Pagan priest's page

I would like to be a Contemplative Barbarian.

To better contemplate the mathematics of using a maul versus a great pick?

Cover and map list updated.

By any chance has the map for this been made into a Flip-Mat in the years since this came out?

May his memory be a blessing.

Having just played through Mischief in the Maze (again), I am looking forward to this Quest.

It is now the time of Torrentmoot where we air grievances and perform feats of strength!

Who has the aluminum pole?

Announced for August 2024! Product image and description are NOT final and may be subject to change.

Thank you for including images.

Could we please get to see previews for the flip maps?

I just hope my favorite game store still has copies by the time I can get there on Sunday!

Zoken44 wrote:

So this might seem like a hairsplitting question but... do we know they won't be core?

I mean we know they won't be in the play test material, but all of that is PLAYTEST. It's all subject to change after the playtest runs it's course. Like, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't expect the 6 classes they're play testing to keep their Key ability scores as all six different attribute modifiers after play test. I wasn't around for the PF2e playtest, but did they release all the available options in there?

They're not going to add a class without playtesting it. They've learned that lesson.

As such, including a class in core without including that same class in playtest would mean pausing the release of Core while they ran another playtest just for that class. That would be really very expensive in a number of meaningful ways - not just raw money.

Essentially, it would be a significant mistake on their part, one way or the other, and Paizo has learned how to not make mistakes like that.

Not having those classes in the initial book would also be a huge mistake.

BotBrain wrote:

HolyFlamingo! wrote:

>Clarification that you cannot use lethal grenades and missiles non-lethally

I love this community.

Paizo's silence on this question has been the reason i've never been able to play starfinder. :P

I love that the fact that this rule exists means someone tried to do some straight-up shenanigans to make it work. I salute you, unnamed group!

But of course you can use a grenade for nonlethal damage, you just don't pull the pin before you throw it at someone's head.

Mythic Starfinder would be interesting.

Just add Jedi...

So, anyone besides me thinking up a Mythic Starfinder campaign now that this book and Starfinder are coming out for the 2E engine? No…? Okay, then…

I like that idea.

Shamus Nicholson wrote:

Will there be new monsters?

Yes, there are over 20 pages in the Bestiary Chapter—all published under the ORC and in the remastered format.

What monsters are included in those 20+ pages? Kami? More oni? Kappa?

The tanker and haulers, correct?

So, have you seen a 40' fuel tanker truck or railcar?

That has an equal cargo capacity as one of the tankers starships. Heck, let's be generous and assume a tanker can haul double that, that one of these 40' tank cars is equal to a single cargo hold. But going off the capacity of cargo holds as described in the CRB, you aren't fitting much more than that.

It's a game, not a simulator, so this is definitely not something I would want them to prioritize over game mechanics, but like I said it takes me out of the game every time I think about it.

Edit: All that would take to make me happy is some descriptive text that bays get bigger as your ship does, so the capacity of a large bay is twice that of a small bay, or something like that. No real need to put rules text on it, but adding something to this chart would be a good place to do so:

Starship Scale

I decided that the starship system just did not work as written. It is fine for the small, adventurer sized ships but totally fails once you start getting into the bigger warships or freight haulers. I have not quantified it yet, but my solution was to look at the function of a ship, and it has the capacity needed to do that job. So a heavy freighter (size large) has a cargo hold able to hold the equivalent of 80 to 100 of the 40' shipping containers, and it also has 8 expansion bays so it can be customized. The carrier (size gargantuan) has a flight wing with 4 or 5 squadrons of size tiny craft, plus a pair of shuttles along with the crews necessary to maintain all of them and a flight deck crew to launch and recovery them, and then it has 10 bays for customization. And every ship size huge or larger has 1 or more small craft for moving people and cargo from planet surface to orbit.

But that's just me applying my real world experience to a fantasy game.

And I'm not saying they wouldn't also be exercising those better options. But that would be in addition to those lesser options, not in place of. Remember, this is my attempt to provide a rationale for why the ships would be bigger while the crews would be smaller, by saying that the space is taken up by, for example, not the ship's water reclamator and atmospheric reconstitutor, but the fifty water reclamators and seventy atmospheric reconstitutors per person, with spare parts enough to make another few hundred of each (also, per person).

And remember, an SF ship is only 1d6 days away from Absalom Station IF they have a working Drift drive and IF they have working thrusters for once they get into Drift space and IF they don't get a random encounter along the way.

