Palidian's page

This, I should add, has been my own personal experience as well.

I'm sorry, can you please clarify what you're referring to here?

Because if you are referring to the post before yours, by SteelGuts, then that would mean that the Chief Creative Director just said that his personal experience with the game has been that it has lots of issues and is not as fun as it should be.

Which...seems like an odd thing for a Chief Creative Director to say...

But I get what you're saying. Glad you'll be sticking around, even if you hop off the purchase train. I like the challenge of trying to win you over eventually. :)

I mean, let my players make a smart barbarian and you'll have my attention. Let my players make a gnome fighter who specializes in tavern brawls and doesn't actually own a weapon and you'll have my interest. Let my players play a game with less emphasis on resource management/tracked abilities and more emphasis on mold-breaking, creativity, and individuality and you'll have my money.

Take RPG Superstar—it takes a lot of work to run that. Early on, the return we were getting out of it—the expansion of our writing talent pool—was high enough that we had several of our top people working on it. But over the years, it provided less and less return for our time invested, and eventually, we decided it was on the wrong side of that equation, so we needed to stop doing it.

Bring back RPG Superstar or at least apologize to the community for referring to aspiring writers and dedicated fans as "a return on an investment" in what is essentially the only explanation as to why you no longer host what was once one of the very few ways to gain traction in the RPG writing community at large...then you'll have my respect, Mr. Mona.

Find Mr. Wertz's original posting here.

Don't leave on my account.

My reply was more to you, not really about you.

So we imagined bigger this time, and I'm certain they will also soon be completely sold out.

I simply wouldn't feel right charging someone for something unfinished, regardless of whether they wanted to pay for it. Sets an uncomfortable precedent.

So if you're done with the game for good, I say "fair enough" and thank you for your feedback. If not, you're welcome to stick around and see how we're doing in the year between now and the final release of the rules in 2019.

I'll be sticking around for many of the same reasons that I dislike the playtest. Paizo offers a product that I enjoy greatly and I cannot get anywhere else. And I will never be done with the game for good; someone like you should know that. It is very likely, however, that I am done with the game you're selling.

even if we would prefer that it sometimes not be stated so rudely

Looking back at one or two of my most recent posts, I do regret some of the confrontational stances I've been taking. It's easy to get caught up in the anonymity of a forum, and seeing a play-by-play response from one of the higher ups rather brought me back down to earth.

However that is not to say that I don't stand by what I said, merely how I said it.

Reading through the Pathfinder Playtest, I gradually realized that almost everything that made me fall in love with the game had been drastically changed, or removed.

I love watching players come up with creative and wild characters that clash with fantasy tropes or go against the grain of their classes, and I love that pathfinder essentially says, "there's a rule for that!". And so I was very disappointed to see that each class comes with a blurb encouraging players to make cliche characters, and encouraging their party members to interact with them in cliche ways (barbarian was especially disconcerting as it encouraged teammates to insult them behind their back)

I love that no matter what kind of character you wanted to build, there was a way to build them, whether it be feats, spells, skills, or archetypes. And so I was heartbroken to see that the majority of content is now class-locked; forcing players to either play to their class, or pick a class before creating a character.

To be frank, I am conflicted, because I want to see this game continue to thrive, however I do not know if much of the game I love will survive this playtest. I want to help make a difference by submitting feedback, but I know that most of the changes I would suggest are untenable.

And honestly? I want to be upset. Upset because I don't believe there is a game I will enjoy coming. Upset because I feel powerless as a consumer. Upset at seeing Paizo charge people $30+ for the privilege of helping them finish a product, just to charge them $30+ again when it's finished. And upset that a company I go to for tabletop RPGs is tasking the community with creating a tabletop RPG for them.

I have some opinions when it comes to Paizo, Mr. Mona, and the playtest rather served as a tipping point for me. I regret and apologize for any combative posts, and since I doubt very much that I will be purchasing any Pathfinder 2.0 content, I will abstain from any further posts about it.

Even though it didn't help me much, thank you for taking the time to reply.

I keep seeing a lot of posts, from both players and actual, real-life Paizo staff, that people need to play the game before providing any feedback.

To quote Paizo CTO Vic Wertz,

Tell us about your actual game play. Theory is all well and good, but everybody’s got theories, and we’ve probably heard most of them already. Tell us how things are actually working in play, not how you think things will work.

But we should all keep in mind that the playtest is a game; and if someone is not excited enough to play the game then that is a valid complaint.

We can all argue about whether someone's issues were real or perceived, and we can tell people that the problems they had go away in actual gameplay, but if a person chooses not to play a game because it seems to complex, boring, confusing, bland, tedious, or time-consuming, then that is a valid criticism against that game.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what we argue about on the forums. What matters is how many people buy the rulebook at a bookstore and take it home; and if someone picks up the book and it looks boring, they're not going to reserve judgement until they've played a couple sessions. They're going to put it down, and just go with 5e.

Yeah, that. So far Mark Seifter, Jason Bulmahn and the others have been pretty quiet and have not really given a detailed response to many of the concerns (and I am talking about the ones where detailed feedback was given, not the "the world is ending!" ones). Given how James said that they'd start interacting with us after getting a bit of rest after GenCon, it's a bit worrying. Especially since they were so active during the preview period, when we could look forward to dozens of posts per blog post.

To be honest, I'm not really concerned by radio silence. But I am very much concerned when staff spend the time and effort to write posts like these:

But they don't spend the time or energy to write posts like these:

- "This is a fair criticism that we have seen in many places. I will be sure to bring it up with our design team!"
- "Wow! It is really impressive that you have put so much effort into making your case! We would deeply appreciate it if you can take the playtest survey to ensure these points reach the right people!"
- "It seems like the community is rather split on this mechanic, with some liking it a lot and others taking issue with it. We would like to hear more from the players who don't enjoy it; if possible, more details about what specific aspects are disliked would be the most helpful."

