I love the magus and the main thing that appeals to me is being able to blend magic and fighting often. I'm not into limiting it to a resource where i can't use Spellstrike often.
I hope we get the Nightshades, they are one of my favorite category of monsters. Same. I love Nightshades as a sort of rival to the kytons and sahkil.
I had a feeling that we'd still get the Magus as a class when it didn't appear as an archetype in the APG. I'm excited as my two favorite classes from PF1e are coming out. I can't wait to playtest this!
So if this is the final bestary, I'd love to see some of the older robots and tech stuff in here. I love my robots and lasers and it would actually fit my friend's current campaign. He's using Starfinder stats for the lasers and other tech stuff.
That's a shame. I've always loved Bestiaries/Monster Manuals ever since i was a kid. Even really loved B5 and 6's additions. I'm curious what'll take its place, if anything at all.
I've always liked the term 'Sagani' for the elemental races. Has roots in the real-world as a name for elementals. I think it fits.
I'd like to see it come back. Always liked the artwork on it.
I'm into this. I know it's a bit outside of the scope of this thread, but it would be cool to see Words of Power or some alternative casting rules sometime in the future. Such a product would be pretty niche I think and much better suited later in PF2e's lifetime. But I would love to see some alternatives to slots and spellpoints.
I kind of agree to a point. Obviously the history of "kinetic" is important, but so is the general tone of it. Whenever I think of kinetic, it conjures up imagines of a more modern tone in my head. Kinetic energy, kinetic weapons, superheroism (like pyrokinesis). The name does feel a little more futuristic, though I could see it fit in stuff ranging from post apocalyptic to dying earth to even planetary romance and space opera. Since the class does draw some parallels to Avatar the Last Airbender, I could see calling it a Shaper or Bender. I personally like Shaper and feel Bender might be a little too on the nose. That said, if they keep the name, it's not really a deal breaker for me.
There are two main book types I'd like to see. And a third that's cool to me but more of a pipe dream. Ultimate Campaign is still my favorite hardcover from PF1e. I love it because it's more than just "new classes/spells/items". It has so many cool ideas and options that help expand a campaign, or run some campaigns that go against more traditional types of D&D/PF. Things like rules for Organizations and Buildings, Mass Combat, Child Adventurers, Monster Parts for Magic Item Crafting... I honestly love all of that. The GMG 2e has a lot of this and I really love that book. So I guess I just would love more books that expand your campaign. For setting, I would love a hardcover that handled the stuff outside of the Inner Sea and Avistan. Don't get me wrong, I love Avistan and I love the Inner Sea setting. But I think it would be very cool to see alternative settings and how to fit them into the 2E ruleset. People that know me know I love and champion more Arcadia content, but seeing more of Tian Xia as well as expanding on Casmaron, Gaurand, and Sarusan (one day...) would neat. And speaking of settings, I'd love to see a book (hardcover or soft) of other genres and working them into 2E. Things like Dying Earth style, Horror, Eberron Magicpunk, heck even something a bit more Modern. This one is more of a niche one, so I get that the chance of something like this is slim. But it'd be pretty cool to have.
An AP where the PCs just cannot die. Maybe they escaped from a Final Blade but are not truly mortal anymore. I like this idea. Especially if you pair it with something that is after them to fix this glitch in their mortality. A friend of mind did something similar to this, where a player came back to life randomly (without a spell or nothing), but was chased by a spirit of the ghost of his death. It would hone in on them after a few weeks of staying in one area, then the player would start seeing strange omens and hallucinations as the entity drew closer to him. It was really fun and flavorful, especially when the quest ended with the player regaining his mortality back and sending away the spirit.
Well their mouths DO look like snake mouthsI think we're more likely to get a PF2 version of the nagaji. I can kind of see it with the nagaji iconic from the Dragon Empires Gaz. But it's definitely not obvious. I think some more recognizable markers of its serpentine nature could help a bit. Maybe with a tongue or fangs sticking out. Or perhaps fit them out with the typical coloring and patters of snakes (like some rattlesnakes, cobras, king snakes, etc). You could even fit a cobra hood on them, though that could lean more on the side of cliche.
I think we're more likely to get a PF2 version of the nagaji. Yeah if I had to choose between nagaji and vishkanya, I'd go with the latter. Nagaji look less to me like serpents and more like monitor lizards. Which still looks cool, but if I hadn't seen the word 'naga' in their name, I probably wouldn't have realized that they were snake people. For what it's worth, most of my friends also didn't realize they were snake people.
