Nohwear's page

From my understanding, the book is a series of adventures that is designed to put the system through it's paces. If that does not suit you, there is nothing stopping you from creating a homebrew adventure and using that to give feedback. That is what I am doing.

Alright, that is a grumble though.

Nohwear wrote:

It just feels like alignment offers to much of a guide. I just really do not like the alignment matrix. I feel that it make morality too simple.

How so? It lay the framework for Good and Evil and lets you fill in the gray.

That is part of the problem for me. I want to wallow in the gray area. I want villains that are the heroes in their own stories. People who are not good or evil, and are capable of being both. I am cautious about going too far, lest I open up the can of worms that comes with any alignment discussion.

I want to help with the Playtest, but I also prefer morally ambiguous campaigns. Would it hurt the usefulness of my data if I were to throw out alignment for my campaign? I will still keep vows, anathema, and such, but not the alignment matrix.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? Yes

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? I still like it.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? I actually liked 4e. 5e is not bad, but I prefer the extra options of Pathfinder.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? I guess more options.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? I would prefer Pathfinder to be more of a generally popular game, then more of a niche one.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? To a certain degree. I feel that a balance needs to be reached there.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? I guess. I would need to see the system.

To answer the over all question, I feel that Pathfinder 2e as is, is a blend of Starfinder and 13th Age. To me, this is a good thing. I see the need more for fine tuning then a complete overhall. Although to be fair, my opion i based on a first impression right now. I want to run a homebrew campaign to test it out.

To me, it feels more like 13th Age then 4e. Which is a very good thing. I would argue that 13th Age is what 4e should have been.

Shepherd Book is definitely an operative with the Priest theme.

Munchkins can be useful. After reading the book the first time I had a worry the envoy class might be fairly weak, and there was some talk on here that supported that fear, but after people had a bit more time people did a bit more math, taking into account stuff people were missing at first and it became obvious that envoy is a very solid support class, in SF. Now I can't wait to play my envoy later this month... going android might end up being a mistake, but ehh, I'm just missing out on +1 attack bonus I would otherwise have, I'm sure I'll live(well... I hope i do anyways).

To me, what you describe is not being a Munchkin. To be a Munchkin, you need to put your fun ahead of everyone else's.

One concern is that you get the situation where no one has the right other skills, and now can not make the higher face skill DCs.

The GM exclaims that they have not read Starfinder, but they are basically the same, right?

While salvaging/exploring a derelict station the PCs come across some sort of obelisk. After the obelisk bathes them in some sort of energy, a corporate team barges in and opens fire. The obelisk is now featureless and inert. When the party gets back to civilization, they find that the corp has trashed their rep and painted them as monsters. What is this obelisk? What did that light do? And Why is the corp out to ruin the PCs now?

Yeah, again you seem to be disappointed that that they tried to make the two systems compatible instead of building something new. At this point it feel like you might as well be complaining that it is still a d20 system.

avr wrote:

You'd probably need to use different basic stats to avoid the problem. D&D's 6 aren't carved in stone for every RPG, and I'd argue that for a SF RPG you could probably leave out strength entirely and probably break up dexterity into a couple of stats.

Exactly. But instead of work out a better attribute system, they just copy/pasta'ed from pathfinder and here we are again, with a stat which was already weak in a fantasy setting full of magic is even worse in a setting full of super advanced technology.

It was entirely in their power to avoid this obvious issue. This isn't supposed to be a Pathfinder setting, it's supposed to be it's own RPG.

And yet here we are. It's disappointing.

So then you are disappointed that that they made a compatible system instead of building something new from the ground up?

I can not help but feel that you want Strength to be more important, other then to make Strength more important. To change game mechanics for their own sake. I can see ways to make Strength more important, but it feels ham-handed and not organic.

For Armor mod, I can picture something resembling a scanner from DBZ, plus retractable micro tools.

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Paul Jackson wrote:

And I saw no problem with the Speedruns. Who cares if people want to start at level 2 and not level 1? Doesn't bother me in the least.

