Reynard's page

Can someone speak to the AP itself? Is it good?

You can get into Foundry for the price of the FGU Core Rulebook. Should be a no brainer, especially because using FGU means you've got loads of money.

That's an... interesting assessment.

Anyway, I have been using FG for 5 years or so, so I have a pretty big investment in it. I already own the PF2E CRB and Bestiary1 in FGU. I also own Foundry already because I intended to learn it earlier this year but did not end up having the time.

As for the adventure: it starts off in a hub area with lots of locations that will require improv or homebrew. You will need to prep quite a bit to make it run smoothly, disregarding the system altogether.

If you can't use PF2E for homebrewing and improv, there isn't much point in playing it.

For a group mostly new to PF2E, but well versed in RPGs in general and D&D in particular, is CotKK a good starting adventure to get a feel for PF2E as a system and what it offers?

If so, is there any specific advice you would give for running it?

If it matters, I am still deciding between Fantasy Grounds and Foundry to run it. I know Foundry is supposed to have better PF2E support than FGU, but I also don't know Foundry, like, at all.

Thanks.

Run them through the Beginner Box and it sells itself.

You still have to get them to agree to even that. The barrier I am talking about is the very initial barrier.

At one point there was, but I don't know if it still works with Foundry's latest version. Regardless, there is always the option of transcribing your character from the app to the sheet and using it for leveling up and such.

One of the troubles I am having is dealing with the belief that PF2E is not as well supported on VTTs as 5E is -- which is probably broadly true, even if it is better supported on Foundry that 5E. I don't know if I have the bandwidth to learn Foundry, tho, and I am HEAVILY invested in FGU (sunk cost fallacy, I know).

Crouza wrote:

Tell them it comes with a free version of Dndbeyond in the form of Wanderer's Guide or Pathbuilder 2e. We had players from 1e and from 5e hesitant to learn a new system, found those Apps, and then immediately took to it like a fish does to water.

Yeah. I'll agree on that - don't send them into chargen without pathbuilder. It helps a lot of that stuff.

Honestly, I feel like the big complexity hump is just in making your first character. There's a lot to consider and remember and whatnot, and you can hork yourself over if you get some of it wrong. So one of the things you can do is offer to help. Learn the chargen system well enough for yourself that you know where the real pitfalls are and all the clear "if you're doing X, then you absolutely should do Y" things, and offer to give them a simplified first chargen experience. Take it one-on-one. Ask each of them a small number of questions, and provide high-level explanations for what things are. ("Magus: Do you want to be able to stab people and set them on fire at the same time? Then you want a Magus. If that's not particularly interesting to you, best to pick something else.") Then fill in the rest of the details yourself, hand it back to them, and explain any details or particular rules they might need.

Now, this is a high-investment technique on your part. It's possible that this will either be not necessary or not worthwhile... but it should help.

Is there a extension for FGU or Foundry to bring in Pathbuilder characters?

I am trying to get a PF2E campaign off the ground (using FoundryVTT) and while a have a pretty large pool of potential players, I am having trouble getting folks over the hump of concern that Pathfinder is "too hard" or "more complex than 5E" or whatever.

How do you sell PF2E to players whose main concern is that it will be too difficult or complex, especially in comparison to 5E?

Thanks!

Apologies if this has been asked:

Is this a good module for getting to know PF2E for long time D&D and former PF1 GM and players? I am looking to make the switch and have been uncertain which AP or stand alone module to use.

Thanks.

I ran a very fun, successful but relatively short (12 session) homebrew Starfinder campaign about 4 years ago. Recently, I decided to drop 5E and go back to Starfinder.

help me figure out all the stuff I need to relearn from Starfinder and unlearn from 5E to make this transition as smooth as possible. I know some stuff will come back, but my brain is jammed with D&D 3.x, Pathfindre 1E, 5E, Pathfinder 2E and Starfinder rules and I know I am going to screw some stuff up.

As an added aspect, for those that have made the transition back and forth, is there anything worth keeping from 5E as a Starfinder house rule? For that matter, is there anything from PF2 worth importing as a SF house rule?

Thanks!

EDIT: Also, maybe I should note that I am running Fly Free or Die, rather than a homebrew.

Alright, ducking back in just to reply to Ed here...

