Sinnyil's page

Sinnyil wrote:

John R. wrote:

I wrote a guide for the Thaumaturge. Apologies for typos and minor misunderstandings of the rules. I'll try my best to keep it updated and correct any errors people find and add any suggestions I'm in favor of - I'm sure there will be plenty once more people get real play experience and after errata. I'll try my best to remember to give credit where it's due.

Also, I believe VampByDay is putting out a guide soon as well so keep your eyes out for theirs as well.

Here is the link.

One thing I would like to point out:

You can't actually stop someone from getting up from prone with a reaction like AoO. It happens after the standing is complete. You still get the attack, but they aren't prone during it (so not Flatfooted) and don't fall back down if you disrupt it...because it can't be disrupted, it's already done.

Also, have you considered ancestry breakdowns for the guide? At least like "these have good no-hand unarmed attacks, these have innate spells that you may be interested in" type of thing.

With Attack of Opportunity, yes, it does not disrupt move actions. Implement's Interruption on the other hand disrupts any action that triggered the reaction, move actions included, and standing is a move action.

I apologize that my usage of the AoO term led to this misunderstanding. I tend to use it as a blanket term, and I shouldn't. AoO is not stand still, nor is it implement's interruption, as you pointed out.

However...

You still can't stop someone from standing up with a reaction.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=446

If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.

Since you aren't moving out of the square, it happens at the end of the action, after standing up is completed. There is no longer anything to disrupt.

They added this due to lessons from 1e and the "stand up go immediately prone" shenanigans that would take place.

My monk was very sad to learn this.

Ravingdork wrote:

But would you allow someone to cast a heightened spell with lesser effect? (That is, it still counts as the increased heighten level, but has a lower level effect.)

For example, casting an 8th-level heightened invisibility, but opting to have the 2nd-level effect so that you can benefit from the longer duration AND counteract resistance (though it would pop upon attack).

For many characters, I would not. If a Wizard deliberately prepares invisibility in an 8th level spell slot, then they are getting the 4th level effects. Similarly if a Druid prepares Animal Form in a 5th level spell slot, they are getting the 5th level version with no adjustments available.

The reason is because those types of characters have an option when preparing spells or putting spells in repertoire to do it at specific levels.

For focus spells such as Wild Shape, cantrips such as Light, and Wave casters such as Summoner I am willing to be more flexible. Because they otherwise don't have any choice in the matter and that doesn't make sense. You shouldn't lose abilities to do things when you level up. Including the ability to cast a lower level version of a spell than your maximum.

Since you're so keen on not changing the heightening rules, it should be pointed out that nothing in the heightened rules says that spells that get benefits at specific levels continue to get those benefits at levels the spell is heightened to beyond that. It only says you get the benefits if it is cast at that level.

In addition, many spells have additional specific benefits when they are heightened, such as increased damage. These extra benefits are described at the end of the spell’s stat block. Some heightened entries specify one or more levels at which the spell must be prepared or cast to gain these extra advantages. Each of these heightened entries states specifically which aspects of the spell change at the given level. Read the heightened entry only for the spell level you’re using or preparing; if its benefits are meant to include any of the effects of a lower-level heightened entry, those benefits will be included in the entry.

It doesn't say read read the highest heightened entry for the spell you're using or preparing, but instead to read it just for the specific level. It also says that if it were to use the effects of a lower heightened entry, it'd say so. Since invisibility only says 4th, technically if you're going to stick with exactly what the rules say on heightening, your argument should instead be that "you can't cast invisibility at 8th level with the 4th level benefits, it'd have to be at the base benefits"

Which is of course ridiculous. I doubt anyone actually adheres strictly to what the heightening rules say about this. Gotta make those GM judgment calls since the rules aren't perfect!

Castilliano wrote:

To me it does seem intended

Given how it's written I can't agree with this.

There's no weapon only restriction in the basic feature of the flurry edge. It works on any attack. Weapon is only mentioned in regards to the agile property and the level 17 upgrade.

So if this is on purpose, Flurry works fine with unarmed strikes... unless those unarmed strike are agile... and then abruptly stops working at 17?

That's kinda jank. I have trouble believing that was the design intent.

Also consider that the other two ranger edges have absolutely no restriction regarding unarmed or weapons either. Why Flurry in particular?

Captain Morgan wrote:

Flurry Edge doesn't work on combat maneuvers post errata, right?