If Paizo is too busy looking over surveys and forums to post updates constantly, that's fine. But if they do have time to engage with the player base on complaints and criticisms, they should NOT be spending all of that time defending their product against those complaints and criticisms.

From what I heard from those GMs running demos and the PFS GMs running the PF2 scenarios, there was an overwhelming wave of love for the new rules once people actually sat down and played. That doesn't mean that there aren't some rough spots that might need to be filed down, but the mood coming out of GenCon was extremely positive.

-Lisa

With all due respect, Ms. Stevens, the people who take days off work, rent hotel rooms, and fly out of state for a tabletop gaming convention will always be excited about a tabletop game.

Lots of people on these forums have been expressing concern about the market demand for PF 2e and where exactly the new edition will fit into the rpg world. And thus far, the standard response from Paizo staff has been "The people at GenCon loved it!" Which is a rather worrying response because it tells players:

- Negative criticism isn't being taken seriously, but positive praise is
- Only those with actual game time will be listened to, even though not being excited enough to play is a VERY valid criticism
- Paizo is under the impression that GenCon is a good representation of most current and future customers
- Because of how much staff have stressed that "people REALLY loved it", it gives the impression that the praise Paizo has received is ALREADY drowning out complaints and concerns

On top of this, thus far Paizo staff have only really taken to the forums to defend their product, rather than to acknowledge widespread complaints (and occasionally break up fights). Which is EVEN MORE concerning because it sends the message that Paizo either fights back against criticism, or does not listen to it. If some Paizo staff would weigh in on issues that large numbers of players are having (resonance, caster/martial disparity, difficulty parsing information in CRB, etc.) then it would help show that the company is listening.

I realize that this is a very high-stress and high-demand time for all of Paizo's staff, but I, for one, do not believe that these types of responses help us as consumers or Paizo as a company. Although to be fair, you're the CEO and I am not, so take it with a grain of salt.

Or, you know, veterans could just ignore that bit since it has no impact on us, and for new players who may need some inspiration, they might find that section immensely useful.

But it's important to approach these types of suggestions the right way. Adding tips and generalized suggestions for new players or players who struggle to think of outlandish character ideas is perfectly fine! But it's so so crucial to give those tips and then encourage other ideas in the process. Reminding players that they can come up with their own ideas and create against-the-grain characters helps them go from new players needing inspiration to veteran players like yourself.

If an RPG only mentions stereotypical concepts and ideas and doesn't encourage player creativity along the way, it can lead to a lower chance of players trying new things simply because they didn't realize they could.

This is especially true of newer players who often ONLY know fantasy tropes and cliches when coming into the game.

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

Because of action economy. There was no way for a wizard to summon 20 things in the first round of combat so your example is not valid.

I didn't say that was 20 in one round, but ...

Cauldron of Overwhelming Allies + Superior Summoning + Quicken + Contingency + Leadership (appropriate cohort) gets you maybe not to 20, but very close. In one round. Give me two, and you and everybody at the table will start nicely asking me to stop because this isn't fun.

So your argument is "high level casting in 1.0 inevitably leads to overwhelming minion summoning and tedious combats" but you had to specifically build a character from the ground up to achieve that?

Also, just because an issue was addressed does not mean that it was fixed. They could introduce crowd-based mechanics for large numbers of allies in combat, maybe branching off of swarm mechanics. They could have summoning spells 'level up' with the PC, with only one list of creatures available at any time, but higher level lists have more interesting options. There are myriad ways to approach the problem, but the tactic Paizo seems to have taken is to simply discourage players from summoning at all.

If you're going to argue against valid criticisms, at least contribute possible solutions or other ways forward instead of just trying to pull apart the complaints of others. Paizo needs to hear all the criticisms players have, and the best way to help is to have a thoughtful discussion of how to address those criticisms.

I've seen you on a number of criticism threads just poking holes in the arguments of other people. And you should know that you can keep doing that all you want, but it won't help Paizo fix the issues presented, and those issues may drive those people away from the game.

Where "here" is "Pathfinder sells worse than its Sci-Fi offshot".

I mean, I would argue that the reason Starfinder did (and is doing) so well is the same reason the first book of Skull and Shackles sold out long before any others; it's unique in the world of RPGs. There are plenty of sci-fi tabletops, but Starfinder was the first time a big company came out with one utilizing the familiar d20 system.

It got exposure to lots of new people outside the Pathfinder and D&D world because it was the first time a product emerged that was essentially "Dungeons and Dragons in space". Similar to Skull & Shackles, which was the first time d20 players got to be pirates, so the first book got snatched up.

The sci-fi offshoot of Pathfinder is a fairly unique product, so it reached outside of the core PF community. The playtest doesn't tout drastically new concepts or new content, just more reconfiguration of existing rules and reintroduction of long-standing mechanics.

The concern is that PF 2.0 is just an attempt to compete with D&D 5e; which Paizo simply cannot do. Starfinder sold so well because there is no sci-fi version of D&D, only one of Pathfinder. But there already IS a 5e, so trying to make a new 5e is a very worrying decision.

Hey there!

So, I myself am completely out of the running (submitted an item that blatantly violated a rule before realizing it haha!) but I thought I would let you know that there seems to be an error on the rules section of your website. The guidelines state that submissions must have a person's name and home town, but another section states that submissions can be disqualified if they are "not anonymous".

Just wanted to give you heads up before any contestants get confused or make any mistakes.

Hello hello all!

I've been GMing S&S for a couple months, and aside from some slow moments in the first book, my players have been having a blast. They made friends with nearly every possible NPC, (and one or two impossible ones thanks to lucky rolls) and they hated Plugg and Scourge the perfect amount.