One thing I've done in a game was take the Spriggan and make it into a PC race. You're a halfling-sized fey that, for X amount of turns, can grew into a Large size. Worked around the loot problem pretty easily. I even had a feat tree where you could increase the number of turns, or even make it permanent at high levels.
I like this idea a lot. It would be cool to just build up relationship with your local NPCs while also building up the town into a large city. Going along with this, I'd love to see an AP focused on building an organization. My own preference would be a thieve's guild. but there are other cool groups you could do.
This is a super cool idea and something I actually have for my own setting. You could even have the ancestry as descended from nephilim. I know from the same mysticism, there are tribes of giant peoples called elioud that descended from nephilim. Would be a cool way to introduce them in and base them on real-world lore.
Weird that there's no Witch archetype.
So basically Gen from Street Fighter. I'm into it!
I'm a sucker for martial arts movies and fighting games, so I'm psyched for the Ruby Tournament. The vaults one sounds interesting, though I'll admit, I'm a bit Absalom fatigued. But a three part megadungeon sounds interesting.
I once had a monster encounter that was an undead spider who could breathe flying spiders at people. I liked it. My players didn't appreciate it as much :D
One thought process I've read about that really changed my views on gaming and hobbies in general is the concept of Eight Types of Fun. It was talked about by game designer Marc LeBlanc to ascribe more concrete examples on what people look for when having fun.
The more formal PDF is here. I think it's a good read to check out. Might help you with your thoughts on gamestyles.
I would love to see something like Ultimate Campaign, which was my favorite hardcover. Instead of focusing on new classes or feats or general game bloat, I'd love to see rules that expand what can be down in the game. Kingdom Building, rules for research, material usage of magical beasts... I would love to see Ultimate Campaign with some new stuff.
Honestly while I really am liking the changes to PF2, I'm not a fan that the ability to design monsters/NPCs isn't in the bestiary. It's a real shame to wait until the GMG drops before being able to write up/convert my own monsters. In the meantime, we can kind of work backwards with what we have in the bestiary and make our own critters.
I'd actually be careful with this. Maybe it's just the people I've played with, but I've found that I catch more flak for having an incompetent GNPC rather than one that's too competent. Very much a "Why is this person here again?". I've found a good balance by having a GNPC that's a level behind people, but helps shore up some of the party's weaknesses. Like, say, a guide that knows some stuff about the wilderness we're in.
I live!
Just curious, where is the listing for these classes? I'm looking for the 2e APG but I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Most of the arguments here for a new system are reminiscent for 4e, yet gamers still felt that they were losing a great deal of support with it coming out. I myself felt that way when all the splat books I got really were worthless. Especially if I wanted to continue doing organized play. And then Paizo came along with Pathfinder and gave us something to use our old stuff while also getting more support, both rules-wise and adventure-wise. The thing people are forgetting is that Pathfinder was built on giving 3.5 fans most support, both ruleswise and adventurewise. And now a decade later, we're faced with the same issues that WotC dealt us. I'm not really happy about this, no. I like 3.5 and I'd rather not see a full blown new edition that invalidates any support for the books I bought from Paizo. I don't like 5e and truthfully, I'm not a fan of Starfinder. If Pathfinder 2e is going to be like those, I just don't see myself shelling out more money for it. Especially if they are pulling the plug on supporting PF1. I'm not happy with this. If my GM were still alive, he'd be very sad about hearing this.
For me, when it comes to the more survival minutia of stuff, I try to keep it very simple and make it a meaningful part of the campaign. For example, I do have my own little ruleset for item degradation. I keep it very simple and it only comes up after combat. But I also make sure that it is a relevant complication that the players have to think about when out adventuring. IF they are doing more social stuff or urban adventuring, it's not really going to come up, so I won't really use it. But, if they are going to be out in the wilderness, away from civilization and a blacksmith, it'll be an issue that they will have to consider. I do the same with encumbrance. I go with a simple method that comes up when appropriate (outside in the wilderness more often than not).
I feel that given the setting has a wide variety of aliens of different sizes, it'd make sense that most space stations and other cosmopolitan areas would have accomidations for most types of aliens. So it shouldn't come up too often honestly Imagine the Citadel from Mass Effect and how big everything was there.
