I'm making this a separate post because I feel it is a sufficiently separate topic. Please reconsider how PFS specific changes are made. Currently when looking at a character option I have to: 0) look at the original source (book)
This makes building any character with non-core options more complex than it needs to be. I have seen many characters locally that, honestly, didn't know about one or more of the above sources of information. IMO I shouldn't have to go through a 6 step process for each and every character option in order to determine whether I can play that character in society play. I think this leads to the perceived complexity that can push new or casual players away from the game; that is that they can't just buy a couple books and play the game as published.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
I fully agree. Every number that a player needs to keep track of should be on the chronicle sheet. I don't like the SFS faction system where you may have to look through your chronicle stack to figure out how much prestige you have earned with a particular faction. What it comes down to is that I think every accumulating number that a player has to keep track of should be on the chronicle sheet. If that is 10 numbers then there should be a field for each and every one of them. If that is problematic then I think that is an indication that tracking that many numbers is problematic. If supporting keeping track of it is a problem that I would argue that it is problematic inherently. While I generally like the new chronicle design I strong feel that the amount of numbers players are expected to track ignores key "human factors" design elements, i.e. that people will be turned off by the amount of "math" that the campaign expects of them, even if it is simple addition.
Will Huston wrote:
Here's one idea. Print two copies and write the person's name on the copy you keep. So long as you are around you can always go back and provide that confirmation number when the player finally gets around to wanting to register online.
As to the question, I would say generally yes, it could prevent the crit, turning it into a regular hit. I would say though that the fort save or die would still occur. Allowing the fortification to take effect is especially important if the character is a PC. Just give them the benefit of the doubt. There no sense possibly creating argument, animosity, or resentment over a d20 roll.
Auke Teeninga wrote:
The table I was at for part 1 was good and bad. At the point the room took a break partway through we were apparently far ahead of most other tables (level 10-11). However, after the break the GM had clearly not prepped the remainder of the scenario properly. There was a combat in which the GM rolled the whole thing back ~20 minutes into the fight. Took probably 5-10 minutes just to reset, then start the fight completely over. The whole table was pissed off because the missed points likely cost us getting to part 2. After hearing about the debacle of part 2 though I'm actually glad we didn't do it. We still talk about how badly that table was run to this day.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Right but 10 light items equals 1 bulky item, the same as Starfinder if I understand correctly. So if I want to pick up 3 light items I still have to pay attention to whether I already have 8 light items, since that would add another bulk. So those near the limit still have to carefully track everything they have. They still have to add up every single thing on their character sheet.
Tangent101 wrote: That said, I do hope they have Alchemists making coffee. That would just be entirely too amusing. I could very well see a line of Goblin-run restaurants named Sparkbucks and offering coffee that will grow hair on your fingernails, peel paint from a house ten feet away, and keep you... I do not want to go to your Pathfinder Sparkbucks. "That will be 4 silver pieces and a small skin sample." "What?!" "You did ask for the special, did you not?"
graystone wrote:
I have played a number of small characters in Pathfinder. I am also particular enough to carefully track encumbrance even when no one is paying attention. This is absolutely an improvement. Take a look at the tables in the books. Some items are 1/4 weight, some are 1/2 weight, some are full weight. Many items are not clear at all whether the weight should be adjusted for small characters (hello magic items). Then you also have to take max encumbrance and multiply by 3/4. It sucks, a lot. Even as careful as I am, probably more so than 95% of PF players, I am sure that my calculations have at least one inarguable error in them.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I think the bulk system doesn't and can't fix one thing you mentioned: having to keep an eye on your encumbrance when you are near the limit. If I am at 9+B out of 10 max I still have to check everything I pick up to see if it will put me over the limit. Players who push up against the limits are going to have to pay close attention to those limits, no matter how they are expressed. I will agree that the current PF1 encumbrance system is far too fiddly.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I see bulk as roman numerals for weight. So in my mind that is just added complexity. I would prefer to skip the L vs. B and just convert that to numbers from the get-go. So L = 1, B = 10, and multiply Str * 10 for maximum you can carry (if I remember that right). For a base Str 10 character that even makes what you are carrying a direct percentage so it's easy to grasp. It still eliminates all fractions and numbers beyond 1 or 10 for individual items. Edit: To add to this and clarify I do like the "bulk" terminology. Just expressed as 1 bulk for small things vs. 10 bulk for more encumbering things. So if I count the number of 1 bulk items, say 14, and add the number of 10 bulk items, say 2, the math is very easy: 14 + 10 + 10. I don't have to remember that 10 L's equals 1 B, divide the total number of L's by 10 (a decimal likely), then add to the B's - instead simply add up the integers. I am a very analytical person though that is inclined towards math, so I can hardly say whether the average player, especially new player, would find it easier or more intuitive.