Check out the rules in the core rulebook starting on page 459 and continuing on to 461. It may be worth it to read the entirety of the section beginning with "Hit Points, Healing, and Dying."

I'll draw attention to a few lines though:

"As a player character, when you are reduced to 0 Hit Points...You gain the Dying 1 condition..."

"Anytime you lose the dying condition, you gain the wounded 1 condition, or increase your wounded value by 1 if you already have that condition."

"If you take damage while you already have the dying condtion, increase your dying condition..."

What it amounts to is this:

Quote:

Sally the Rogue goes on an adventure. She is fresh for the fight and does not have any conditions.

Sally is reduced to 0 HP. She gains the Dying 1 condition.

Esmerelda the friendly cleric uses Heal on her and increases her HP to greater than 0; Sally loses the dying condition and gains the wounded 1 condition.

Sally decides to stand back up and keep stabbing. Sally is brave. The monster counter attacks, and Sally is again reduced to 0 HP. She is now dying 1 from going back to 0 HP, plus 1 from her wounded 1 condition for a total of dying 2.

Esmerelda fears for Sally's life and uses Heal on Sally. Sally loses the dying condition and as she already has the wounded 1 condition, she now gains wounded 2.

Sally is really angry at the mean monster that keeps injuring her, so she starts stabbing again.

The monster retaliates, and poor Sally is once again dying 1, plus she is now also wounded 2, which totals dying 3.

Esmerelda once again uses Heal on Sally. Sally is now wounded 3.

Sally realizes that if she regains the dying condition one more time, she will be at dying 4 and will be dead, not just dying. It really is high time for her to beat a hasty retreat. She withdraws to a safe distance and hopes her party can carry the day.

Does that make sense?

It could also go this way:...

As someone just coming to PF2E from D&D5E and ready to run Fall of Plaguestone, I wanted to say Thank You for those examples. They really cleared up questions I had about death and dying (since my head is full of D&D death saves etc).

I hope so because here it is anyway. ;-)

https://ianeller.com/2018/03/24/the-river-of-stone-flows-to-the-sky/

Vernor Vinge's Zone's of Though books, mainly Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky.

I just started the audiobook of "Fire Upon the Deep" and immediately recognized it as perfect for the general tone of Starfinder. Lots of aliens in both the "humans with funny foreheads" and "what the hell is THAT" categories; a broad variability in individual worlds' tech levels that doesn't preclude interaction between them; monstrous Elder Things in the Outer Dark Better Left Unknown. All sorts of goodness in this one.

Over the weekend I ran a long Starfinder convention mini-campaign at TotalCon in Marlborough, MA USA. As the grande finale I ran a big fat space battle. I know some folks have had some reservations about the space combat system, so I thought I would offer up this example.

First of all, there were 3 factions in the Battle for Nebula City -- the invading Azlanti Fleet (played by me, the GM), a fleet of pirate vessels that were wild cards (four players) and a station defense fleet (four other players). I allowed each player 5 tiers of ships and most of the players took 2 ships each (a 2 and a 3 or a 1 and a 4), while my invading force consisted of 6 Tier 1/2 fighters, 2 tier 6 battleships and a tier 7 flagship. The invader's goal was to destroy the defenders and run off the pirates. All told there were about 25 or so ships on the table at the start of the battle. I held a Nova Spawn in reserve in case it looked like the invaders might go down to easy.

The introduction and ship choosing phase took about an hour. Some folks had played Starfinder before but few had done much space combat. The ships came from the main book and APs as well as some commercially available on DriveThru. Most seemed generally balanced. The first round of combat took quite a while -- another hour -- while players tried to figure out their vessels in action and all the different phase action choices. It was a little clunky and frustrating -- not least because 3 of 4 almost immediately the pirate players decided they would focus fire on defender ships (even though they had been offered amnesty for helping fight off the Azlanti). The second round of combat went faster -- I trusted the players to take care of the department/crew actions that only affected themselves and enforced a "roll attack and damage at the same time" rule. By the end of that round a couple pirate vessels were dead, a couple Azlanti fighters were dead and one defender ship was very close to fireball city.

We took 10 as I got checked out of my hotel room. When I return a couple players had left for lunch and another game and had been replaced by a couple people who had been hoping to get a slot. the newcomers just took over existing ships in the pirate fleet. Two of the three players that had left were children, and while I like gaming with kids and encourage them, things sped up considerably once they were no longer at the table.