Flurry Edge works with attacks, which combat maneuver checks are. The errata made it so that maneuvers aren't attack rolls, which is important for things like the Finesse trait.

With the caveat that if we take this language as "intentional" the level 17 upgrade to flurry will only work if the maneuver is made using a weapon.

IMO, this is running into the same language issue as unarmed attacks not counting as weapons, but still having a "weapon damage die."

A potential answer for "why flurry in particular" is the same as it is for many things when it comes to unarmed attacks: there are unarmed attacks that straight up break the weapon budget math. D8 agile attacks and such.

Now that's not to say I think it's intended here, but just saying that it "could" be intended. There have been plenty of examples of Paizo just forgetting to put "and unarmed attacks" in abilities and fixing it later (the first one that always comes to my mind is rogue weapon tricks) but without official clarification/errata, there's no real reason to assume this has been missed in all 3 of the erratas unless Paizo says it has (good luck).

Or in short, it's not too bad to be true and could be to hedge against monk stances, but as a GM you can always say "oh no you can flurry's edge with non-stance attacks" or something. Unless you're a PFS GM of course.

Hm, yes. Yes, I knew that. Yesterday was mentally exhausting.

Plus I'm sure they didn't want full plate to turn off IE. I imagine that when the choice came down to "banning all free hand weapons" vs "allowing two weapons only in the case of free hand weapons" vs "banning plate" that they shrugged and picked the 2nd option. It's the least restrictive and a GM can still say no if they really want.

Though I still want to see a juggler thaum. To really break the intent :D

So the argument is that it's in the hand for double-slice, but not in the hand for implement's empowerment?

Does that not ring loudly of "hey look at me trying to circumvent intent!" to anyone else?

Claxon wrote:

so that description is from the Way of Pistolero, not a specific feat right? To be honest, it doesn't bother me then that Raconteir's Reload doesn't stipulate anything about not needing a free hand to reload. Dual Weapon reload is a level 1 feat freely available.

The fact that this way mentions it's compatible with dual pistols to me doesn't mean that you should expect it for free. The solution is already easily available.

It is from the way of pistolero indeed.

As for the lvl 1 feat, we both know it's an easily available solution, but since it's a game concerning a limited pool of feats the character can choose among, knowing whether it's intended to work with either two one handed ranged weapons or not ( especially when the class itself assumes you can choose either ways ) feels legit.

And I want to underline I am not saying it's one way or the other ( but just that I feel doubts legit given the context ).

I dunno, the context is a line that says you might "cultivate the ambidexterity for twin weapons". Cultivate here means essentially "develop", since you're not doing anything with actual plants.

Sounds exactly like taking a feat to "cultivate the ambidexterity" to me. Pretty unambiguous.

I wrote a guide for the Thaumaturge. Apologies for typos and minor misunderstandings of the rules. I'll try my best to keep it updated and correct any errors people find and add any suggestions I'm in favor of - I'm sure there will be plenty once more people get real play experience and after errata. I'll try my best to remember to give credit where it's due.

Also, I believe VampByDay is putting out a guide soon as well so keep your eyes out for theirs as well.

Here is the link.

One thing I would like to point out:

You can't actually stop someone from getting up from prone with a reaction like AoO. It happens after the standing is complete. You still get the attack, but they aren't prone during it (so not Flatfooted) and don't fall back down if you disrupt it...because it can't be disrupted, it's already done.

Also, have you considered ancestry breakdowns for the guide? At least like "these have good no-hand unarmed attacks, these have innate spells that you may be interested in" type of thing.

Came here curious about this. Double feats *felt* TGtbT, but I wasn't certain. "can also select" could mean "can also select from" and "can additionally select". Glad to see it clarified so quickly!

Ah, but what about a one-handed weapon without the two-handed trait that you use with the fighter feat dual-handed assault!

Even with the updated encounter, last night as the GM I had my first player death, followed shortly by my first TPK.

LoreMaster GM wrote:

How important are the Pregens to this adventure? I know with the pirate one, their stories were important to the story

Is it the same here? I am considering giving my players the choice of building their own or using a pregen.

Well pregens are less important here(any sort of famous hunter group works), but for purpose of being society legal for sanctioning, while you can alter the adventure a bit you HAVE to use the pregens as written if you want to give them society chronicles.

Surprised no one has said this yet, but this is untrue. The one shots are flagged as "pregens recommended" and the sanctioning document reiterates that.

So not required.