I really hope that a more mindchemist style is fully accounted for in the base rules. Especially with the flavor changes. A more science-y based class rather than magic seems to fit with enhancing their own mental abilities even more than the mindchemist archetype. I feel like the strong mutagen focus and flavor of the PF1 alchemist pigeon holes them into the Jekyll and Hyde stereotype too much and I hope that PF2 does not repeat that. I think my ideal would be for the PF2 mutagen to combine the PF1 mutagen and cognatogen. Simply pick which usage is best for your character. If combining the two is too powerful, then make both mutagen and cognatogen class feats where the 5th level ability grants one of them as a bonus class feat.
Douglas Edwards wrote:
I think it would be best to just give up on having unique character numbers across different games. Simply start over with -1. It's seems very straightforward for players to know that their Pathfinder 1E -3 is different than their 2E -3 since they are different campaigns.
Bruno Mares wrote: What about call the "general feats" as feats, and the "class feats" as (the name of the class) talents? Just like rogue talents, cleric talents, fighter talents... Seems more player-friendly. First off, please do give them different names. I like talents instead of class feats since it's familiar to existing Pathfinder players as a type of class feature. -- What is more important for me than naming though is the uniqueness of class feats. Distilled down what I really want are for class feats to be truly iconic for that class. A small, selective list that won't end up being available to many other classes, if any others, ever. I hope that the general feats, gated via the proficiency system, will cover almost all of what are class features in 1E. When half a dozen classes end up with access to the same class feature it no longer matters as much what class one chooses, and this is a shame. Smite evil is something I would see as a paladin class feat (or talent if using that name). In contrast channel energy would be a general feat with a proficiency requirement. Channel energy doesn't belong as a class feat as evidenced by how many 1E classes now have access to it - it is hardly cleric specific. Even domains are available to plenty more classes than just clerics, so while having domain abilities might be a general feat a cleric might power that up with a cleric-only feat that has the domain feat as a prerequisite. Why all this? For one example I compared a sorcerer with the psychic bloodline to the psychic class and in my estimation the sorcerer was generally a better psychic caster. In that comparison there wasn't anything about the psychic class that made it stand out as something unique to me, worth playing with its own class identity. Every class should have a unique identity that doesn't (and won't in the future) get eclipsed or subsumed by some other class.
I played a human spacefarer envoy (phrenic adept) in the first part of Dead Suns yesterday. The archetype is what I needed to make a character concept a reality. So far I'm liking it and don't feel that I'm giving up too much for the archetype. I went with the clever feint envoy improvisation at first level which worked out well - it allows making an enemy flat footed to everyone's attacks for a round. During combat I asked whether the party would rather I attack or use clever feint and the answer was always feint. Hopefully that still holds up as we level up and I start missing out on more improvisations for abilities that don't benefit the party as a whole. On the other hand having a party face with telepathy may end up being very useful. So while the archetype does remove a lot of the meat from most classes I do think it can make certain characters possible.
I finally bothered to write up my own process for printing maps so I figured I'd share it. This is my method for printing Pathfinder and Starfinder maps. This involves saving the maps as individual PDFs with the image scaling information so that they can be printed at the correct scale automatically. I normally print them spread across multiple pages, trim the edges off, and tape them together. This has also worked successfully for taking the PDF to a print service that does large format printing such as Office Depot. Extract the image from the adventure
Open IrfanView [1]
Print the map
[1] http://www.irfanview.com/ This is a freeware image viewer with some basic image editing built in as well. You can download the zip file if you don't have admin privileges to install it normally.
