Search Posts
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?
Yes, I had been thinking about that. For home games I don't see a problem in getting that small change. I would like to see the feat updated to treat the cards as shuriken or darts rather than daggers, especially for Society play. I can see throwing the cards at a foe, but I have a much harder time visualizing stabbing a foe with a playing card.
It's probably this pf2 legacy feat YES!!! That is the feat that I was looking for, and with a name like that it's no wonder that I couldn't find it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I just recently decided to get into PF2, so I have been reading everything I could get my hands on. A lot of info to digest. Unfortunately, in doing that, I came across an amusing ability, but now I can't find the source. I saw a feat that allows the character to throw cards from a regular deck, attacking as if they were darts. I know I saw this, and I almost never hallucinate about interesting feats, but I cannot locate it. I don't even know what book I should be looking at. I've searched the Archives of Nethys site repeatedly using every variation of "throw cards" I can think up. Any help would be greatly appreciated, so I can build an offbeat monk with the Gambler background.
Oh no! We lost the flumph? Now I have to completely rewrite my campaign world. As far as the other monsters, how many might be reappearing in a later volume? Some of those might have been invented for D&D, like the rust monster or owlbear.
IIRC I've seen some 3rd party doctrines on Pathfinder Infinite. I'll have to go look for them. Thanks.
Is there any chance that we will be seeing more cleric doctrines? Something beyond cloistered cleric or war priest?IIRC a Paizo designer explained a few months ago that they were not interested in creating new doctrines beyond the 2 we have. Alas. Guess I have to get creative.
Is there any chance that we will be seeing more cleric doctrines? Something beyond cloistered cleric or war priest?
I hope there will be smaller sets of pawns with just the new creatures introduced in the Monster Core series as I already have the pawn sets from the 3 Bestiaries. Hmmm... How about a pawn box of multiple copies of the various low level baddies, the ones most likely to form armies? Like a couple of dozen kobolds or goblins, etc.
Got it! Thank you.
I love the flip maps, most of them are incredibly useful. However, I really wished that there was a preview image of both sides, because every once in a while one is not that useful to me.
Killer Klowns from Outer Space!
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.
Oooh, my designs turned out great! :D I love the operating theater with a blood stained floor.
These look really good, and useful as well. I just feel a little sorry for any of the patients in either one: none of the patient rooms have a bathroom, and there are only 5 total from both sides.
and let's not forget that it just lists the people currently running it not their replacements and other extra people in the ship waiting for their shifts plus the amount of advanced computers to help run things so just because it lists a low amount of people there could be more cause we list the WHOLE crew for aircraft carriers not the ones on duty at once... They would need more than 200 just for flight ops.
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.
Sigh. Mentally shifting back and forth between Starfinder and Traveller.
You're not wrong, but remember that you're saying "could". SF ships "might maybe can" do all of those things, hoping nothing goes terribly wrong enough to seal the ship's doom. But what happens when a modern carrier completely runs out of food? They get more shipped to them. "Less than a planetary diameter", remember? SF ships that run out of food in between star systems are vastly (pun loosely intended) worse off. So for all that they "could" rely on recyclable air or hydroponically grown food alone, there are probably volumes of textbook examples in every flight academy in the Pact Worlds explaining how many different reasons why that's a bad idea. So, repetitive, repeating, redundant, repetitious redundancy at minimum. "Could" only in the sense that might be better options, including magic, that I did not mention. If those are the best available, then any combat ship would be using all of them. For air and water, other than magic replacement, there is no real option other than recycling with stores to replace battle damage losses. As far as a modern carrier that ran out of food, 1) the captain would be "allowed" to retire just about immediately, 2) the carrier would radio the supply ship that is accompanying the battle group and arrange for a couple of hours steaming along side for underway replenishment. However, I would not say that that being only 1 planetary diameter or less from resupply is very helpful. That carrier may be a week or more away from any port from which they could be resupplied. A SF ship is always within 1d6 days or less from Absalom Station.