For the crew sizes, I imagine a lot of it is automated. Still that's a lot of space for a few people.
That seems like a really important thing to leave out of the CRB. I honestly just wanted to get SF on its own first without the AP or other stuff so I can GM it myself. But if there aren't rules for it, that actually might be a deal breaker for me.
Finally caught up with this thread. I think it's interesting you have Mark answer most questions and defending the OP and their impressions. All the while, OP is calling him and his coworkers either malicious or stupid. You have more patience than I do.
Good to see my favorite race Half Orcs are still in, and they essentially fit my playstyle of colonial exploration and pioneering.
If I recall, I believe that rocket propelled 'sky scrapers' are pretty good for a 'burn and turn' ship. Since the ship can go about 1G, it can replicate Earth gravity. So the ships are built more like buildings, where the ceiling is facing the nose of the fuselage and the floor is directed towards the rear. Something like the ships from The Expanse.
That's interesting. I grew up on Traveller, so I'm used to their version of tonnage, where a 3m cube of space is 2 helium tons. Because that's how much it displaces helium. Or was it hydrogen? I forget.
Something to remember is that sci fi RPGs don't do nearly as well as fantasy, since fantasy is generally the status quo that many people think of when you say RPG or D&D. So it is good that they are remaining cautious about the release schedule. Sci fi games are niche in an already niche hobby.
Or you can make a skin glove from the dead being's appendage and change the setting. Tell that to my players lol ;)
I don't mind rules with a heavy setting. In general, I can always file it off with relative ease or tweak things. I can never understand the concept of one's imagination being shackled by a game's setting. If there's something I don't like, I toss it or tweak it. If I get Starfinder, I'll probably prune it and change it to fit what I like. I can always find use for pages of factions or countries that I can alter, edit, and tweak as I please while also making my own organizations from scratch.
Well there's only 8, but I guess if we are including Pluto then we have to include the other dwarf planets in our system. Like Sedna, Orcus, Ceres, Eris, Makemake, Quaoar, and Haumea. Though I'd hate to be the one that has to make up a mnemonic for that ;)
Says you. From what I have seen there are tons of people who are still interested in what happened to Aroden.The Gap: the universe needs a big mistery, and this one keeps things compatable with the Pathfinder universe. Count me as one, but while true, now that we know it'll never be solved, I don't really care too much about it anymore. Even some of the adventures that are focused around his disappearance don't feel all that fun because in the end, they don't really mean much. The main fun in mysteries and investigation is finding clues, putting them together, and trying to find the solution. But now it's been released that there is none. In a way, the mystery is solved by saying there is no solution, so there really isn't a point in delving into it for me. I'd rather do other adventures about exploration and discovery, which is more my jam. I feel the Gap will be the same thing. A background setting event to give it some color, but ultimately, it will be unsolvable in PFS. Nothing wrong with it as that, but as a mystery, it just won't catch my eye.
I'm interested to see how elves are portrayed in Temple of the Twelve, as it appears we will be running into Starfinder elves in this chapter. My hopes tend to align more with Mashallah and Benjamin's here in wanting to see some depth or variety beyond the "reclusive xenophobes" to them. It does kind of bother me that elves are prone to having a negative reputation; I've always been rather enchanted by elves myself, and would like to see them remembered by some of their better attributes again. Less Mirkwood, more Rivendell and Lothlorien. I'm hopeful we'll see a lot of this especially in the Forlorn. Hopefully we won't have another Second Darkness on our hands. That was not a fun part of the adventure path.
I always do my own setting, good or not. I like world building. The only thing I don't like about the Starfinder setting is the gap and making elves even more exaggeratedly aloof and xenophobic than before. The gap as a concept bores me because it's a mystery that will never be solved, yet I'm sure we'll have plenty of adventures dealing with it. And making elves even more insufferable, especially given how cool the other races are, is very disappointed. It's like they asked players what were the worst things they hated about elves, then turned it up to eleven.
In general, if I'm looking for hard sci fi, I'd stick to Traveller or M-Space. I think the fantasy of it is a bit more hard wired into this. Not that it's bad, just I think I want to play to the system's strengths. But we won't know until it comes out.
