with...
1) 4 arms?
2) Size small?

Thanks
MDC

It sounds right.

Now I am off to buy supplies so I can build my own Battlestar, see you in a few days and a few more days to craft all of the other ships that go inside the Battlestar.
MDC

That's quite true. Let me rephrase my question.

Does a mechanic with a custom rig installed in their body need a datajack? Or does the text simply mean a datajack can share the same augmentation slot as a custom rig installed in your brain?

I read the text as saying you can have both in your brain augmentation slot.

MDC

1) Give discounts to people who are not slavers.
2) Give bigger discounts to those who actively oppose slavers
3) Take lower profits on trade missions if they are anti slaver in nature.
etc

MDC

Some people process info better in a visual representation (ie map) where other have no problem with data on a chart. So on the long run IMHO both would be a good idea (and a good way to add some art to a project)
MDC

captain yesterday wrote:

They're casting Control Undead, not Create so Pharasma should be alright with it.

This is correct. 90% of spell illustrations in Paizo products feature a spell that is on the preceding or following page. 10% are on the same page.

In this case Control Undead is on the preceding page, Animate Dead is much earlier. I don't think Pharasma would mind if you turned undead against your enemies, then destroyed them after.

IMHO, it can depend on how your GM interpenetrates Pharasma's will in the game. ie would a follower of Pharasma even take control undead vs spells to just destroy them. Would she even teach such a spell to her worshipers?

Some thoughts:
1) The sigil is some sort of disguise or prop to aid in their disguise.
2) The text given to the artist to describe what type of picture they wanted was in error
3) A mistake got trough the editing process.
4) The artist who knows a lot about pathfinder was playing a joke to see if it got caught. And then forgot about it do to the fact they got busy with life and other stuff.

MDC

Mr H,
Thanks for the math, it has helped me a lot to decide what I am going to do for a PC.
MDC

I'd be a lot stricter ("meaner") if I were your DM ;) Carrying capacity and encumbrance penalties are one of the often over-looked factors that require careful thought for character creation.

The most common (though risky) way to deal with encumbrance penalties is to have a backpack full of gear that is dropped on the ground at the very beginning of every encounter. (the risk is that if you have to run away, you might not be able to pick up the backpack)

A problem like you're describing, where just items worn and held (armor and weapons) are giving encumbrance penalties, is harder to deal with. One thing to keep in mind is that being medium or heavy load decreases your speed and gives you some skill check penalties, but won't affect your actual combat aptitude in terms of attack rolls, AC, etc. So you might just have to bear with it until you can afford other (perhaps magical) options.

I created a magic item that would gently lowered your backpack to the ground, when you shucked it to fight.

In general the one issue on weight we really enforced and did not change was the weight restrictions on small races but we let larger races get a way with a bit more.

MDC

I am of no help as I have said it both ways depending on what decade it was/is.

MDC

I thought L2P was "late to party".

MDC

Where did Golarion's races come from.

takes off glasses, looks thoughtfully at the ceiling.

Well, you see, when two people love each other very much...

I am gals some one else went before me as I have been holding this in for a while after reading the post the first time.

The come from their mommies of course.

But I also like the official versions also.

MDC

It has been quite awhile since I read any HPL, but I always thought that he was trying to say that unchecked science can lead to problems and that myth and the unknown influenced a lot of people. Even those who were more science inclined. And if you combine the two you could get some really crazy people.

The idea that science was opposed to religion was not new during HPL's time and is a recurring theme.

I think the brilliant part of HPL stories is that the idea that trying to understand alien being's change your sanity as perceived by every ones else.
So you can think back to the movement of "the earth is flat" vs the "the earth is round" and see how the person (scientist) who started making the statement "the earth is round" and here is why. Was perceived by all of the normal people. ie he is crazy.
Then as the scientist brings up everyone's knowledge as to how things work it becomes crazy to say the "earth is flat".

IMHO, again it is brilliant to play on that basic idea in so many stories and not be very apparent to the reader. He also comes at it from both directions in his stories, IIRC so as to give you stories on both sides of the argument so to speak. As well as usually says one side is evil or unnatural vs the other.

But again it has been a long time since I read any HPL so I could be confusing the stories with a lot of other stuff I have read.

MDC