Except that for a ship of war, the first and foremost consideration is its ability to perform its mission. A battleship needs to be able to hammer away at other ships without taking too much damage in return. A destroyer needs to be able to prevent missiles or small craft from reaching the capital ships, or escort convoys, or suppress pirates, etc. And a carrier needs to be able to carry small craft. Life support for the crew, even the crew itself, exists to serve the mission. Extra capacity on the water and atmosphere recycling, sure, maybe enough to support 150% of the expected maximum. But not multiple redundancies. The crew will be in space suits during battle, so air is not an immediate concern. Perhaps a full day's expected usage of water, and enough air in compressed storage to replenish the ship once or twice.

Then too, none of these ships should be going into battle alone. A modern U.S. Navy carrier battle group includes the carrier itself, a supply ship, a cruiser, and a couple of destroyers. (Plus an attack sub, but no one is supposed to know that they are there.) If battle damage damages life support, the surviving crew can be evacuated to one of the other ships while repairs are made.

I think that to a large extend, we are talking at cross purposes. You are looking for a rational to justify RAW, while I am stating how I think the rules should be changed to better reflect the way things are in the real world, extrapolated into a science fantasy realm as if it could be done in a straight forward manner.

It's like Bruce Wayne's line about Superman in BvS; if there's even a 0.00000001% chance of those factors contributing to stranding them away from help, simple prudence demands that they treat it as a 100% certainty.

Ah, man! Spoiler warnings! I haven't seen that yet.

Let's start wondering about the description, shall we?

Quote:

Want to play an intelligent, multi-legged centipede? An emotionless, mask-wearing mollusk? and Uplifted Bear?

Not gonna lie, I want to take that "uplifted bear" and make a character called "Yogi" or run around yelling "only you can prevent forest fires". Can't wait to see them.

...

Winston, who lives under the name Mr. Saunders.

I miss the versatility of the 2nd ed specialty priests. War priest, inquisitor and cleric cover part of it, but I would like to see the possibility for someone with less armor & combat capability and more skill & special power type abilities.

Pagan priest wrote:

It is a flavor thing more than anything else. If I am creating a character around a Robin Hood type theme, using a composite bow is just not right. Then too, a primitive group might be able to harvest the right trees even if they can't manage the layering involved in a composite bow.

Thank you for the clarification. Since the flavor of these weapons seems very important to you I hope that bows both compound and self, can come with strength to damage as a core choice. For me, I've seen Pathfinder weapons as not really that closely tied to actual historical weapons. Consider the well known (on these boards at least) discussion about the longsword.

Unfortunately, I learned the game before I learned about swords, so the nomenclature always seemed normal to me. But, back in the day, there were quite some arguments raging about banded mail and fighters with more hit points than a rhino.

Pagan priest wrote:

I hope that this is the edition that fixes a problem that has existed since 3.0, and that is only composite bows being eligible for strength bonus to damage. Especially in a world with many magical materials, it ought to be just as easy to create a strength longbow as it is to create a strength composite longbow.

It's possible that I'm not understanding what you mean by "eligible for strength bonus to damage", but in Pathfinder 1, slings and thrown weapons where both methods of ranged attacks that got str to damage. The problem I suppose was that the attack roll was made with dex and then str was added to damage, but the same is true for composite bows.

Thrown weapons had problems with action economy, since reloading a bow was easier than drawing another throwing weapon. The cost of magic weapons prohibited throwing weapons too, there where magic items, feats, weapon enchantments (returning) that helped, but it was quite complicated and it's been a long time since I really looked at all of the PF1 throwing weapon options.

Slings probably had fewer obstacles, but they had lower damage dies, and reloading was still too slow compared to bows

It is possible to purchase a non-magic composite longbow that allows you to add your strength bonus to the damage. It is not possible to purchase a regular longbow that allows you to add your strength bonus to damage.

Composite bows, long or short, get their capability by layering various materials together, so that on the inside of the bow, you have materials that resist compression while the outside is made of materials that resist expansion. By selecting different materials and using different thickness of material for each layer, you can make the bow require a greater effort to pull, thus giving your strength bonus to damage.

Self bows, log or short, are made from a single material, usually wood. Their capabilities are based on the wood chosen and the thickness of the wood. English longbows were made from Yew trees, which will act as a natural form of composite bow due to the differences in characteristics of the sapwood and the heartwood. The longbows recovered from the Tudor ship were examined and found to have pulls of 95 to over 100 pounds.