When I consider fudging, I generally only apply it to dice results. That's generally how it has been defined to me. I don't fudge dice results and generally don't like it as a GM and Player. I roll the majority of my dice in the open. I think most people don't like fudging dice rolls because the dice are seen as a sort of neutral arbiter between the players and the GM. And if you are simply ignoring them, then it can seem like it's done to screw over the players. And sadly, in my experience, I generally see it done to harm the players rather than help them. I find that fudging is a symptom to something, rather than the actual problem. Generally, when you fudge a dice result, it stems from a desire to maintain control over the situation and the results in favor of a certain outcome. Mind you, this isn't always negative. A good example is dialing back damage a bit to monsters because they are creaming the PCs. That is something done with a good intention and I cannot fault a GM for doing it. However, at least for me, there is a bit of a loss of tension and drama when I know the Gm will simply soft ball us a win. I enjoy feeling that danger when my character is in a bit over his head, or the possibility of failure can happen. It's not that I like an adversarial GM, but I do like legitimate consequences for failure. So back to fudging and control, there are several methods to set up your encounters and obstacles where there is little need to change your dice rolls. Here are some things I do. So balance? I generally don't balance encounters. While I may look at the Challenge Rating for a pound-for-pound gauge, I find that CR rarely works. It doesn't take into account players' tactics and crits and stuff. So I generally just eyeball stuff. But I let all my players know before I run a game that combat is more lethal and that sometimes, they might be in over their head. Especially if they just run in like it's a WoW raid and try to mow everyone down. Secondly, I strongly encourage player ingenuity. One of the strengths of playing a TTRPG is that you can do clever things to circumvent and overcome an obstacle. So at the beginning of every campaign I run, I always let my players know that they can go at any situation how they want, not just running in with swords blazing, taking turns smacking each other. It just ends up making a better game. I once had players take on a red dragon several levels above them by causing a mudslide on the dragon. It was severely weakened and they went in for the kill. It was still a tough battle, but because the players executed a clever strategy that worked out, they were able to take on something much stronger than them and to this day, still talk about that battle. I find that new players are more likely to do this than experienced gamers, so sometimes I'll have an NPC do something clever to give them ideas. Thirdly, I tend to remove binary pass-or-fail obstacles, instead preferring a more spectrum of failure. Tell me if this has happened to you. You guys are sneaking around and someone fails a stealth roll. Suddenly, the enemies are all somehow alerted to you and now you have to fight them anyways. And from then on, most people don't try using stealth again. That kind of bites, no? So I tend to make each failure bring about a new complication, rather than complete failure. So with the above example, instead of the enemies automatically firing at the PCs, I have them instead alert but unsure, going towards the sound that the PCs made. This gives the players a chance to recover from their failed stealth check, and it can even open up the chance to use disguises if they take down the enemies. I do the same in combat. Not everyone fights to the death like it's Final Fantasy. I'll have some enemies run away if the going gets tough, or, like in Cabbage's example, there can be ogres that are too dumb to do good tactics. That's not fudging, and while it may be softening the encounter some, I actually don't think that's a bad thing. I believe a variety of difficulties is great for a game. Sometimes I throw easy baddies at my players and other times I make them really difficult. Lately, I've been running an M-Space campaign and many of the xenofauna will spend a round to threaten the players before charging. And most will simply avoid or run away. That leads to number four. When I make a scenario, I like to use obstacles that bring about complications and force the players to be clever and innovate. Looking at the example above, the players were just spotted and now stealth has a chance to go out of the window. They can't just stay hidden in the same place, so now, because of the danger, they have to improvise. They could fight and take down the soldiers, or cause a distraction, or go to another hiding spot. That simple little obstacle suddenly forced the players to have to think on their toes, sink or swim. Again, we are encouraging players to try different things, but not funneling them into one singular action. For five, as the GM you are in charge of describing things. You are the players' senses, so I tend to overdescribe things. Things may seem obvious to us GMs because we are the ones thinking and writing the adventure, but the players can't see our minds or notes (and if they can, you have some bigger problems there mate :D ). So I tend to describe five key things in a location. That tends to get the creative juices going for making a plan. So if I say, for example, that there is a chandelier above some orks, then the players may think that hey, we can shoot it and drop it on the orks! So don't be afraid to get a bit detailed. And six, I generally don't prep things like a story or plot. That's a big problem new GM's have is that they imagine everything coming together like their favorite novel or TV show. The problem with that is that in those mediums you have a single person