However, when it came to the mutiny, they seemed mostly confused and resigned. As the AP dictates, rumors of insubordination start to plague the ship once Plugg is in charge, and my PCs replied to all of them with "Who the hell keeps saying we're gonna mutiny?!" because at the time, they had not made any actual plans.

Once they were on the island, I decided to have Plugg pull one aside and tell them they should "Come straight down the beach. Don't go through the jungle, don't row a jolly boat over. Just sit tight on the beach and we'll come get you." My main reason for doing so was to showcase Plugg's advanced paranoia, and my secondary reason was to give the party the choice of what kind of fight they got. They could go down the beach or sail over to the ship and deal with ranged attacks before boarding (as is written), or they could try to head through the jungle in which case an ambush (albeit a slightly less dangerous one) awaited them.

I was perfectly satisfied with this plan, until my players started talking about the rumors of mutiny later on. None of my players were excited for a mutiny, and none of them really had a score to settle. Oh sure, they all hated Plugg and Scourge, but not enough to pick a fight just yet (plus they were very worried that they couldn't handle either of them). So it seemed like the mutiny as planned wouldn't be very thrilling or satisfying, they were sort of resigned to "Well I guess we'll just figure it out when it happens". On top of all this, the PCs had befriended so many other pirates that I wasn't sure how difficult the fight would actually be.

So! I scrapped the whole thing and came up with a new plan. A much, much better plan.

While the PCs were on the island, I read the party a cutscene of sorts. Plugg calls the crew together and announces that he's tired of these rumors. He tells the crew that when the PCs head back, they're going to have a trap ready. At this, a few of the party's favorite NPCs speak up, saying, "Like hell we will!". This showed the players that they did indeed have friends, and they enjoyed hearing some insults finally lobbed at Plugg. I gave them the sense that Plugg expected as much. He's been hearing about insubordination for weeks, and he knew they had some allies.

However, when Plugg challenges any disobedient crew members, not only do the favorite NPCs draw weapons, half the entire ship does as well. Plugg, very much not expecting this, screams "MUTINY!" and commands all officers and still-loyal crew to fight. This showed the players just how successful their diplomatic efforts had been.

For the fight itself, I gave each player the stat block of their favorite NPC (all level two, with Ambrose at level 3). Before we started, I told the party that as veterans aboard the ship, their characters know for a FACT that they cannot take on Plugg. They fought against some old enemy NPCs and Scourge, while each round Plugg got closer to them. In the end they killed a decent number of officers before parleying with Plugg, and he offered them a deal. One person from the main party vs. him. Winner takes the ship.

I don't know if this re-write is usable for other groups, but I can safely say my group nearly flipped the table with excitement.

There won't be a print on demand. That's not how Paizo's business model works. They print a stack of books and try to sell them. If they made them available indefinitely, the scarcity of the books would drop and devalue them tremendously.

Buy what you're interested in before they're gone. That's the option.

I don't believe this is entirely accurate. If memory serves, Paizo has said that they don't have print on demand because they have yet to find a service/facility that meets their high standards. They definitely want to have PoD, they just haven't managed to find one they like or don't have the available funds to purchase the desired equipment.

Friendly reminder: PDFs exist and contrary to popular opinion, using them to run the game off a laptop or a tablet won't result in your soul imploding or the Grognard Commando bursting through the door to seize your "True Gamer Since 1948" t-shirt.

Lol I am very aware of this. I own several pdf versions of books and ran the first book of Skull and Shackles out of one. But I honestly think people misunderstand the reasoning behind printed books around here. I don't believe people prefer material books over digital versions because of any elitist mindset or anything like that. Rather, I think the preference is almost nostalgic. Most introductions to fantasy happen through printed books and novels, and so the transition to a digital format is often jarring. Plus, many people gain a lot of satisfaction at seeing a printed book. Something about holding a bundle of pages in your hands and knowing there's a whole story contained in them is a rather wondrous feeling that simply doesn't transfer to a pdf.

Again, I realize that Paizo's decision is based on good information and logic. The purpose of this post is not to refute that, but simply to offer a place for people to voice any shared desire for reprints/print-on-demand services in hopes that it may provide more information for Paizo to use in their decision making process.

Hello hello everyone!

Like so many of you, I enjoy a good AP. So much so that I often read them just for fun, and my bank account would really appreciate it if I liked them a little less, but such is life.

And like so many of you, I find a deep satisfaction in flipping through actual, tangible pages when reading adventures. Which is why my heart sinks every time I look at exciting APs in the store, only to see "Out of Print".

I've read all the posts detailing why Paizo doesn't reprint APs and why it's bad for business etc. Printing costs money, and it's a gamble on the part of Paizo to print books when there's a chance only a handful of them will sell. I know, I know. Honestly that's kind of what makes the whole scenario so tragic; the reasoning behind it is sound.

However! The best way to fight business logic, is with business logic. So I'm writing this post in an attempt to help Paizo (and the community) see just how big the demand for reprints really is. If the reaction is a tiny number of very loud people, then we can see that Paizo is probably wise in their decision. But if this post explodes with comments, who knows? Maybe the mighty Vic Wertz will take notice.

Here's what I propose:

Leave a comment with the following info:

1. Books you would love, but are rare and/or overpriced elsewhere
2. Books you nearly bought, but chose not to because they are PDFs
3. Books you already have, but would buy again to have in print
4. Do you prefer to buy books one at a time, or as a full AP?
5. If old books were reprinted, would you end your subscription to new AP content? If so, why?
6. Do you buy books only when you intend to play them? If not, why?
7. Are there any books you'd like to buy as a gift for someone, but not as a PDF?
8. Realistically, how much do you think you'd want to spend on reprinted books?

Afterward, make a wishlist of all the OoP books that you would DEFINITELY buy if they were back in stock.

Be sure to be honest in your comments!

