Joe Pasini wrote:
Thank you, thank you!
Great answers too. Those all make sense. Much appreciated.
P.S. I love Starfinder. I'm still drooling over Alien Archive 3 right here.
Oof, look at all the stuff y'all found since I went down with the sickness earlier this week. This is gonna be one heckin' update. Here we go, I did my best to get them all in here:
Wow! Thank you for alll your hard work VestOfHolding! This kind of effort & attention to detail is super helpful. Paizo should put you on the payroll.
Easy to skip over all that. I don’t recall any of that, so we must’ve left that aspect out. I don’t think that was integral to the overall story.
[PaizoCon 2019] Grimmerspace: Abattoir 8 with RollforCombat - Saturday afternoon, 1:00-5:00 pm, 2019
Sara Marie wrote:
Folks, Just a heads up, WizKids has issued a press release regarding WizKids Starfinder Battles Miniatures.
Thank you for sharing this happy news. I appreciate your hard work on here
Hello, I'll probably fly into Seattle the morning of Friday. I'm trying to figure out when the early Friday games start. I noticed on these forums some GMs suggesting their times slots start at 7:45 a.m. Is that when the games actually start, or when doors open to the ballroom, or something else? Thank you very much.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Happy holidays everyone!
And to you as well!
I'm very happy with these revisions. This playtest process has been fascinating. I appreciate the developers working so hard and trying to make a great product by considering such disparate opinions and viewpoints. I look forward to checking out the final version next year.
Thank you Dante for posting.
Hiruma Kai wrote:
Actually, the Vanguard gets a special weapon specialization at 3rd level which lets them add their full vanguard level to damage with Entropic strike, even though its an operative weapon. Other class levels still only add half damage.
Thank you! My eyes glossed right past that.
Are there other Starfinder classes who have Weapon Specializations that function differently?
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Thank you for this, and the other clarifications. This playtest is awesome :)
For me, Pathfinder is D&D, which is my favorite game of all time. I get nostalgic about D&D. It’s been a consistent & reliable source of fun, socializing, and problem-solving since I was 8 years old. I loved playing with friends out of the red box, then the AD&D books. I have fond memories of drawing maps on graph paper, inventing new monsters, painting minis, and crafting worlds and the people and creature who live there. In 2000, some friends and I purposefully regressed and played AD&D for a while before trying 3rd, which we all happily shifted to. In 2008, D&D stopped being D&D, so I — and many others —shifted to where D&D still existed, Pathfinder. I love Pathfinder because I love D&D, and they’re wrapped up in my head as the same thing. I love D&D. I love wizards, castles, half-elf rangers, gnome illusionists, drow soulknives, mind flayer rogues, Gray Maidens, Harpers, Dragon Highlords, Warchief Ripnugget, Count Strahd, Red Mantis Asassins, oracles, favored souls, alchemists, Sandpoint, Baldur’s Gate, Toril, Krynn, Athas, Golarion, Sarenrae, Pelor, Tiamat, etc. etc.
Actually, I think the diagram correctly reflects the PF2 version of cover & screening. It doesn't go by corner to corners anymore. Cover now is described as middle of your figure's square to the middle of your enemy's square.
While on the topic, I suggest adjusting these rules a little, because the way they're currently worded, cover is treated as a reciprocal concept, but it probably shouldn't be. E.g., per the PF2 Playtest, if I'm standing behind the corner of a wall and my enemy is standing alone in the middle of a nearby field, very often (depending on the exact angle) not only do I have cover from him but he has cover from me, even though I can see him and he's not hiding behind anything on his end. In other words, I'm being penalized for crouching behind cover, because now we're using the center of my figure's space rather than my best corner to determine cover. As in PF1 (and Starfinder, Imperial Assault, and other combat-style boardgames) I'd like to be able to make tactical decisions that reward a combatant for taking cover while exploiting an enemy's lack of cover. I think the Starfinder rules for cover are pretty solid.
The game cannot decide on a core mechanic, and simultaneous critical failure and critical success seems possible
Thank you for highlighting the issue, which will help improve the final text. To avoid ambiguity, pages 8 and 178 should be revised to make them fully consistent with page 292, and they can still be readable, e.g.:
Rolling 20 is better! Rolling a 20 on the die means you succeeded, and you might have "critically succeeded" too. You also critically succeed if your total exceeds the Difficulty Class by 10 or more. More about critical successes is on page 292.