From there it was pretty smooth, exciting sailing. As the weaker ships got knocked out the battle grew more intense. As players got comfortable with the basic rules, they tried more and more options, including piloting maneuvers and stuff. The game system held up pretty well, having the same swingy quality of the RPG parts of play. Note that I let players use Resolve points to buy rerolls and such in play and so gave each player some "awesome points" to do the same thing. This certainly sped things up as some misses turned into hits and hits into crits, but many of these awesome points fizzled (you can still roll low on a reroll or a d30!) and I don't think it made the game unrecognizable.

In the end the pirates and defenders joined forces and focused fire on the pirates. Focusing fire is essential in Starfinder space combat, since it is trivial in most cases to re balance shields. So if you can get a ship's shields down and hammer that same quadrant you can do real damage and cause critical system failures. Had the pirates kept fighting the defenders or even fled the outcome was in no way certain.

In general I don't think Starfinder ship combat is especially deep, and as such it might grow stale if played constantly. That said, I was impressed on how it handled a lot of players and vessels and think it makes a good addition to the game. A space combat every few sessions can change up the pace of the game and offer a nice diversion.

I ran (non Society) Starfinder at TotalCon in Marlboro MA all weekend (six 4 hour sessions) and the last one was a massive space battle. As GM I had 3 capital ships with fighter escorts and among 7 players there were 15 or 16 ships (some fighters and some not). It was glorious, but in a very EVE Online kind of way (read: slow).

I plan on getting the Iron Gods AP pawn collection to diversify my pawns.

Assuming a more traditional leveling progress rather than the Star trek assumption of starting out as officers and department heads, the party could be *the* away team, a dedicated cross departmental unit specializing in first contact and forward observation. The party ship is a shuttle which gets upgraded as they level.

How do you build the SFS Enterprise, or is it just a setting rather than an actual statted ship?

Star Trek in Starfinder: how would you do it?

I don't mean a literal Star Trek Universe game. Rather, a Starfinder campaign set solidly in the game setting using the core rules as the primary tool, but intended to recreate the feel of Star Trek (go ahead and pick your poison as far as what that means specifically -- me, I am a TNG guy mostly, though I do love the Cardassian War seasons of DS9).

To me, Star Trek is defined by a generally positive future, a sense of wonder and exploration, a big ship as mobile home base, a pseudo-military command structure (which almost always moves out of the way for story purposes) and the occasional really large space battle. It has room for everything from pulpy action to political intrigue to social commentary (sometimes a little ham-handed), all wrapped up in a benevolent military sci-fi uniform.

What parts of Starfinder would you focus on? What parts would you sort of ignore? How would you integrate things like the Drift and magic in general into a Star Trek feel? What about religions and factions and powerful species?

"The Void Adamant is a private vessel under the command of Captain Bolg Murphy, one of the most notorious mercenaries and privateers in the Pact Worlds and beyond. It is home to a motley assortment of soldiers of fortune, outlaws, adventurers and treasure hunters. The Adamant goes wherever the work is to be had, from rescuing pilgrims in over their heads to salvaging lost vessels to fighting wars on the side of the highest bidder.
However you came to be there, you are a part of the Adamant's crew and a member of the drop team: first in and last out. You are the Dropship Murphies."

When a player asked for tone, I responded: Aliens meets Guardians of the Galaxy meets Event Horizon meets Ice Pirates.

Reynard wrote:

I have always thought there was room for something like Alternity's skill tricks in 3.x/PF. In that system, once you reached a certain level of skill, you learned some special uses of the skill analogous to feats. Stuff like Diversion is perfect for that.

I'm guessing that you haven't had a chance to look at Pathfinder Unchained since the Skill Unlocks option is pretty much exactly this.

I have not. I almost bought it recently since I knew some Starfinder stuff would be coming from there, but opted to spend the money on buying EVERYTHING for SF. ;) I have not played Pathfinder since 5E D&D came out, and was never compelled to keep current with supplements (except the APG and GMG) or APs, so Starfinder will be kind of a fresh view for me.

I have always thought there was room for something like Alternity's skill tricks in 3.x/PF. In that system, once you reached a certain level of skill, you learned some special uses of the skill analogous to feats. Stuff like Diversion is perfect for that.