Since this is a fantasy game, there would be many more choices of possible material to make self bows. Darkwood? Mithral alloy? What ever the material, it should be just as possible to make a self bow for strength as it is a composite bow.

It is a flavor thing more than anything else. If I am creating a character around a Robin Hood type theme, using a composite bow is just not right. Then too, a primitive group might be able to harvest the right trees even if they can't manage the layering involved in a composite bow.

Earlier, people were mentioning the possibility of weapons of being better or worse against various types of armor. If you really think that this is a good idea, try and find a 1st edition Player's Handbook. It had tables giving weapons bonuses or penalties based on how likely they were to hurt someone wearing each type of armor in the game. Of course, the tables always had the problem of ambiguity: AC 9, is that a guy with no armor holding a shield, or is it a guy in leather armor with no shield? This problem persisted all the way through the table, right up to plate mail and shield, AC 2, since each number except AC 10 and AC 2 could be made by having a lesser armor and a shield, or just the next best armor.

It was the removal of tables like that that first convinced some of my friends to try the brand new 3rd edition.

I hope that this is the edition that fixes a problem that has existed since 3.0, and that is only composite bows being eligible for strength bonus to damage. Especially in a world with many magical materials, it ought to be just as easy to create a strength longbow as it is to create a strength composite longbow.

Well, there is a creature in the Bestiaries whose description starts out with "Come from distant stars to protect unprepared worlds from cosmic horrors..." Starfinder cannot possibly be complete without the Flumph.

A +5 long sword, made by the Jester of the Gods. Anyone who used this blade had their clothes and armor take on the appearance of a clown suit.

Thee was a known powerful magic sword, named "Waycleaver" able to cut through stone and allowed the wielder to cast Passwall three times per day. Also in existence, but less well known, was the Halfling made "Wheycleaver". It gave the wielder a +2 on making cheese.

David knott 242 wrote:

Or put it this way -- Your PCs are safe from having their starship boarded by hostile forces until around Christmas time. ;)

OR just make one up for your ship.

Or, if you have been around long enough, break out some ship deck plans from Traveller, Space Opera, GURPS, D20 Future, Serenity, Fading Suns...

I am going to try to visit the office today. I am also going to talk to the Post Office. However, I was never too impressed with the quality of the neighbors I had while living there, and I doubt that it has gotten better.

Still, one can hope.

Argendauss wrote:

I think a short companion piece to this adding some traits, feats, spells, archetypes, etc. for these some of these races to work with the new classes from Ultimate Intrigue and Occult Adventures would be neat and a good buy. Maybe you could even hold off until Ultimate Wilderness drops and have some tie-ins to the Shifter class in that, riding the wave of interest that will generate!

Interesting idea. I can call it Book of Heroic Races: Occult Intrigue in the Wilderness.

I would be very interested in such a tome.

Where possible, miniature scale maps:

Deck plans for starships, everything from the tramp freighters and fast courier ships on up to the naval warships and space stations, and for the local, small stuff like the port tenders, shuttles, customs boats...

Maps: port facilities, bars (both low class dives and high class establishments), office buildings, reactor facilities, chemical processing plants, casinos, and all the other places that make adventuring live interesting.

Planets and star systems. A little bit of information on everything from the primary star out to the farthest planet, with plenty of detail on the main world.

Every world with an ecosystem needs at least a few unique lifeforms.

I am really hoping to see more information for the 5 element system.

Good point Raven Black. It´s a player companion though and that could at least be 50% in a campaign setting.

To avoid misunderstandings, this is not a call for Inner Sea High Courts!

Next Inner Sea book should be: "Inner Sea Immigrants" featuring immigrants from Tian Xia, Arcadia, Casmaron and elsewhere. Eox and the black dominion if need be.

Okay, then I'll call for an Inner Sea High Courts book. Although, I do have to admit that an "Immigrants" book sounds interesting, too.

Pagan priest wrote:

How well does this mesh with the swashbuckler class from ACG?

Bruuuuuu did an excellent review of this product and can show you what to expect from it. He covers a lot of what I could tell you about the class.

This came out in June 2014, a little before the ACG so there isn't any direct interplay. The author (Scott) of the Fencer in this book is a historical rapier fencer and used a lot of his personal experience to craft it.

Rapier fencing, good to know. I did a little of that with the SCA, as well as foil in high school. Oh well, looks like one more thing that I have to buy...