Again, this is not meant to beg Paizo to reprint old content. It's simply a quick poll to see how much our community is actually affected by the issue.

Also, if any Paizo employees see this and want to add better/more relevant questions to the list, please do!

I think that it very much differs from one situation to another, and I personally use different methods for different situations.

For example, let's say the players are fighting a large group of creatures, and due to their numbers, they can spare the full round action easy. I would probably have one or two of the creatures say something like "Remember! Boss wants 'em dead!" or wait for a player to go unconscious and have a creature shout out "Make sure she's dead!", giving the party one round to take action (I would say that at least threatening the creature is enough to stall the CdG).

However, let's say that the party is fighting one very tough villain (APL+2 or so) who just happens to be so malicious that they're willing to even take an AoO to kill someone. I would probably give the party a sense motive check at the start of the fight. If they succeed, they notice a near-insane look in their eyes, and they get the feeling that this villain wants them dead...at any cost. (I would either bluntly state that the villain will CdG or I would basically say so with flavor).

No matter what I'm a firm believer that the PCs should have warning in a CdG fight, just because it's so rare (especially in pre-written material) that it's used against a character.

Although there are one or two exceptions. Being attacked while sleeping usually puts the fear of God in players. Most understand that an assassination attempt doesn't stop at unconsciousness.

An idea by way of a Mr. Johnson:

Animate objects to make the coconut a creature. This means you can then use the Implant Bomb feat on the coconut to store an arbitrarily high number of damage dice given enough time. Reduce the animated coconut to 0 hp in vicinity of what you want to devastate.

I like the way you think, sir.

Humour aside...

Core Rulebook, Magic section wrote:

A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

... emphasis mine.

Yeah ok but what if it could though? What's the damage die? Is there a crit range? These are the questions OP is asking, I believe.

EDIT: Average MLB bat swing speed is 75-80 mph. Let's say a lvl 1 fighter is a little less skilled, and so her sword swings clock in at about 50 mph. That's 22 m/s with a 4 lb. longsword to do 1d8 damage (plus strength which arguably represents higher swing speed). So 45 lbs. of coconuts travelling around 15 m/s would hurt...a lot.

That's 11x the mass (technically weight, yes) hitting at about 80% of the same speed. So we can probably safely round the actual damage down to about 10x the damage. 1d8 has an actual average of 4.5. 7d12 has an average result of about 45.

So I would vote that 45 lbs. of coconuts traveling 14 m/s would probably do around 7d12 damage. Who needs fireball????

That's a fair assessment Medriev.

Personally I mainly enjoy the NPC/PC equivalence from a GM standpoint mainly because players don't often see it/notice. I've been writing an adventure of my own for a while and it's been a blast looking for spells and items to help the villain enact their plan, and it's been even more fun trying to figure out how to counter the party's attempts to stop her.

I would wholeheartedly agree with the Pathfinder 2.0 point. D&D didn't really have a system goal in mind throughout their updates, and so they were free to play with mechanics based on community feedback and creator ideas. Pathfinder was created to keep the crunch in the game, and so if they were to update the system with more streamlining and less crunch, it would arguably go against the entire point of Pathfinder to begin with.

Thanks for the wishes! We've opted to play Ironfang Invasion and for the first time ever I get to play a Monk; a class I've been obsessed with since I first played 5 years ago!

Palidian wrote:

A d20 hack? Not sure what you mean. I'm working on a d20-based RPG if that's what you're talking about :D

Yes, that's what I meant. :P

Lol I'll DM you

A d20 hack? Not sure what you mean. I'm working on a d20-based RPG if that's what you're talking about :D

Uh, this became weird.

Please see the entirety of page three.

Oh, I don't think the forum has devolved into angry nonsense. I just really worry for people who say things like "I shouldn't have to wait for new releases." I seethe because I love. :)

Well darn my socks and call me loved.

Let's dial down the aggression, shall we?

Yeah alright fair enough. I always enjoy your posts, Rysky. So reasonable.

What's less comprehensible is to have become so obsessed with bashing it in this short a time that you keep coming back to the forum for this game you've supposedly washed your hands of

There were like 80 posts about whether it is racist to not like undead. I had this thread bookmarked and checked it on the daily, that convo was better than anything on netflix.

You raise a lot of good points, honestly you do. And healthy debate sometimes involves scathing opinions. Just cuz I put a little spice in my post doesn't mean the forum has devolved into angry nonsense. I personally think that Paizo is a terrible company that puts out great product. When they put out something I consider to be a terrible product, I feel it's within my rights to take to a general discussion forum and seethe a bit.

Feel free to seethe right back at me, though. That's what makes us a community after all.

Printing costs aside, writing more content costs more and takes more time.

Do you think they should have made the first Starfinder release a few thousand pages, all available only in pdf?

And still for the same price, of course.

You know what? Sure. Why not. It would beat the heck out of hundreds of people's SF rulebooks falling apart after a month.

If I may be blunt? HAHAHAHAHAH. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH. AAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH, GODS NO COMBAT MANEUVERS WERE NOT GREAT.

After careful thought and consideration, I have decided that you may be blunt, yes.

Also SF combat maneuvers are against KAC+8. PF CMD is often within 1-3 of their normal AC unless the character is specifically built to resist maneuvers.

They can only put so much in a core rulebook, printing costs money and raises the price of the book.

PDFs yo. The print books ALL have low-quality binding anyway, if 500+ amazon reviews are to be believes.

Which 'revolutions' from Pathfinder are missing from Starfinder?

Off the top of my head, the combat maneuver system was a great update to the grappling system, and I was excited to see how it would get further improved in SF. Turns out they just made grappling physically impossible for nearly all characters.