Reynard wrote:

Rereading page 331, it is pretty explicitly stated that you can ready an action to attack when the target begins casting and if successful it ruins the spell.

Huh, you're right. But here, a developer explicitly says you can't do that.

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

First, reactions resolve directly after the triggering action. So if you cast a spell and someone readied to shoot you if you cast, if the spell has a casting time of 1 standard action you get the spell off before the AoO gets made.

So which one is right?

I had not seen that. I am inclined to listen to the developer, of course, unless the rule is not fun. In which case I won't say it is "wrong" I'll just do it my way.

As an aside: the language of combat casting suggests readying an action to interrupt a spell caster is a viable tactic. I wonder if there was a late in development change and some of the previous language persists, creating the confusion.

Anyway, let's consider what the impact on play is of the rule as it is written and intended. Simply put, one cannot prepare to stop a caster from unleashing a spell. The only real option aside from counter-spelling is to place melee fighters within reach of casters. This has the benefit of keeping melee viable in a world of guns and grenades, which is a net positive I think. It also strongly suggests that casters do not travel alone, or even without enough allies to block incoming melee fighters. Casters become quarterbacks, essentially.

Rereading page 331, it is pretty explicitly stated that you can ready an action to attack when the target begins casting and if successful it ruins the spell.

Reynard wrote:

kadance wrote:

Using the Counter option of Dispel Magic is a defensive readied action.

Purely defensive readied action occur before the triggering event.

Dispel magic cannot counter spell-like abilities.

It presents some interesting questions that individual GMs will likely have to adjudicate. What if you are in a mexican standoff with SpaceOrc, Ally and You. Is it a "defensive" action if you want to kill SpaceOrc before he can kill Ally? That sort of thing.

I don't envy StarFinder Society GMs, though. Those folks will have to worry about official rulings.

It's clearly not purely defensive. That's why it's "purely defensive" rather than just "defensive".

Be that as it may, it is kind of a clumsy rule and it is going to need adjudication in play, at least at my table.

Using the Counter option of Dispel Magic is a defensive readied action.

Purely defensive readied action occur before the triggering event.

Dispel magic cannot counter spell-like abilities.

It presents some interesting questions that individual GMs will likely have to adjudicate. What if you are in a mexican standoff with SpaceOrc, Ally and You. Is it a "defensive" action if you want to kill SpaceOrc before he can kill Ally? That sort of thing.

I don't envy StarFinder Society GMs, though. Those folks will have to worry about official rulings.

However, for spells that take a full round this would still apply.

Why, out of curiosity? I mean, sure, it makes sense, but what in the rules says that you don't have to wait until the end of the (full round) action just like a standard action?

HammerJack wrote:

Voss wrote:

What are 'appropriate sensors?' I'm unclear on how a low tier computer is going to detect and decide 'yep, thats magic!'.

HammerJack wrote:

It is worth noting that there will be rules arguments over readying an action to shoot a caster, because the entry on readied actions states that if the action is not purely defensive, it takes place after the triggering action is resolved.

That seems to lack any possibility of a rules argument. You can shoot someone _for_ casting, but as written, you explicitly can't interrupt.

The reason I expect arguments is that interrupting casting with an attack readied for when someone starts casting is listed as an example of damage interrupting a spell is most likely to happen, in a different chapter of the same book.

Yeah its a little contradictory in itself between the 2 places. I think that as written it only applies to trying to interrupt spells that have a casting time greater than 1 standard action.

Although even that does not seem to suggest you would get the attack off.

By RAW, spells require concentration. I imagine caster cells, cuffs etc... are equipped with things that make concentration difficult or impossible. Maybe they are fitted with a helmet that assaults them with debilitating audio and video, or they are drugged with a neural agent. Also, the nauseated condition makes spell casting impossible.

Pregenerated characters for Starfinder Society are in the final stages of production and should be available before Gen Con.

Awesome. Wil they be available for general public download?

This is directed at those who get the core book early:

I plan on running this in Open Gaming at GenCon after I pick up my sub, but I would like to cut down on the time it takes to really dig in. I was hoping some folks might be able to build some starter pre-gens I can print out early.

Thanks.

How steep or shallow is the learning curve, assuming one has experience with 3.5/PF/other d20? I plan on picking up my books at GenCon and some hours later camping in Open Gaming to run some Starfinder. I don't expect to be wanting for players considering how quickly the official events sold out, but I hope to be able to grasp at least the basics relatively easily.