I ran the math for a 1st level Expert Blacksmith (1 Rank, INT12, Skill Focus = Take 10 to get 18, 20 once he buys masterwork tools). In a little over a year (Average upkeep of 10gp/month, Earning 10gp/week), he can afford to earn the capital to buy a Smithy in a little over a year (less if he doesn't save most of his money). Then he jumps to a weekly income of 17gp/week. It will take him longer if he wants a house attached to his Smithy. Assuming a bit of discretionary spending and the want for a house + smithy, he probably works for 3-4 years as a journeyman blacksmith before setting up his own business.

For what it is worth, in my campaing, I go with the assumption that the NPCs manage to gain experience points just for surviving life's little surprises. Most folk are about 3rd or 4th level by the time they are ready to get married, and might make it up to 8th or even as high as 9th(!) by the time they retire and/or die of old age. Of course, they are still only commoners or maybe experts (much less common...) but at least they have those few levels.

A yeoman farmer, a peasant just wealthy enough to own enough land to feed himself, his wife and a couple of kids, will need about 25 acres of farmland. One acre of farmland is about 43,560 square feet or 1742 squares of 5' x 5'.

The purchase of just ONE unit of "farmland" from UCm requires either 600gp or 15 Goods, 15 Labor, and 300gp. The problem is that one unit of farmland only covers an area of up to 100 squares. It takes 17.42 units of farmland to buy one acre, which means that even if that yeoman does enough work around his community to cover the 262 Goods and 262 Labor required, he will still need to come up with 5240 gold pieces to get that ONE acre of farmland. Actually getting the entire 25 acres for that small farm would require 6532.5 Goods, 6532.5 Labor, and a whopping 130650 gold pieces! (Or just pay 261300 gold pieces...) And that assumes that he and his family live in a corner of one of the fields, it does not include the cost of a house or barn, or even a shack. However, for a mere 8,920 more (a measly 6.8% extra) that peasant could live in a Noble's Villa. Building just the farmland segments sequentially would require 8710 days, or almost 24 years.

Historical notes:
It takes about 11 bushels of wheat to make the grain for a person to have their daily bread for a year. Wheat returns about 4 bushels of grain per acre, after you pull out next year's seed grain. Assuming 2 adults and several kids that eating like 2 more adults means that the family needs about 11 acres of wheat. Using the price given in the Core Rulebook, wheat costs 240cp per acre, or 26 gold and 4 silver for the family's initial seed grain.

Not a complaint, just an observation...

Azure_Zero wrote:

Young Characters starting Ages

Dwarf: 20
Elf: 55
Gnome: 20
Halfling: 10
Half-Elf: 10
Half-Orc: 7
Human: 8

Formula is basicially: (Start Age/2) and round up

This is going to throw folks trying to rationalize the childhoods of the longer lived humanoid races for a loop. If a 55 year old elf is truly equivalent mentally and physically to an 8 year old human, that is a painfully slow childhood by non-elven standards. That raises the question of whether the proportionality should be maintained all the way down (in which case elves would spend their first decade or more in diapers, unable to walk or talk) or whether their is a major slowdown after an initial spurt (in which case elves would spend most of their first 55 years as the equivalent of 7 year old humsns).

Or worse: imagine spending a couple of decades with a teenager...

Out of sympathy for all of the fictional parents in my world, I generally assume that even the longest lived of races still matures almost as fast as humans. The rest of the time is spend as young adult, until they finally start the aging decay process.

Will there be anything about building a castle of one's own?

Dragon78 wrote:

Does this mean we might get a Tian Xia Beastiary, or Distant Worlds Bestairy?

Perhaps...

We'll see.

I would love to have a Tian Xia Beastiary...

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Pagan priest wrote:

The pole is supposed to represent the area that is to be blessed by the fertility workings of the qedeshah.

Dude, if we're talking fertility, it's pretty clear what a pole represents.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Actually, Kirth, it's an Asherah pole. Asherah is a goddess, the consort of Yahweh, and hence the pole is perhaps not what you think; otherwise, why would it be personified as Asherah herself? It seems to symbolise a tree.

Well... I am not quite sure that a "tree" is what gets erected on the site of the Asherah pole...

And as an aside, I would like to point out that there are some people that would get offended by claiming that the God of the Bible had a consort or wife. (Even if the Bible is full of references to Asherah poles going up all over the place on a fairly regular basis.)