Would it bother you if people just filled out the chronicles for the characters then, rather than spend time running the module?

When someone shows up at a table with me - I really don't check to see if her CRs are filled out. I don't quiz her on how she played her last few games, or anything like that. What's she bringing to the table to play with me? What's she going to play like? Is she there to have fun? How is she going to fit in... not did she "play right" in her former games.

If - during the game with me - something is really "off" with the way she's playing? or something's weird with her PC? I might ask something then... but mostly to see if she's messed something up (made a mistake) or if she knows something I might learn (some "cute gimmick"), I tend to assume she's honest and fun to have at the table - at least until proven otherwise.

Let's look at it this way. What if a bunch of people from different lodges not only skipped straight to the sheets, but started to brag about it. Would it be their fault or the leadership's if there was a new layer of paper work and scrutiny added?

This isn't a something Paizo is likely to deliver, but I'd like a list you can sort that details all the changes between Pathfinder and Starfinder. After playing our first few adventures, we noticed that we were looking up rules we were 100% sure about in Pathfinder but may or may not have changed in Starfinder, thus bogging combat down tremendously.

Maybe I'll start it as an online sheet ...

I will see if I can find it, but there is a cheat sheet for this in one of the blogs.

EDIT: Cheat Sheet

I think that the reason some people wince against this is because we are a group primarily made of outsiders. Thus we have experienced unfair snubbings for being different.

Ah.

This is a big part of the problem. While it is easy to tell when a character is deep in the over powered territory, it is usually hard to tell when someone is just over the line. Muddling things further, where that line is can depend on the group.

@The Raven Black, apology accepted.

ok, just some random thoughts as I read thru this thread today.

1) ** spoiler omitted **...

Number three assumes that you have a choice. For many people the option is to play with that person or go home. If the person can not be dealt with, then the lodge, or at least that location, may die. Of course, the this must be balanced against an overly authoritative GM.

The crux of the problem, as I see it, is that some people are only able to play Pathfinder through PFS. Unfortunately, some of those people are in that situation because they have been kicked out of all the other gaming groups.

Arguably, the Brass has been backed into a bit of a corner. On the one side you have a lot of fair and reasonable players who you risk punishing. On the other you have the players who will exploit every loophole and corner case to make the most powerful character they can, and who do not care about anyone else's fun. The other problem is that it can be very hard to know where the "silent majority" lays in most issues. I am not sure what the solution is, but I do have empathy for them.

The notion that it is the player base that is responsible for us all having nice things taken away from us by Campaign Leadership is, well, problematic.

It puts me in mind of being a schoolboy when the whole class got punished for the actions of 1 or 2 pupils.

I don't want PFS to make me feel like that. I'm a middle-aged professional.

Unfortunately, I am not sure of how else to deal with the problem of players who are happy to let their fun run over everyone else's.

Tallow wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Tallow wrote:

And Mike and John trusted the player base to be reasonable. That trust was unfortunately broken.

Shifting blame to the player base is pretty easy and one-sided though

In the end it is also dismissive of the real power and responsibility that sits heavily on the shoulders of the Leadership team.

What? I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

I don't remember the specific issue, but there was some consternation among some players and they literally demanded that Mike had to make some ruling. So he did. And they complained loud and long about it. It wasn't that they wanted him to decide X, it's that they waanted him to to decide something period.

And when he did, they complained that he didn't decide differently.

It's absolutely ridiculous. There are many things that we, as players and GMs, should decide, and we should only ask for a formal decision on things that REALLY matter. But we don't. We want rulings on all sort of little things that, in the overall scheme, don't make a bit of difference.

The players and GMs who constantly demand things, or who go so far out of their way to exploit loopholes or ambiguities, share a measure of responsibility, too.

This reminds me of people who immediately bring out a lawyer for some dispute with their neighbor instead of talking to them first and trying to work something out. Some people do not like to negotiate, so they try to get authority to back up their position instead of working things out among themselves.