I was under the impression that you aren't able to wear Handwraps of mighty blows and healer's gloves at the same time, as they are both "worn gloves"

graystone wrote:

Gortle wrote:

All Rogues can sneak attack with agile or finese unarmed strikes.

I think that's the point being made: the strength rogue option can pick non-agile/finesse but doesn't get to do that with unarmed attacks which Enchanter Tim sees as thematically off.

Read it carefully. Ruffian only adds weapons. It never removes anything from the base Rogue. A Ruffian Rogue clearly can still sneak attack with an Unarmed Strike.

What is doesn't do is enable the critical specialization effect, for any thing other than a simple weapon.

Weapon trick expands this at level 5 for all Rogues, but never for any Rogue to include Unarmed Attacks.

I don't see why this is an issue for the Ruffian. Its an issue for the Rogue, the Monk, and the Martial Artist. They all have to take a feat to get access to the critical specialization effects of unarmed strikes.

I feel like a quote.

Exact verbiage. Words are important, and how we use them is important

But I won't as I'm sure its going to bite me.

It came back to bite you :) Specifically they were talking about non-finesse or agile unarmed attacks, from the direct thing you quoted.

Also, I should point out that weapon tricks does, in fact, apply to finesse/agile unarmed attacks. It was updated in the errata.

Weapon tricks:

You have become thoroughly familiar with the tools of your
trade. You gain expert proficiency in simple weapons as
well as the rapier, sap, shortbow, shortsword, and unarmed
attacks. When you critically succeed at an attack roll against
a flat-footed creature while using an agile or finesse simple
weapon or unarmed attack, or when using any of the listed
weapons, you apply the critical specialization effect for that
weapon or unarmed attack.

The corgi familiar comes with scent, which counts towards its max abilities. So you cannot take fast movement and independent from just the ancestry feat. You'd have to get enhanced familiar somehow.

It's the point of the class itself.

Though you won't probably be able to trip and shove normally with a staff, with this dedication you can if you are "wielding" one.

I mean, reading this

Quote:

You can Shove and Trip even if you don’t have a free hand, provided you are wielding your staff.

What you understand is not that you'll be able to trip and shove enemies wielding your staff? It's the only logical interpretation to me.

I don't expect, nor I read in the description, that a staff acobat would be able to trip or shove enemies by kicking or biting them. The character is now competenet enought with a staff ( or polearm ) to trip or shove enemies within his reach ( Though I have nothing against the visual effect of a bouncing projectile which trips 2 enemies, apart from the reloading stuff before, during and after ).

I admit that the sling staff is in a strange spot, but that's it.

No, the point of the staff acrobat staff is that you're staff acrobat. It doesn't let you shove or trip with the "staff" using it's weapon statistics (pertinent for say, having reach on the staff) as it doesn't give the weapon those traits, or say you treat it as if it has those traits, or something like that. It also means that potency runes on the weapon wouldn't apply to those maneuvers, since it doesn't say that it does.

It just says you can trip or shove without a free hand provided you're wielding your staff, which means yeah, you can do it with a sling staff. Or heck, a cooking utensil (filcher's fork) and a shield.

The issue is: For creatures that already have reach makes no sense if ALL creatures have reach.

Also instead of only adjacent doesn’t work for tiny either.

Colloquial I understand the meaning. But correct would be to say “creatures that have reach different to 5 feet“ as that is the actual meaning.

So there is an implied reach of 5 throughout the CRB and reach 10 in many cases means x+5 with x assumed to be 5.

Take a gander at the demilich.

Or if you really want to some fun, a gorilla.

I do wish though that there was more stuff to spend AcP on for existing characters. It's hard to justify, at least for me, spending 80-240+ AcP on a character that I can only play in repeatable or unreleased low-level content at this point.

Or basically, I have these high-level (for society) characters that are always going to be what I consider my "main" characters, the ones I'm most excited about when there's new content out they can participate in, and I'd like to spend AcP on them, as they are my focus. But I don't actually have good ideas for what that would look like. More uncommon access stuff? That's really all I got.

I played this at PaizoCon...

** spoiler omitted **
This seems like it will be another adventure where depending on the players, it will either be too hard or too easy...

I was excited to run this for my group after enjoying SW so much, but after playing it, no way, not without some major adjustments. The encounter balance was way out of whack. The story was...mostly ok, but overshadowed by the ugh of the combat.

The characters are OK but not nearly as flavorful as the SW characters. Ah well, maybe the next one.