Moofed wrote: I hope there is a "lite" version of the PDF coming, like what is available for the Pathfinder rulebooks. 143MB is too big for Google Drive to display in the browser. I would also like a lite version of the PDF. On a similar note I would like a soft cover pocket edition of the physical book.
VampByDay wrote: Just forcably wake casters up every six hours. Can't regan spells. For technomancers you just take their spellbook thingie away from them and they're out. I mean, I know the book says they can make a new one, but I as a GM would say that pre-supposes that they can get their hands on. . . Well, anything useful. I mean I'd rule that you can't make a spellbook thingie out of a fork tine and a bar of soap. A technomancer does not need to have a spell cache (I assume that's what you are referring to) to rcast a spell. It simply allows them to cast an extra spell per day similar to a Pathfinder wizard's arcane bond.
BraveRift wrote:
I think running towards someone is not a defensive action. You are moving to threaten them. Getting an attack of opportunity on them when you otherwise could not is not defensive, it's offensive.
Blackstorm wrote:
Magic
Bendack wrote:
Hopefully any conversions will be done by the adventure author or developer. In the same way that PFS scenarios now include the stat blocks for the creatures within the scenario, I am hopeful that they will continue that practice with SFS. So you shouldn't need to do Pathfinder to Starfinder conversions yourself for society play (I hope).
Guild Guide page 18 wrote: If the PCs buy an item using pooled money that they do not use during the adventure, one PC may purchase the item at the end of the adventure, paying the item’s full cost. If no PC wants to purchase the item, the PC must sell the item back for 10% value, reimbursing each PC for half of what she paid into the pool. The way I read this if no one wants the item one PC is forced to buy the item at full price, sell it back at 10%, then reimburse the other PCs. This doesn't make sense though. Either a) more than the purchase price ends up being paid for the item, if the pooled money isn't refunded when one PC individually buys the item at full price; or b) the money the other PCs is refunded since one PC is paying the full purchase price, but then the language about reimbursing them for 50% doesn't make sense. The other way to read it that "the PC must sell" is a typo and should be "the PCs must sell", that is, they sell it back collectively. However, this doesn't work because it is impossible to reimburse 50% of what people paid when only 10% is recovered. Maybe this is a typo as a result of copying language from Pathfinder and it's supposed to be that the item is collectively sold back and 10% of what people paid is reimbursed. Let's do some math. 3 PCs pool money to buy an item with a price of 1000:
The item isn't used and no one wants it. If one PC has to buy the item, someone has to buy it for 1000 and sell it back for 100, losing 900, then in addition reimbursing the other PCs 50% of what they originally put in. Even if that buying for 1000 includes the pooled money it still ends up being an uneven split. If PC A buys it:
If PC B buys it:
If PC C buys it:
This seems like a bad rule to me. If no one wants the item it shouldn't be forced onto one PC to buy it then reimburse the other PCs because that can result in them being out even more money. No one is going to want to be the person to take the financial hit of reimbursing the other PCs. This is only going to create confusion in understanding the rules due to the uneven result, and strife between players as arguments erupt over who should have to pay more than their original commitment.
David knott 242 wrote:
Maybe Aroden escaped whatever prison he was in and finally returned to Golarion. His long delayed promise to start a golden age of humanity. The other Gods didn't want humanity running rampant and said "sure, you can have your golden age on Golarion, but you don't get to do it around here." Poof off to a pocket dimension sealed away at the end of the universe. Is Rovagug an active deity in Starfinder? Maybe he managed to escape so they got rid of the entire planet and wiped memories to prevent anyone from finding out what happened to it - and letting Rovagug out from his new prison.
rknop wrote:
A good reason not to use the specific glyph is that the text isn't just going to be printed professionally. If you use it, then you are at the mercy of every PDF reader getting it right (and legible on every device) or your customers will complain. They won't complain to the PDF software author, but to you, the one who chose to use that glyph instead of an easy to read way of presenting the info.