It sounds like the aim was for less lethal PVP. If you have a PC rules boss, they will be hard to hit and inaccurate.

Is PVP a consideration Pathfinder design? Tabletop RPGs are pretty much the Platonic ideal of PVE gameplay, no?

IMO, extras, allies, creatures and villains should have stats that support their particular role in the campaign/adventure/encounter. There is no reason to build a shopkeeper as a 4th level commoner or whatever when all the shopkeeper needs is a "+4 vs haggling and shoplifting" or whatever. Likewise, monsters and beasts should have abilities, feats and skills that emulate their place in the ecology, not based on their class and level. Does an arboreal needler need to be higher level (and thus have ore hit points and bigger attacks) just because it has climbing, camouflage and a ranged area attack? Villains are not PCs. Generally speaking they don't go around adventuring. Their suite of abilities should not be tailored to that.

tl;dr I'm pleased.

This will be my first GenCon pickup. Is there a special location or counter in the dealer's area? Do we need anything special with us? When will pickup be available?

Thanks so much.

It seems strange to me that some folks actively ignore the straight up D&D-inspired spellcasting and other magic when thinking about or describing Starfinder. To me that's the main selling point. There are hundreds of hard SF and space opera settings and games out there. "D&D in futurespace" is far less common. I agree with the above poster that it is space opera equivalent of Shadowrun, not Star Wars.

I don't think I am alone in the opinion that the PFACG is one of the most fun, best designed games to appear in recent years. I was just curious if Paizo was actively considering giving Starfinder the PFACG treatment? obviously it would not appear for at least a year (until after the first AP is complete) but is it something the company has thought about?

I will running Starfinder at Carnage Con in Killington, Vermont in November. When I run games at that convention, I do multiple connected but episodic session. In the past I have focused on D&D hexploration, but here I will try something more mission oriented.

Following is the con book blurb:

“The Dropship Murphies”

It is a big galaxy out there, full of weird science, alien magic, ancient ruins and very hungry native life forms. Despite all that, people from the Pact Worlds push out into the Vast, colonizing and capitalizing. Sometimes, they get in deep trouble. That’s where you come in: the Dropship Murphies are the toughest, hardest bunch of mercenaries in the Vast, specializing in pulling naive pilgrims, greedy suits and lost explorers out of the fire -- for a price.

“Dropship Murphies” is an ongoing adventure for the Starfinder space fantasy role-playing game by Paizo, Inc. Sessions are connected but episodic, so players are free to join for as many or few as they want. Accept a client, plan the drop and then try and keep Muphy’s Law at bay long enough to get paid. Pre-generated characters will be provided. Keep an eye on www.ianeller.com for previews and other updates.

All ships in Starfinder that can enter Drift Space have FTL sensors, since there is fighting in Drift space and pieces of planes of existence are in Drift Space. There is no going faster than the speed of light outside of Drift Space, FTL sensors are the same as STL sensors that are used in Drift Space. This leads to another interesting question. What about FTL communications?

I think FTL travel with no FTL comms is a great adventure seed generator. Suddenly you need the pony Express to deliver messages, and colony worlds can get cut off from the larger culture pretty easily.

I was surprised and disappointed that the Starfinder games sold out so quickly. But I have a solution: I am going to pick up my preordered book and about 6 hours later set up in open gaming to run the thing. I don't imagine I will have too much difficulty finding interested parties and we can learn the game together.

Makes me wonder what their explanation for halflings is going to be.

They're tasty.

The only thing that has me concerned so far is that while the art is awesome from a production standpoint, it is almost completely devoid of fantastic elements. Both the core book cover art and the iconics lineup say "Space Opera" much more loudly than "Space Fantasy" -- especially a space fantasy where the fantastic elements are born of D&D tropes. Where are the dragons versus mechs? Cobbled together goblin corvettes hitting gnome transports? A chainsword wielding paladin making a stand against a cyborg oni on a collapsing space elevator? Like that.

I am probably in the minority is wishing we had shorter books. There is no reason you cannot create a functional, fun, gorgeous RPG in 128 pages. Big giant core books make games inaccessible and intimidating and a pain to actually use at the table.