I'll also state that starting Starfinder characters are more interesting, more durable, and have more customization than base PF characters, or even Level 1 characters with 5 years of fluff tacked on. It is unreasonable to expect a game that is less than a year old to stand up to a game that has been out for 5+.

Hang on, which is it? Does Starfinder have more content than current-day Pathfinder? Or does it not stack up because its an unreasonable comparison? Kinda conflicting statements here.

Also, at the risk of being replied to for the rest of my days, I'll say that I damn well BETTER compare the two. Paizo has spent over 15 years working with 3.5 and turning it into 3.75+++. So when they announce an entirely new game, I expect to see content that is better, richer, and more refined than 3.5 was at its peak. Because that's what they've been doing. They've been refining 3.5 for over a decade. And so for a system to come out with fewer base options, confusing mechanics, and an agonizingly tedious new combat system (starships), that tells me that they did nothing with all that experience. That's what Starfinder is to me. Sure, they listened to the community, but that's about all they did. None of the revolutions that happened in Pathfinder carried over. People keep saying that we should've expected this to be new from the ground up, but that's ludicrous. Paizo has had 15 solid years of messy trial and error that should have made this release show-stopping. Instead they seemed to have thrown out all that experience and wisdom and just started from scratch; which is why the best phrase I can think of to describe Starfinder is a beta. It is a game that is not done yet. It is a rough draft. There is so much potential and almost every iota of it is wasted in some way. And it drives me insane that I'm supposed to wait for more content to come out, because I shouldn't have to! I don't really care to pay additional money for add-ons that update the game into the product I originally expected.

Alright, there. I've said my piece and I've made my peace. I'm about to be replied to within an inch of my life. But I'll gladly go down with this (star)ship. Come at me, you jackals!

Oh jeez 100+ posts and it keeps updating! And here I thought this thread would just be another drop in the ocean. I'm glad I was able to start what seems to be a (decently) cordial discussion amongst the community.

I'll just say that my original post was really just meant to be an opinion post on the issues my group had with Starfinder. Some of them are arbitrary or petty (lack of 6,000 classes day one), some of them are actual issues that need addressing (confusing rule formats and poor rule book organization), and some of them are 100% pure preference of flavor (resolve points being loosely tied to a character trait). So for those of you who are reading my post as a review, I seem to have unintentionally misled you a bit. I blame the snappy title.

For those of you who have used this thread to discuss opinions and issues you have with Starfinder and how they do or do not affect gameplay, keep going! Even if we end up coming full circle on issues, threads like these where we just spout opinions and ideas are important. Whether Paizo reads this or another GM does, thoughtful discussion makes the game better!

And some of you just vehemently disagree with my post, and think that my group is just a bunch of stuck-up RPG snobs who sniff our noses at anything less than 1,500 feats. Well to you I say this; you come into MY thread, with your dirty peasant shoes and your 5e homebrews and you say such things to ME? ME?! Of all people?! ...Fair enough.

All that aside, I seem to have started a debate worthy of a Thanksgiving dinner table in election season, so I'm going to do the sensible thing for now and just back away....very....slowly....

Well, to use Wrath's example up there... honestly Pathfinder. In Pathfinder a Human Wizard is a Human Wizard is a Human Wizard. Now there are tons of options you can put on said Human Wizard, but by default anything you can put on an NPC Human Wizard is generally going to be available on a PC Human Wizard. Now sometimes this isn't true, but that's usually the exception not the rule.

Honestly this is one of my personal favorite things about Pathfinder. Now I won't make any comparisons to Starfinder (I was only a player so I don't know how any enemy stats were done), but I LOVE that villains in Pathfinder APs are built from the ground up just like a PC. I always thought it was really cool just because the villains are held to the same rules as players, which adds a layer of immersion to it. Players can look at enemies and know that they could do the same thing if they wanted to.

When I first got Runelords, I immediately flipped to the back (cuz what GM doesn't love a good BBEG?) and I took one look at the boss' stats and said "HOW?!". But after an hour of crunching numbers and looking up spells and magic items, it all added up. That was probably the moment I decided that Paizo is a pretty damn good company.

Well, hopefully I'm not coming across as "defensive." I am interested in clarifying where certain problems come from. The OP may have run into situations I haven't seen.

You're fine Ceejay. As for the resource tracking, to be honest I listed just about everything that was an issue in the post. Players got confused and mixed up frequently on each turn just keeping track of all the meters they had. I played a Solarion, and each round I was keeping track of my attunement points, which affect which abilities I could use, my weapon's charge levels, personal shields, stamina points, hitpoints, and resolve. The last three wouldn't have been much of a problem however it did often become confusing for players when we needed to know what items/abilities restored which pool of points.

Pathfinder does indeed have a lot of resource tracking, but it has never been on a round-by-round basis for every player, or even an action-by-action basis in some cases.

OP: Thanks, interesting points. I’m not sure why the responses are so defensive. Different folks can like different systems, and there’s no point in trying to argue taste.

Haha, I was kind of wondering the same thing myself. This list really isn't "hey here are the bad parts of Starfinder" it really is what it says on the tin. We stopped playing yesterday and here's why.

Although to be honest, this is a problem my circle of friends is currently trying to wade through as well. It's easy to forget that this is a game. And if you're not having fun, it's fine to stop and do something else.

Archetypes have not been replaced in Starfinder. There are guidelines to building them in the CRB along with the Forerunner and Phrenic Adept sample archetypes.

This is news to me, but it looks like the list is pretty barren at the moment. We might have to come back later and see what options are available.

Although I will say that the simple number of classes was a big part of the deal breaker for us. I am currently in the process of creating a homebrew rpg with the d20 system, and I honestly had to stop myself at 12 classes. I have trouble understanding how 7 starting classes is enough or how it could have been difficult to create more than that.

A lot of people have mentioned the fact that theme/class combinations lead to a lot of character customization potential. This is true, and I will admit that simply saying "there's only 7 classes" is misleading.