Yup, all the polearms have that I think...or reach weapons rather

Picked the Kasatha to see how they handle four (and presumably more than four) armed species and Borai to see how SF2E approaches them as a versatile heritage.

Excited to see how SF2E maintains the cantina feel with the way ancestries are written. I doubt we're going to get the 100+ species we have now converted over (granted a significant number of them could use PF versions in a pinch). I'm also concerned that we'll lose some of the species unique character if they're not more front-loaded than PF ancestries.

I'm also excited to see what new heritages we get for PF Legacy species to better represent how they exist in the setting. Asteroid Dwarfs and Masked Elves, and red-skinned Hylki humans.

It seems like a lot of the balance was down to technology.

If Michael had been equipped with Jennys gun do you think you would have come to these same conclusions regarding the balance? Because it sounds like all the nrgatives for him boiled down to the single shot weapons.

This is honestly one of the things that's going to make crossover PF2E characters interesting is seeing how those characters interact with a system that's much more gear dependent (assuming gear works anything like SF1E). Vice versa, how viable will SF2E characters be in lower-tech PF games? Sone classes like mystics or solarians might cross easily, but others won't.

Is there going to be a way for a gunslinger to become proficient with future space guns? How will those future space guns interact with their class features? This set of encounters is interesting to look at in isolation, but I wonder at long term viability of characters from either system crossing over.

I wonder how the "enhanced" class variants will play alongside the existing classes. Are they meant to replace them completely, or are they just supposed to be alternative approaches to the same classes? Likewise, how will they interact with previously published additional class options. The classes are already fairly modular, but if level-gates for certain features are changing that could complicate things unless there's guidelines for "updating" those old features for the new class chassis. Seeing how the unchained classes functioned in PF1E, I imagine it'll be a mix of everything, with each class being it's own beast as to how it's handled with legacy content.

Similarly, is the narrative starship combat supposed to be used instead of the standard starship combat, or is it just another tool to run starship encounters in situations where pulling out the hex-grid wouldn't enhance the storytelling?

I'm very excited about the new playable species, and the "revisiting" of some previously published species. If the entries are even half as good as the stuff that came out in Interstellar Species I'll be very excited. Will we finally be getting stats for some of the name-dropped species in other books perhaps?

Oh, and Destructicus is adorable and must be protected at all cost.

Robust, scaling cantrips would also be great!

Scaling cantrips appear in Galactic Magic FYI.

What about the 3 action economy system? This is what Starfinder really needs.

Integrating 3AE into SF is not something that would be easy to do for a number of reasons.

So will this bring SF closer to how PF2 presents its rules?

I wouldn't expect it. This is a balance patch to a system that was originally released as a one-off standalone side product for PF1E. The fact that it spun into an entire second game system due to it being so popular has caused some issues that have piled up.

Don't think of this as a sequel, it's a balance patch now that the game has matured plus lots of new goodies for us long-time players. :)

All of this sounds fascinating, I'm curious how the new versions of the classes will interact with what's already been published (are they designed as "replacements" or are they more just variants of the existing classes that can be chosen instead).

The Technomancer seems like the odd one out in the list, as it's the class mentioned I've seen the least complaints about.

I for one am incredibly proud of everyone involved in this initiative.

Sparrowhawk_92 wrote:

It's not even our first in Starfinder. The iconic Precog is a hoverchair user. Gotta love seeing the representation across the board.

And Barsala has a prosthetic hand.

True! I forgot about our science gal and her cool robot hand.

Sparrowhawk_92 wrote:

I love seeing the ADHD (or the Pahtra equivalent) representation in this piece. Always love to meet a new iconic.

100% agree. I'm glad we have a Starfinder iconic now with a disability. I have both Tourette Syndrome and Schizophrenia and it's been hard to get other people all throughout my life to understand me and not laugh at me or get angry with me. Seeing a tabletop rpg iconic character's story of going through this very same ordeal and triumphing makes my day feel good.

It's not even our first in Starfinder. The iconic Precog is a hoverchair user. Gotta love seeing the representation across the board.

I love seeing the ADHD (or the Pahtra equivalent) representation in this piece. Always love to meet a new iconic.

My gut tells me (i.e. if precedent holds) it'll be the Galactic Trade rules from Fly Free or Die, possibly revised and/or expanded to a slight degree.

Tondro said that the original design doc was a lot longer than what the page count in FFoD allowed for. If it's an expanded reprint I'll certainly be happy because I love the system and would love to see more done with it.