That said, I understand that is not going to happen. I am just glad Starfinder will be OGL so I can use an SRD and other resources at the table rather than having to find some obscure rule buried in Chapter 14 under subsection G.

Ravingdork wrote:

Why wield a lightsaber axe or a flamethrower when you can wield a longsword? Many kudos to the lady on the left for keeping it classy.

This cover has a very "Guardians of the Galaxy" feel to it, which I imagine is how most Starfinder adventuring groups are going to resemble in their eclectic party makeup. I approve.

Huh, neat. Looks like it'll be more fantasy than I previously expected. Not a bad thing.

I actually feel the opposite. I mean, I love the cover, it is gorgeous, but it looks like pretty much straight up Space Opera. I was expecting some element that made it obviously Science Fantasy -- wizards and robots, dragons and starships, that sort of thing. I agree that it has a powerful GotG vibe, which is good, but I hope interior art and other pieces embrace the fantasy aspects more directly.

Will Starfinder be getting official Fantasy Grounds (and other VTT) support now that Pathfinder is? If so, will it happen out of the gate or at a later time? Thank you.

Is Fantasy Grounds support something that is already being set up? Because that would be keen.

I apologize if I missed it, but what is the projected timeline for the first products?

I am also curious if Smiteworks will also be making Starfinder materials available, preferably on Day 1.

I prefer a bonus to hit to multiple "free" attacks, conceptually anyway. That said, a player/friend and I are going o run a couple set piece fights, him running a party of mixed weaponry and me running monsters/raiders/etc, to see how it works in practice.

I think it is important to make sure -- which admittedly will require some tweaking after play testing -- that the guy with the chainsaw and the guy with SAW are equally terrifying.

1) No. I want guns to be ubiquitous because it fits the genre, but I don't want them to dominate -- or kill PCs left and right. HP are abstract enough that action movie physics work just fine.

2) I am not looking to simulate what guns do in the real world so much as I am trying to get them to do what they do in the fiction. Being able to expend extra bullets to increase the chance to land a hit is both easier to adjudicate and does not overpower semi-autos. In general, I don't like combat mechanics that us to-hit penalties as the balancing factor. Those kinds of systems tend to disincentivize doing cool stuff because the potential whiff factor. Mechanics with other costs are easier for players to decide whether it is worth it ($2 in bullets, drawing an AoO, etc...).

3) I am trying to stick to the Core + APG just because that is what we usually play with. Besides, it seems like a bad idea to include a gun-centered class when I want all the PCs to be packing.

It's never a good sign when you post some design and people respond immediately with pointing you toward something else. ;)

Here's the rough first draft of the character generation rules I came up with, for those that might be interested:

CHARACTER GENERATION

The goal of character generation for the post apocalyptic Pathfinder game is to make as few changes to the rules as possible so that players will be able to consult their Core books, APGs, etc… without having to worry about reams of extra and conflicting material. As such, the following are the basic guidelines for character generation, which will likely get tweaked as we go through the process:

Ability Scores: There are no changes to ability scores. They should be generated by way of 4d6-L, in order, with the option to switch two scores.

Race: Only Humans are allowed. Note the ability score bonus and keep in mind any changes to skills and feats when choosing those benefits.

Classes: The following classes are allowed essentially unaltered from the Core book with options available from the Advanced Player’s Guide: Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue. Rangers should be of a sort that do not acquire spells and barbarians should not take options that give them overt extranormal powers. The flavor of PA we are going for here is more grounded, at least where PCs are concerned, with a decidedly sci-fi bent, rather than the gonzo Gamma World style.

A note on Rangers: for the purposes of Favored Enemies, monsters will be used right out of the Bestiaries. Most Humanoid type enemies will in fact be some flavor of cannibal mutant thing, so Humanoid (Goblinoid) becomes Mutant (Goblinoid). Undead will exist even if the explanation is more horrific superscience than magic, but they are still a viable enemy type.

Other allowed classes include the Alchemist, the Bard and the Monk. These three classes require much more care and buy in to the milieu to ensure they strike the right tone. The Alchemist is a student of pre-war tech. His “magical” abilities are re-skinned as concoctions and ancient, barely understood super-science. The Bard, rather than being a jack of all trades, is the descendent of a psychic commando engineered for the Final War. A bard’s abilities and spells represent psychic powers and only performances and spells should be chosen that can be reasonably explained as ESP, telepathy, psychokinesis and the like. Monks are a special case, representing genetically engineered super soldier bio-droids that have been wandering aimless for nearly a century since The End. A PC monk must be one that recently resurfaced with little or no memory of its prior existence.