However, in my post I mentioned archetypes for this reason. Archetypes seemed to have been replaced by themes in Starfinder, and I was pretty disheartened to see it. Archetypes offer a theme-like take on each class, but they are tailored to each individual class, allowing for less vaguely-useful bonuses, and more flavorful replacements for traditional class abilities.

Along with this, I do realize that there is a great amount of character customization in Starfinder with class-centric choices. Operatives choose a specialization, Soldiers choose fighting styles, etc. However I wish to also point out that we have similar things in Pathfinder, but we still are able to add on top of it. Rogues choose talents, Clerics domains, Barbarians rage powers, etc.

Now, I realize that Starfinder has only been out for a short period, and more content will add more choices. But themes were disheartening to me simply because they appeared to be vague, non-class-specific replacements for archetypes. And the character options inside classes themselves seemed to be small bonuses and minor edits meant to reinforce flavor, rather than the unique abilities and major changes of archetypes.

In all honesty, if future books add new classes and class-modifying options of similar rigor as archetypes, then we will likely come back for a second look at the game. However for now, it is our deal breaker.

Keep in mind that much of this is simply the opinion of my group. The fact that you can make a Solarion fit the same slot as an Envoy may be exciting to some, but for us it has the opposite effect.

It sounds like you guys skimmed the book and said, "Nope! This is too different from what I have played for years so not going to try." and then quit.

...

But don’t compare different games when you haven’t spent the time to fully understand both.

As my post said, we were excited to play this since release, and got our hands on it shortly thereafter. We then spent several months trying our darndest to learn the system as we went. Honestly, that's all I'm going to say on your reply. You assumed that myself and my group were lazy and that I posted this thread with no understanding of what I was talking about. And so there is no conversation to be had between you and I.

Good day.

Hello hello all!

When Starfinder came out, my friends group was rather excited to play. Most of us prefer fantasy, but we enjoy some good Sci-Fi and a space-themed Pathfinder game seemed like the perfect route to go! We asked the resident Sci-Fi fan to GM, and he took to it with relish. He put 10+ hours of work into each session, and the characters were fun and had good chemistry. However, as of yesterday we stopped playing and are planning the switch back over to a Pathfinder AP. I thought I would share some of the reasons we stopped, as almost all of them are actual issues we had with the game, for anyone who's interested.

1.) Customization
This is the big one, and by far the most jarring difference between Pathfinder and Starfinder. In PF, there are a staggering number of options that help players tailor their character and gameplay to exactly what they have in mind. I realize that PF has been out much longer and has tons of material added later, however we found that it seemed like even the PF core rulebook just had more stuff in it. Starting off in vanilla PF, there are 11 classes to choose from, each with its own unique abilities. In SF, there are 7 classes. This trend continued throughout SF, with a shorter spell list, a replacement of archetypes with "themes" that offer little in the way of actual use and are more or less simple flavor. My group grew frustrated with the simple lack of choices to pick from.

2.) Mechanics
In SF, my group found that mechanics seemed to often fall into one of two categories: confusing or arbitrary. Many rules were written in strange ways that required several minutes of cross-referencing to figure out; for example, reading that grenades are thrown weapons, but they do not have the "thrown" special property, meaning that the section on "thrown weapons" does not apply to them but the section on "thrown ranged attacks" does. We got confused and cross-eyed many times trying to figure out simple things, and we are all experienced in PF, so we're no strangers to complexity. On the arbitrary side of things are item levels. We understood that item levels were an important mechanic, however they never made sense to any of us, and frustrated most of us. RAW state that an item's required level represents the connections needed to track down the item as well as the trust a vendor needs to have in their buyer. However I was personally frustrated by this because none of this information can mechanically reach the players. There are a plethora of ways of level-capping items with high skill check DCs, ability requirements, etc.; all without actually level-capping the items. As players, the current rules very much struck us as "you can't because I say you can't" and we believe they are in need of a major overhaul.

3.) Resolve Points
Let's talk about Resolve Points. The key thing we disliked about RP was that they are inherently tied to a character trait. Namely, your resolve. The fact that these points are meant to represent something akin to your character's will to live, tenacity, or determination made them a perplexing system in gameplay. You can roleplay a stalwart fighter who would rather die than let the villain win, but according to your sheet, you've run out of Resolve, and therefore cannot use some of your more potent abilities to turn the tide. Looking back, classes like the Gunslinger and Swashbuckler were probably a form of play-testing for this concept, but I'll say that we were equally baffled with those mechanics as well. A PC may be a grizzled war veteran with a batman voice who refuses to sleep on a bedroll, but suddenly they run out of Grit and can no longer use certain aiming techniques in the middle of a fight. Limited-use abilities are common in PF and resource-based abilities are prevalent as well, but they always distance themselves from character personality. A monk's Ki is an example of this type of mechanic functioning well because Ki is distinctively a semi-magical resource that is described as a material that requires time and focus to manifest and discipline to stockpile.

4.) Resource Tracking
PF can get complicated. PCs need to keep track of wand charges, spells per day, rations, and occasionally things like Ki and Grit. However all of it pales in comparison to SF. The amount of resources a single player needs to keep track of on a round-to-round basis is simply absurd and only increases as players progress. Mid-high level play can quickly dissolve into tedious algebra for each action. And while PF can simply throw rules out whenever they slow down gameplay, it becomes much more difficult to do in SF where resource mechanics are a main method of balancing. A single player may need to track: a weapon's current charge, the charge used per hit, point-based abilities like Solar Attunement, resolve points, two separate health pools (each healed by different things), spell slots, cooldowns on equipment and augmentations, as well as myriad other things they might choose to employ. It's difficult to appreciate how cool something might be (like wreathing yourself in solar fire and exploding in a mini-supernova, or swinging around a lightsaber) when you're doing math before and after each action to ensure that your action was valid and to re-plan your strategy next round based on the new numbers in front of you.