Gilfalas wrote:
Easy, weight depends on gravity. Clearly those are Starfinder tons, not Earth tons. Did you just assume my gravity?
I would prefer that Paizo release less rules and setting books altogether, not just one or the other. I feel that from the get-go Pathfinder development has been primarily focused on getting books out the door quickly. There's two aspects to this: quality and quantity. In terms of quality just look at the rough edges in the rules in the CRB for example. I've read some of the commentary about its development where there were areas they wanted to improve but couldn't without delaying its release. Every GM and player continues to be impacted by those decisions coming on a decade later and the whole product line suffers as well. The adventurer's armory debacle should have been a wake up call. In the years since there have been a number more books, some flagship hardcover books, that have had serious quality issues showing that these lessons aren't been taken to heart. In terms of quantity there are quite simply too many books to even read. I remember seeing a quote from one of the main developers who said that even they don't read every Pathfinder book because there are just too many. No game publisher can provide a consistent product, consistent in lore as well as self-consistent rules, when no one publishing it can keep track of everything. The fact that multiple books have been published covering the exact same topics shows a lack of cohesive vision in game design where even setting lore has to be corrected. My desires are selfish. I don't care how much money Paizo makes so long as they stay in business. While the ship seems to have sailed for Pathfinder, with Starfinder offering a chance to reset things I want them to use a more deliberate method of creating both rules and setting books, with a slower pace of setting and rules books releases. I also want what's broken fixed through errata, not publishing optional rules in later books that change fundamental aspects of the game. Especially considering that society play, the games public marketing, will never use those fixes, e.g. changes to the Pathfinder stealth rules. All that said, I do really like Pathfinder the game system as well as the setting. The Inner Sea World Guide is a great book for example. I'm hopeful that Starfinder finds a better path forward.
Tim Emrick wrote:
That's a pretty magnificent start. I hope the character has many more victories just as exciting as that sounds. My second character is a living monolith and he has been great fun to play.
Fromper wrote:
That's a really cool archetype. There are so many great grippli characters a person can make.
rknop wrote: When I don't know what to buy, I like to fall back on two immovable rods and a hammock. Sounds like someone needs a caver's hammock. It will leave you enough gold left over to get a robe of infinite twine, an autonomous cartographer, and a field scrivener's desk for those who truly wish to explore, report, and relax.
DigitalMage wrote:
For someone who likes grappling anaconda's coils is a nice belt in that it gives +2 Str and constrict.
Rysky wrote:
The Pathfinder Society is a well-known, world wide organization. One whose reputation is sketchy enough that they aren't welcome at all in certain entire countries. Anyone who seeks the society out to join would have a plethora of information available about the organization as well as its goals and methods. This is especially true once a character reaches Absalom to petition at the grand lodge. Even after joining the normal assumption is (or at least was, not sure of the current canon) that a Pathfinder has spent three years voluntarily training to be a field agent in the grand lodge. The grand lodge has a building on site specifically for necromancers. This is not a secret. Most field agents commit premeditated murder on a regular basis. If the character has moral objections to their fellow agents or the society in general, then they should have left the society well before being sent on any mission, i.e. the player should save that character for a home game. Any character brought to a PFS table should be willing to work with others in service of the society and its goals, even if they choose to find alternative problem solving methods sometimes to satisfy their moral code.
Personally I don't find having one of my characters carry half a dozen large weapons any more ridiculous than one of my characters being a paladin, bloodrager, samurai, fighter, brawler, hellknight, knight of ozem, ulfen guard, golden legionnaire, steel falcon, and horizon walker (yes it can be done).
Will Huston wrote:
If you remember a partially translucent sylph wizard (Vasish), then you have.
Muse. wrote:
You can upgrade from an item on a chronicle sheet, but you cannot upgrade to it. So if there is a +1 flaming greataxe on a chronicle you cannot upgrade the +1 greataxe you already have using the chronicle sheet for access to it. You can purchase it from the chronicle then upgrade it to a +1 flaming gnome bane greataxe (with the normal fame restrictions to upgrade it).
|