Force Friday for those who are affected!

Have you asked him what he does not like about sci-fi rpgs? Are there specific problems to address?

I just want to give a shout out to all the businesses and houses of worship offered shelter to those in need. I would also like to take this opportunity to also give a bit of thanks to all of those mentioned above who truly wish they were able to offer aid, but became victims themselves. Not that I lack empathy for anyone else who suffered.

Will sports be covered at all? With or without attached game mechanics.

I am not the sort who offense as the best defense, but Solar Armor just seems like the weaker option. Is there something that I am missing? What do you think? Is Solar Armor just plain weaker, ya or nay?

I have been thinking, since FTL travel has a chance of things going horribly wrong, what superstions do you think exist that are supposed to ward of encounters in the Drift?

I am guessing one of them is to never mention the name of a lost ship, especially while in the Drift.

I do find it likely that there would be all sorts of superstitions about FTL and how to avoid a bad trip.

We may have never crossed paths, but I offer you my deepest sympathies none the less.

Please, please, please give us some insight on when the additional resources for PFS will be updates, and why it is taking so long. I swear that most of us will be understanding. This silence is allowing all sorts of rumors to grow.

I hope that I am wrong, but it still feels like PFS is being neglected way more then what one should expect from the launch of Starfinder.

[rant]It is really beginning to feel like pFS is being pushed aside because of Starfinder. That the answer is not soon, but latter, maybe, if we feel like ,it. I get that there is a new game coming out, but at times it feels as though Paizo would rather set up PFS to die a quiet whimpering death.[/rant]

Assuming that the new version of the Lore Warden is a replacement, and that there will be a grandfathering, I just hope that they handle such a grandfathering better then the Summoner where GM credit did not count.

Toloriel, it's unclear quite what you're trying to get out of these posts. Currently it seems like you're asking people to dispute your secret character build without seeing what it is you've done, accompanied by provocative challenges that nobody can disprove you in a contest that has unclear goalposts.

If you want to get the most out of this thread, I recommend providing more information about what you're doing in terms of mechanics, reminding everyone to be jealous of what you've done (it's confrontational and is going to attract more joke responses as a result), rephrasing what kind of conversation you want to have, or any combination of the above.

If you like, treat this as an informal restart to the thread.

I get the impression that it is a joke thread.

To me, it is not PvP if the target is willing and there is a sound reason to do it. Besides your example, I would not consider it PvP to target a PC with an aoe effect if the target was willing and there was a good tactical reason to do so.

Are you open to third party products? The only thing that I can think of is the Aegis from Ultimate Psionics by Dreamscarre Press.

Do you have a plan for dealing with bots with hardness?

Hopefully this will stay civil long enough to get some interesting discussions going.

I think that Steve Rodgers is a great example of how to play a Paladin, while Superman is a bad one. Steve Rodgers is the nicest guy you will ever meet. That is, you can imagine actually meet someone like him. Superman is, usually, such a goody goody that he is more of a parody of himself. Steve Rodgers is still down to Earth. He has high and low moments. He has his flaws. Players and GMs alike, when it comes to Paladins, think Steve Rodgers, not Superman.

Thoughts?

I think that after Starfinder gets settled Paizo should look into a new edition. However, I think that the next, and any further, edition should be more about revising the rules, not starting over. These revisions should be similar enough that the new one and the old are compatible.

I have found that this is generally only a problem under two circumstances. One is that they are hogging the spotlight and stepping on toes. The other is if they wigout when they are out of their element, such as wanting to just skip to the next fight.

To me, if I wanted to play a lower power game, then I would pick a different system. There are a lot of good systems out there. Why would I want to try and force a system to do something that it is not ment to do?

Make a Pack Mule. Make give yourself an appropriate looking head. Take profession: courier for your day job. There might be some alternative racial traits that would help.

I wish you all the strength to deal with those family members that cause you grief.