Honestly, I could very much continue. This list is probably only 60-70% of what caused us to stop playing (don't get me started on ship combat). But I'm not here to do a full review of Starfinder. This list is just the top issues my group had with the game. I wrote it in the hope that maybe other people having these issues can see they're not alone, and to voice the issues that my tabletop friends and I had.

Alright GMs, what are your thoughts on this dreaded player-killer?

Does it rest behind a panel that reads "In case of Min-Maxer, Break Glass"? Or is it locked behind an intelligence score requirement? Do enemies assume that an unconscious PC is a dead one? Or do they perhaps decide to deal with the whole party before slitting throats?

I've always found that most GMs view the CdG as a nuclear button on the president's desk; yes we most definitely have it, but we hope that the day never dawns when we use it, and we go to every length to try every other option before we even think about pressing it.

Personally, I think that CdG should only be used in combats that are explicitly [u]built[/u] around it. I would straight-up tell my players, "This guy will try to Coup de Grace you if you fall." It's a little meta, but the players deserve full warning before you bring out the dreaded save-or-die, and I think that most other ways of doing so run the risk of misunderstandings.

So what do you guys do? Is this full round action simply banned from your GM toolbox? Or are you infamous in your friends group for crossing PCs off the initiative tracker one by one?

I had a homebrew game where death wasn't permanent and players got rewards if I unfairly killed them (e.g. rocks fall everyone dies). So everyone jumped at the chance to trigger ridiculous traps or overpowered monsters.

Flash forward to the temple of the god of madness. Player is wandering around a library of forbidden knowledge and spots a book entitled "Everyone who reads this book dies." Immediately picks it up and opens it. Inside is a silvery paper mirror (like from a kids book) and above it are the words "Except You!" in colorful letters.

Seriously, without Mcguffins and plot hooks most of these evil BBG's would win.

Honestly this is a good summary of the problem I'm having lol. I wrote a villain, made her powerful, cunning, and deceitful. Then I put her in the world and gave her a goal, and when I stepped back to look at the big picture, I realized "Holy **** there's nothing stopping her..."

But hopefully the new additions I have incoming will change that!

All wonderful ideas, thank you!

I pondered this a bit more and came to the beginnings of a solution that seems promising.

Dave, long story short, I kind of wrote myself into a corner and it's difficult to change premises too much. Half because altering one means altering many others, and half because I love how they turned out and fit into the story. One of the seals isn't a problem because it was simply hidden away, but the villain (and her family) tracked it down ages ago, and have been simply waiting for access to it.

Aaron, I did toy with the idea of simply requiring certain time-based conditions to be met, but the villain's plans are equally movable, so it seemed strange for her to move too early.

Nikolaus, one of the seals is actually hidden away in a demiplane oddly enough! But due to story, that's not a problem for her.

But! The solution I'm working out might just be a merging of these ideas. Basically, the villain isn't actually the BBEG. She's trying to bring back the BBEG. And the real BBEG is just so scary that I originally had him pinned as an end-of-the-world type of ordeal. But he's not a demigod, so his coming back doesn't immediately trigger the apocalypse.

So essentially, I'm thinking of just allowing the villain to succeed in breaking the seals. However, after that is done, she and the BBEG still need time to manufacture the End of All Things. To compare it to an existing AP:

Still need to work on it to hammer out the details of course, but I think it has potential.

In writing my homebrew campaign (levels 1-20), I've come across a problem. There just aren't that many things stopping my villain from completing her plans.

Here's the rundown:
-Desert/Egypt themed setting
-Villain aims to break the seal on a very old, very terrible curse
-Currently, the curse is kept at bay by two seals, and a third seal that keeps anyone from touching them.
-When the party is level 8, the villain enacts a plan to break the first seal, allowing access to the other two.
-With that done, there is nothing stopping the villain from breaking the other two seals, and ending the world.
-I have an idea on how to get the PCs up to level 12 before all this happens, but as far as I can tell, the level 20 BBEG stuff will be happening by then.

So my question is, how do you slow down your villains? General ideas are most welcome! Paizo APs tend to be good at putting on the pressure, saying that the BBEG is getting closer and closer, without actually putting a clock on the players. I'm just trying to figure out how to give my players more time before the villain finishes her plan without deus ex machina'ing the whole thing (time stasis, planar entrapment, imprisonment spells, etc.)

I would suggest replacing the x3 crit weapons with x2 crit ones. Also, consider not using power attack. 3d8+18 is almost a guaranteed kill of any full health 1st lvl PC.

That's what I was thinking as well. I've already switched up some armor already (the gnolls blend in with the crowds-don't ask-so it makes sense to wear lighter armor that can hide under clothes) so ACs aren't out of reach for level ones.

To clarify, the creatures are gnolls, a gnoll flind, and hyenas. And yes, "CR 3, two creatures" means that there are two creatures with a combined CR of 3.

The actual party is yet to exist. So I can't really say if the party is well fitted to the scenario. But I'm trying to design something that will be equally challenging to most party comps.

Party will be a 15 point buy when it is made.

Alright, so I am currently writing a homebrew campaign, and I want to double check some difficulty questions so that I don't kill everyone minute one.

Quick spoiler alert for anyone on here who might be a friend of mine, if "The Desert Campaign" sounds overly familiar to you, then you should stop reading now!

So! Here's the rundown.

- 1st level party of 4
- Following combats take place day one, back to back, during a town raid:
- CR 2, one creature
- CR 3, two creatures
- CR 3, two creatures
- CR 1/2, one creature

However! While I realize that these seem insane, there are some mitigating factors as well.