Other classes are generally not allowed unless a player has a very compelling explanation for the character and a way to build it and describe it that does not destroy the admittedly already tenuous verisimilitude of the game.

Skills: Skills, including what are class skills for the various classes, remain mostly unchanged with a few exceptions. Knowledge (Arcana) is renamed Knowledge (Technology) and is used to discern and identify pre-End tech. Spellcraft has been eliminated entirely -- any of its uses that come up will be handled by Knowledge (Technology) -- and Use Magical Device becomes Use Technology and is a universal class skill and is usable untrained with the caveat that terrible failures always result in bloody hilarity. Add the Drive (Dex) skill, which is a class skill for anyone with the Ride skill. Fly becomes Pilot.

Feats: Generally speaking, all feats in the Core and APG are allowed and work as described in those sources. Note that some flavor changes may be required. In addition, firearms are considered bows and crossbows for feat purposes, and bullets are considered arrows (so, yes, Monks and others may Deflect Bullets).

Gear: Most equipment will work as explained in the book, with whatever necessary flavor changes get it in the right genre (ex: the alchemical items become technology). The big ones, of course, are guns.

All guns are martial weapons -- they are easy to fire but hard to master, so making them martial demands training or taking a -4 non-proficiency penalty. For the time being, I am going to simplify the types of guns into the following categories:

Pistols, Rifles and Shotguns

and the following firing modes:

Single Shot, Semi-Automatic and Automatic.

These combine to create 9 basic weapon types, costs, ammo capacities and range increments:

Pistol, Single Shot: revolver 50 gp, 6 rounds, 50 ft
Pistol, Semi-Auto: Modern Handgun 75 gp, 12 rounds, 50 ft
Pistol, Auto: Submachine Gun 100 gp, 30 rounds, 50 ft
Rifle, Single Shot: Hunting rifle 60 gp, 2 rounds, 150 ft
Rifle, Semi-Auto: Assault Rifle 100 gp, 30 rounds, 150 ft
Rifle, Auto: Machinegun 150 gp, 100 rounds, 150 ft
Shotgun, Single: Hunting Shotgun 75 gp, 1 round, 20 ft
Shotgun, Semi-Auto: Modern Shotgun 150 gp, 5 rounds, 20 ft
Shotgun, AUto: Tactical Shotgun 200 gp, 10 rounds, 20 ft

I realize this is an oversimplification of epic proportions, but it should get us started.

Pistol damage = 1d8/19-20. Rifle damage = 1d10/x3. Shotguns do 2d6/x4. Note: the shotgun critical multiplier is reduced by one per full range increment away to a minimum of x2 in the third range increment or farther. Ammunition is determined by category: all pistols use the same ammo, etc… Different ammo types can increase penetration (to hit), impact (damage or threat range), or add energy damage (ex: incendiary). Basic ammo costs 1 gp per round.

Firing Modes: It is a standard action to fire a single shot. Semi-automatic weapons may be”fired wild” as a full round action, consuming 3 rounds for a +2 to hit. Automatic weapons may fire a burst of 3 rounds for a +2 to hit as a standard action, or be fired on full auto (consuming 10 rounds or 50% of the ammo in the weapon, whichever is greater) as a full round action. Against a full auto attack, targets lose their dexterity bonus to AC, if any, and take double damage (triple on a successful critical hit).

If a character possesses the Point Blank Shot feat and is within 30 feet of his target, the threat range of a firearm is increased by 1.

A note about currency: the different types of coins in Pathfinder stand for different thing in this setting. CP (copper) = crappy pieces. SP (silver) = shiny pieces. GP (gold) = good pieces. PP (platinum) = perfect pieces. “Pieces” refers to bits of useful salvage, from transistors and copper wire to nuts, bolts and bullets. If a character is out of ammo, roll percentile against the number of GP the character has on hand (actual pieces, not just value in other treasure). If it is equal to or less than, then he has found a bullet in his pieces. Reduce the character’s GP by 1. The character may continue to search for a bullet in his GP until the first failed percentile roll. He may not check again until after finding more GP. This is a move equivalent action.