In all cases and under all circumstances, a modern day aircraft carrier is never more than one planetary diameter away from a ready source of air, water, food, fuel, and other consumables. Running out of any one of those is an inconvenience at best compared to running out in the middle of the Vast. So the Starfinder-verse may be running on the assumption that each individual person needs a WHOLE lot more redundancy allocated to them across all the possible consumables, resulting in starships much larger than aircraft carriers fielding crews much smaller.A modern aircraft carrier, with a length of only 333 meters, has a crew of 5000 and carries 90 aircraft. A gargantuan SF carrier at 2000 to 15,000 meters (1.24 to over 9 MILES)only has room for 200 crew and a maximum ofOK But I'm just going to say it here because one thing in the interview read to me as a bad misconception. They are NOT good on space ships as we currently stand. The game is presently completely lacking any kind of stealth system for starship battles, and there's all kinds of amazing third party stuff that has come out that blows away the meager offerings we've seen so far. New hulls, new hull sizes, new modules and systems. So that's not accurate. Starships aren't in a good state where they just don't need any more content. There is so much more creativity to be plumbed.I think more important is how utterly AWFUL the existing charts are on the size and crew complements of the ships. A 3,000 meter deep-space dreadnought bristling with weapons ranging from laser self-defense nets to weapons of mass destruction should NOT weigh the same as a modern Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. It just SHOULDN'T. Air and water are recyclable. Food could be grown in hydroponics, and supplemented with freeze-dried, concentrated, or fresh as circumstances dictate. Modern carriers use nuclear reactors, they only refuel once every couple of years. One significant difference between modern and SF carriers is that modern jets take a lot of fuel, whereas the SF craft have a power core similar to that of the ship, thus have no need of refueling. In all versions of the RPG Traveller, ships require HUGE amounts of fuel to jump between stars, yet a Traveller carrier still has many more fighters than a modern carrier. I'm not positive, but I don't think that any of the published versions of a carrier in any edition of Traveller exceeds a mile in length.
Oops. I meant to say 16. Really. Oh, I am sure that it was done for reasons of simplification, I just don't think that is a good enough reason to short change carriers by so much. With 16, it is practically too small to even be used as convoy escort for piracy suppression. Maybe 8 to 16 squadrons of fighters or interceptors, but that is still rather small for the size of the ship. I am thinking somewhere above 200 small craft. Of course, this is not a ship for PCs, unless they are captains or admirals in somebody's navy.
OK But I'm just going to say it here because one thing in the interview read to me as a bad misconception. They are NOT good on space ships as we currently stand. The game is presently completely lacking any kind of stealth system for starship battles, and there's all kinds of amazing third party stuff that has come out that blows away the meager offerings we've seen so far. New hulls, new hull sizes, new modules and systems. So that's not accurate. Starships aren't in a good state where they just don't need any more content. There is so much more creativity to be plumbed.I think more important is how utterly AWFUL the existing charts are on the size and crew complements of the ships. A 3,000 meter deep-space dreadnought bristling with weapons ranging from laser self-defense nets to weapons of mass destruction should NOT weigh the same as a modern Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. It just SHOULDN'T. A modern aircraft carrier, with a length of only 333 meters, has a crew of 5000 and carries 90 aircraft. A gargantuan SF carrier at 2000 to 15,000 meters (1.24 to over 9 MILES)only has room for 200 crew and a maximum of EIGHT tiny spaceships???
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. Yeah, balance was always a problem. Of course, in a rational setting, not all of the specialty clerics would need to be balanced as an adventuring class. Some Gods would expect Their clerics to stay at home taking care of the worshipers and not gallivanting all over the countryside, kicking down doors just to slay the monster and take its treasure. Murderhobos need not apply. Forgotten Realms had two books with information on the deities from that setting. Every pantheon in the world, and if I remember correctly, every God from every pantheon, each with their own write-up, and a specialty cleric for each. It can be done, it is just a question of being worth the trouble.
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.
Except if you were closing the distance, the longer weapon went first. I was indeed referring to 1st ed. As far as killing commoners with a blowgun, why not? Put a dart in the jugular, and he bleeds out very quickly. Not exactly blowing his head off, but almost as bloody.
Except if you were closing the distance, the longer weapon went first.
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.
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 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.
I think that for my campaign, I'll stick with my initial thought of separating the Pact Worlds out with no more than two, maybe three worlds max in a single star system. I can enjoy science fantasy, but the science-y parts need to be reasonably science-y.
Okay, my copy is out of reach at the moment, but doesn't the river specifically say that it was formed with magic? It's no worse of a breach of reality than habitable domes in the Sun.
Perhaps you have just described the beginning of the chain of events that led to the annihilation of Golarion...
Hmm, did they ever say to WHICH Fall they were referring?
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. I thought about a flumph character too,while writing the post. Just need a good substitute for hands.
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.
It should be able to do lethal damage, least in my mind.Then let it do lethal damage. If it makes sense in your universe then change it. I see it like this... "Are you really going to try and hit me with your fists human?" I hope to understand one day how in a universe with highly advance tech, people still want to use their bare fists to do lethal damage. Just kick him in the face.
It is, as usual, very attractive. Maybe someday I might be able to find a use for it. Probably not. The temporary mock-up image had me very excited, that was an image that I could see being used pretty much every time the party entered a space station.
Fall is long gone, and the end of Winter is nigh. When I saw the new format rolled out, I rather expected to see the SRD to be part of it.
Love the book, it is exactly what I was looking for. However, is the errata available yet? I have noticed a few mistakes, like the feat Pantheistic Blessing, I cannot find the spell-like ability mentioned as the benefit anywhere in the book.
|