- Party will find healing items after the first and second encounters.
- An unseen entity in the background is aiding the party. This will quietly penalize every enemy's attack rolls, AC, and saves by -2.

With the additional factors, it's hard to tell if this will kill everyone or not. So I'm hoping for outside perspective. Due to the story I've written, I'm well and truly locked into my creature choices, but I can reduce numbers.

Plenty of good advice has been offered, but it seems like you've made up your mind and killed the campaign (yes YOU, not your brother) because one jerk did some stuff you and the others hated.

This. Honestly, we've all had bad players. And we've all had players who derailed plot or screwed with npcs. I myself had a homebrew campaign that began with a party of criminals. Their options were to help resurrect an old god, or face the gallows. One character said he wouldn't do it, and then stated that he'd try to kill anyone who did. LITERALLY five minutes in and my plot's at a standstill.

Bad players happen.

But it really doesn't seem like that's the issue here. It seems like you aren't treating this as a setting. You're treating it as a story that you've already planned out. So when a player does something that messes with your plan, the whole thing is ruined, setting, story, plot and all.

A setting is just that. A setting. It is a big world full of people and places and events that are all there for one reason: for the characters to interact with. If the entire setting is destroyed because of a character's interactions with it, then it wasn't a setting to begin with. It was a story. Someone earlier recommended that you may want to simply write a novel, and that's my advice as well. Pathfinder and D&D are collaborative storytelling. Every person at the table gets to tug the story in a different direction. If you throw out the entire thing because someone went in a direction you don't like, then you really shouldn't be doing collaborative storytelling. You should be writing novels and books where you always get to decide how characters interact with your world.

Your brother did not "destroy" your world. You scrapped it. Your brother did not "forever change the story of the world" you simply had a story in mind, and expected the players to follow it. And honestly? As someone who has spent hundreds of hours building a campaign setting, you didn't build a setting. You built a very nice model that people could look at and enjoy, but never touch.

You had a problem player, but he had a problem GM.

My first time DM'ing I created a magic item called the Gamble. Small baseball-sized orb filled with shifting black smoke and small flashed of electricity.

Thing packed the punch of 5 wishes and a Deck of Many Things.

Whenever a player threw one at an enemy, they rolled a d100 to determine the outcome. Three types of outcome: good, bad, neutral; with an equal chance for each (although 100=most good and 001=most bad) Every single number on that d100 had a totally unique outcome and frankly they were all absurd. Basically it was just a big creative exercise for me, but the players loved them.

Some of the best/worst/most memorable outcomes:
- Conjure a small eruption of magma
- All of the user's blood drains from them and forms an icicle, which launches at the enemy
- Duplicates the enemy, gear and all
- You hear the voice of a British man in your armor shouting things like "On your left! Behind you! Wait for it, now parry!" You gain a +5 dodge bonus to AC
- As you throw the Gamble, the world around you seems to shift and distort. Suddenly, you are all fighting INSIDE a giant Gamble. GM rolls each round for a new Gamble effect.
- For one round, every attack is considered a natural 20. Enemies included.
- The enemy immediately dissolves into a pile of gold coins equal to their CR x 100.
- The Gamble simply bounces off the enemy and begins to ricochet around the room, picking up speed with each collision. Each round the damage inflicted by the Gamble on anything it hits increases. After 5 rounds, the Gamble inflicts 1d100 bludgeoning damage and shatters.

TERRIBLE idea that is the exact opposite of balanced and should never be used in any sane game of DnD or Pathfinder. But a helluva lot of fun.

Hey guys!

So I'm currently pondering some backstory for a new character, and I've recently been talking with my friends about the difficulties of giving a level one character a badass backstory. Just because it can be a bit odd for the headmaster of a prestigious wizard academy to have trouble casting Fireball. You know, normal character creation obstacles.

But one route I'm really interested in is the fall from grace option. Character <i>was</i> level 20, but a terrible tragedy struck and all that power and experience has been stripped away. Thus, for that character, the process of leveling up is just re-learning/remembering their old strength! Which I think would be rad.

So my question is, does anyone know of any mechanics already in game to accomplish such a thing? I've been browsing through cursed items and artifacts (thought for sure the harrow deck of many things would have something) and haven't turned up anything yet. Was just curious if anyone has spotted something I missed.

Odds are I'll just have to talk to the GM about how to go about it. Maybe even design a spell that my character (a wizard) cast on himself to keep his power out of evil hands. Or something equally cliche haha!

Palidian wrote:

After all, there's nothing that says to subtract 25,000g from the treasure each time Wish is cast in the fight.

Actually, there is. They have to have the proper component to cast the spell, and to have the proper component it has to be part of their treasure.

It isn't any different then if they used a scroll that was part of their treasure.

Now, the problem with this is that treasure isn't necessarily there to boost the monsters (although it certainly can) it is primarily there to reward the players. A magic sword will still be treasure if it is used in the fight, a magic scroll won't be. Since WBL should increase proportional to XP, which is directly related to CR, adjusting the one without adjusting the other will create an imbalance that will need to be fixed somehow. This would be doubly true if you take away wealth to increase CR (as with spending their treasure to get inherent bonuses.)

Fair enough. Although if you plan on using the creature as a final boss, then it's probably not your biggest concern to adjust the treasure horde. Simply because the players won't actually be making much use of it.

Honestly, I think some of this just derives from how old Dragon stats are. Most of the base rules were simply carried over from 3.5, and many of the newer dragons just used the same system (it does work well after all). But it could be updated with some details. The bosses in adventure paths I've encountered did have diamonds for Wish as part of their gear/treasure, but it was also kind enough to specify what they were for. Instead of just carrying around some diamonds, the stat bloc specifically stated "4 x Diamond worth 25,000g (for casting Wish)". So potentially an update to dragon entries could do something similar to ensure GMs like myself don't mistakenly give them free Wishes.