or group that controls everything that happens in that book. Aragon has no say in his future or destiny. Neither does Luke Skywalker or Bruce Wayne. But in TTRPGs, the players control the characters and will do things that you won't expect. That's the nature of RPGs because it allows for creative freedom and lateral thinking to problems. It would be like having five authors all arguing over what happens to the Fellowship of the Ring. It just doesn't work out. So it's good to player to the advantages of the medium you are in. What I generally do is that instead of prepping a full plot, I string up a series of goals that the antagonist is looking to meet for their end game. If the players don't act, or fail, then they complete a goal and go on to the next. But if the players do stop one of their goals, then you can improvise what would reasonably happen next as a consequence. Keep it loose and flexible. Also, I feel that if there is something that you simply want to happen and there isn't any way the players can feasibly interfere, then instead of rolling it, just let it happen. Using my example of goals above, if I really want the players to have an epic showdown against a cultist trying to summon Lucifer or Cthulhu or Ron Simmons, then I simply have all of their goals completed except the last one. And for the adventure, I would frame it more as a mystery leading up to the revelation that the world will succumb to Sweating to the 80's unless the PCs stop them. Again, that's not fudging and not really railroady, because the players are still using their wits and actions to solve a puzzle. Maybe they sneak into the ritual dressed as cultists, or maybe they come barging in on an APC. Which brings me to my last way to minimize fudging dice. You have to get good at improvising. That's one of the skills a GM needs to cultivate to really step up their game, fudging or not. No plot or adventure module survives first contact with the players, ever. One of the most common mistakes GMs make is relying too hard on the adventure modules's structure and becoming inflexible when the players do something that the module doesn't cover. One of the best ways I did that was to force myself into situations in the middle of the game where I had to think on my toes or else the game would plop. Another thing I do is find random prompts and make adventures out of them in a set time limit. Start with half an hour, then shave off five minutes. I'm at the point where you can give me a verb-noun phrase and I can conceive of a basic plot in as little as five minutes. But it takes practice and dedication. And being in the right headspace. Right now, there is this thought that the players against fudging are somehow entitled snowflakes with pitchforks making unreasonable demands. That's not what I want you to think about, although there are sadly some that do this. Most players against fudging have had adversarial GMs that screwed them over with it and don't like it. No one is saying that you have to cater to unreasonable demands, merely that there are other ways to provide an excellent, sometimes even better playing experience without having to change dice results. Really, this isn't about player agency or GM fiat, but a more mutual respect to make the game fun. If you fudge, you aren't a bad GM, full stop. Especially Cabbage, who is doing it to make their game better. I cannot fault the intent, and I think it's great that as a GM, you still want to make your game as good as it can be. Most GMs get a bit full of themselves and believe that since they do all of the work, then it's their way or the highway. That's a bad way of thinking, whether you are a GM or a player (or in life in generaly). There are just better ways to get the desired results, and in addition, there are changes in the thought process when running a TTRPG. Whether it's an OSR sandbox, or a more story driven fox hunt (a more positive term for railroad I once read), these things really will help you out. And this is coming from years of experience in many many game systems. I've been GMing for over half of my life and much of this I've learned the hard way. But currently, I've got a great group of players and we are having fun. I remain very transparent with my GMing and we are all pretty respectful of each other and what we want from the game.
I'm not too worried about losing equipment. Never had the mentality as a player that my gear was somehow sacred. That said, I am worried about the large amount of dice needed to roll. I know there is a similar issue in 13th Age and having done the whole average roll thing for it, it didn't feel all that fun personally.How's that worse than casters rolling 10+ die? Never said it was worse, but it is still a worrying issue. And unless I'm misunderstanding, I imagine that you'll be firing your rifle that does 12d10 damage multiple times in combat. And I'd imagine that everyone else at the table also gets to roll similar amounts of dice for their weapons, no? Same with enemies in combat. The time it takes to gather, roll, count, and sum the dice totals will slow down combat considerably when everyone is doing it, not just the casters. It's an issue that stalled my 13th Age game which has a similar scaling of dice. Die rollers can mitigate that, but not everyone at my table is comfortable with using those. Grognards are a superstitious lot ;) Also, I don't like having smart phones at my tables because the youngings just can't seem to get off them during the game. I'll definitely wait and see when Starfinder comes out, but consider that a valid worry for the system.
I'm happy to see that rolling to confirm crits is gone. Always thought it was a bad rule that always deflated the awesomeness of rolling a crit.
I don't like jargon. I prefer they. It's established, though maybe not grammatically correct. But eh, it works for me.
|