As of this posting, there are 125+ playable species in Starfinder across all official sources. My current estimates pin it at around 129, when you include the species from Drift Crashers book 1. At least 50 more potentially-playable species have been name-dropped across official Starfinder media.

I have a spreadsheet that I try to keep up to date with every new release that currently has exactly 50 non-playable species that have been mentioned and could feasibly be PCs. I might be missing some from newer SFS scenarios but otherwise it's up to date AFAIK.

The second Wayfarers book means the world to me.

** spoiler omitted **

EDIT: I guess I should also say: the sci-fi elements are my favorite bits of Pathfinder! Thank you to everyone who adds a bit of interplanetary flair to their fantasy.

If you haven't read The Murderbot Diaries by Martha Wells yet you absolutely should.

This might be one of my favorite iconics yet, and I know this is a small thing to get hung up on, but I have to know - what's up with her eyes? They don't look like the typical Paizo-brand elf eyes, yet there's little indicating that Ciravel is a half-elf - what gives?

I love her design and story both aside from that, however.

I mean, her irises are still huge and she's looking sideways. Paizo elves still have sclera. So I would imagine that if she was looking at you directly her eyes would be more like what you would expect, with the irises seeming to be her entire eye.

That and artistic license let's different people interpret the description of paizo elves in myriad ways. She's still consistent with the description for elves we are used to, just maybe not as much with other art which is okay.

I've lost track of the various playtests. I'm assuming Ciravel is tied to one of the new Starfinder classes about to release. Which one doesn't seem to be mentioned.

She's the Precog iconic that is coming with Galactic Magic.

I can't speak for anybody else, but its my hope that if Paizo can unionize the staffers at larger 3pp like Kobold Press will look to unionize under CWA as well and then that will snowball into WotC staffers looking to do the same.

It might be asking a lot of this particular movement, but it could be the start to something bigger than just Paizo.

The games industry in general (beyond just the TTRPG space) has been in desperate need for unionization for some time. This is a huge step and I am incredibly proud of all the folks at Paizo for stepping up for their fellow workers.

For Tech Rev:

- What are the new hacking rules like?
- Are there some examples of favorite "technobabble" that you want to share?
- What are some of the new options for drones?
- What are the new explosives rules like and how do they interact with moment-to-moment gameplay?

This story is very touching and makes me sad for our stone-faced squid friends and their lost history. I hope she finds what she's looking for out there.

CorvusMask wrote:

I do kinda wonder if this book still sticks to the "in the future, magic is magic, doesn't matter if its divine/arcane/occult/primal" version or if other more specific form of magic will be introduced in this AU as well :D

I think it kind of makes sense that Starfinder does it that way. As time goes one things tend to get a bit more reductionist - at the beginning, there's lots of independent things and different ways to do things, but as time goes on you unify more and more as your understanding grows, until you hit an understanding level where it's all really the same core principles but with different applications

And it is thematically consistent with the "magic is just another science" approach that SF tends to use. The source doesn't matter as much as the application. Plus things like the Gap hitting a hard reset on a lot if magical traditions that may have existed.

I see the reference to Dawn of Flame there.

I dig this encounter a lot and want to find a way to fit it into a game.

Great! But when is it?

This is neat, as someone who has been curious about SFS for awhile now but haven't had a chance to get started. Having a go to "start here" adventure (or three) is super helpful.

As a side note, why is there a giant planet in the sky over the lorespire complex? :O

May I propose this list ?

Heh. You know, I haven't had the chance to try out Starfinder's new squadron combat system yet, but now I'm thinking I'm going to prioritize that for a one-off. With a party composed of a kitsune, espraksa, grippli, ysoki, and an SRO.

Because reasons.

DO A BARREL ROLL!

Space pirates! Azlanti! And weird aliens! Written by Chris Sims! Color me hyped.

So does this mean we're getting a magic-book after tech revolution? Color me excited!

Well, this doesn't have any real-world parallels that are being drawn from. Nope, not at all, completely fantastical.

Color me excited to see what the FFoD AP has to offer.

Now if the provided rules would only support this kind of gameplay, sneaking around with illegal weapons, dodging security system instead of assuming everyone is armed and armored everywhere.

I mean, the game has plenty of space to make this kind of scenario work and work well. Especially if you were running a one-on-one session that allows for more niche styles of play than what a party could ordinarily accomplish.

Groups of players with vastly different kinds of builds and specialization in the game space, ultimately limit some options for scenarios where everyone has to be involved.