Maybe a Red Mantis Assassin would work nicely.
I think old Vrusk miniatures can still be found. Those were the insectile PC race from the old Star Frontiers RPG. They're a little more "centaur" shaped, but still look good. If you go to eBay and type in Vrusk, several pop up, but the price point might be too high. Currently around $8.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Okay I found those prepainted ones online for sale.... 4 minis for $30? Hm, feels too steep right now. I can wait for prices to get reasonable.
I decided the cost vs quantity of the prepainted ones were too much for me. ... I'm still painting my Reaper bones kickstarter minis anyway so I'm in no rush.
Ditto! That Reaper Bones KS was fantastic. Still paintin' away on those... slowly
Playtest so far - Round Two! Three things you Love, Three things you Hate, and Three Houserules you'd Make.
QFT. There's nothing more dispiriting than crit failing an Aid or Assist, so players rapidly stopped even trying. Sometimes a crit fumble is funny, but not for Aid or Assist. It just feels dreadful.
I dunno if it's an unpopular viewpoint, or I wonder if there's a disconnect between the story writers and the rules writers. Anyhow, here is what James Jacobs said around the 55:30 mark:
James Jacobs: My goal is for when the edition changes it should be pretty much invisible to anything in-world so like a wizard who is inside of his house doing wizardly stuff and the day before Second Edition lands and the day after he won't notice any difference in how things work. The rules for how his magic works will change but his role in the world won't change.
Stephen Glicker: So he goes to sleep and its First Edition and he wakes up the next day its like oh its Second Edition, my stuff works a little differently but it's pretty much the same.
James Jacobs: Not even that he just wakes up and keeps doing what he's doing. Every story we told in First Edition needs to be something we can tell in Second Edition, and vice versa.
I very much enjoy a Starfinder actual-play-podcast called Roll For Combat. The host recently interviewed James Jacobs, the creative director for Pathfinder. That interview can be found here. The entire interview is fantastic. I note that at the 55:30 mark, they talk a little bit about 2nd edition rules. If I understand correctly, Mr. Jacobs is more focused on the stories of Pathfinder and Golarion rather than the rule mechanics, so I enjoyed his perspective.
Bringing back critical failures in addition to critical successes is not fun in my opinion. All it does it punish players for bad dice rolls even more than just rolling badly does already.
Agreed. I’m worried about crit fails for PCs. I took double damage from a monster spell the other day which nearly killed me while I was at full HP. That felt too swingy.
Balance is nice but as with all things, in moderation.
When you play the board game Dungeon! it’s baked right in that Wizards are stronger than Rogues and Clerics, but hey, we keep having fun playing Rogues and Clerics anyway.
4e was essentially perfectly balanced, but that felt homogenous and un-fun. 5e isn’t perfectly balanced, but people like it.
For instance two-weapon-fighting becoming class-locked.
Yeah, I find it ironic that so many feats that previously were general are now class-locked, which I think was meant to encourage characters to "stay in their lane" but then I see many posts about how a lot of players now feel essentially a "need" to multi-class... so if class-gating feats encourages more multi-classing, that's not really confining drivers to their lanes.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
So... I just want to clear one thing up. This theory, that we designed the game for PFS, is categorically false. We are trying to make Pathfinder the best game it can be. We want it to work for PFS as well, but the quality of the game is priority 1.
Thank you for chiming in & speaking to that assumption.
Reach weapons now allow an attack into an adjacent square in addition to any squares within the weapon's reach
Wow, I had not noticed that. Thank you for sharing. It's hard un-learning things.
I appreciate this thread. Thank you for starting it.
The most important thing I can do in PF2: play a Goblin core! Woooot! Dogslicers are my new favorite weapon.
We bought the 4E core rulebook set when it came out, and after everyone in our gaming group read them, we stayed with 3.5E (and eventually moved to PF1E). It looked limiting and videogamey was the general consensus.
Ditto. I bought the 4th ed PHB, MM, DMG, and Keep on the Shadowfell. I found them interesting to peruse, but never actually played 4th because my buddies & I devolved into nerd-rage over the whole thing. I've playtested Pathfinder #2 and like a lot that it has to offer, but I'd like to see a lot of fixes (avoid +x/level to everything, unwind the overnerfing of spells, simplify or nix resonance, make healing easier).