This is why the typical "don't split the party" advice can fall short, as it limits situations where you can carefully craft a scenario where one player shines in their specific role, separate from the rest of the group.

Is there a reason the PDF for this is so huge? I don't think it should be 300+ MB for an AP volume.

Playable Gnoll boon when? :D

Oh wow, that was a heavy one. Great job HMM!

Question I see there were changes to the cost for weapons for starship did they boost the costs of shields at all. From what I remember from building our ship shields being pretty cheap and REALLY effective kinda ment that people just got as much shields as they could stick in their ship which broke a lot of encounters.

The build guidelines in SOM help with this. At one of the GenCon panels John Compton talked about having to backwards engineer how starship weapon values were calculated for the book. I imagine that work saw its way back to the core rebalencing of starship weapons and why most of the changes are in that section.

Okay, it's almost 3:00 PM pacific and I'm starting to get very worried.

It's now 3:15 and am concerned.

*cues up Pacific Rim theme*

Time to cancel some apocalypses!

Because punch guns are treated as ranged weapons, can you fire a punch gun beyond the range increment of "reach?"

Ranged weapons can usually fire x10 their range increment. Which means a punch gun can fire up to 10x your character's natural reach.

For reference:

Punch Gun: A punch gun weapon is a small ranged weapon outfitted with a pressure-sensitive firing mechanism that is affixed to a glove or a similar item. Unlike most ranged weapons, which discharge when a trigger is pulled, a punch gun fires when sufficient pressure is placed upon its barrel. All punch gun projectile weapons have a range equal to their wielder’s natural reach. Although these are ranged attacks, they do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

My argument is that RAI is that they can only be used to attack enemies within reach, but the classification as ranged instead of melee weapons (like shell knuckles) does carry the implication that they follow all other rules that apply to ranged weapons, such as being able to fire beyond their range increment.

Super excited for this! I am curious if the're going to release the class grafts for the three COM classes here. :)

IIRC, there are references to Positive Energy Plane gateways occurring naturally inside stars. One potential effect of this could be that every star floods its system with an influx of positive energy, making the whole thing more life-amenable than it otherwise would be. After all, positive energy isn't just life, its also anti-entropy. This could easily mean everything from "the atmosphere doesn't dissipate as much as it should" to "that planet doesn't cool down as fast as it should".

Coincidentally, this also could explain why aberrant horrors from outside the universe like to hang out in the depths of interstellar space. All that ambient "energy of the universe" is anathema on at least some level to things not-of-this-universe.

This does lead to questions about undead and their immunity to cosmic rays however.

It's nice to know that even if the Veskarium is an iron-fisted dictatorship, they still respect pronouns.

Sparrowhawk_92 wrote:

Three new race names and no new races in Near Space. Hoping we get an announcement for AA4 in the near future. :)

I think we may have more than three, unless I missed an Alien Archive entry somewhere:

New races: Caiagaras, Skeraskens, Ijtikris, Talphi

Old races: Vesk, Skittermanders, Formians, Pahtras

Iktijri are in AA3 already. So the other three are new and the rest are legacy.

I'm loving these pieces of flash fiction, they lend so much to the daily lives of those in the setting and are great role playing inspirations.

I love the use of "to path" as a verb for telepathic communication. It's one of those things that seems so obvious in retrospect. Likewise I'm curious how "diverting" would work mechanically as it seems incredibly useful.

I am saddened that this is likely the last bit of SF flash fiction we are going to see for awhile but I'm glad it ended with a piece this great.

I can't wait until I get my hands on COM next month to start telling stories like this of my own.

Hmm wrote:

Maybe I am overthinking this, or just plain weird. But I want characters with dark backstories to have learned from their past mistakes, and I am not sure that Zemir has.

I had the same reaction. (As for whether that's weird: for calibration purposes, I did not enjoy the main character in A Wizard of Earthsea.)

It probably won't be too much of an issue at the table (though I guess that depends on how deeply your players generally RP the pregens..?)

I am a fan of the protagonist of AWoE (if my name didn't give it away) because

Zemir is in a good place for a PC as he has lots of room to develop and grow. The issue being, that's not really something that can happen to an iconic. Waiting to see the iconic encounter to get a better read on his personality.

It's cool to see how the Vanguard mechanics can be translated into an interesting narrative and gives lots of cool hints to what's to come.

She's adorable and I love her.

I'm eagarly waiting for one of you talented folks to make your take on "Moneythumper."

CorvusMask wrote:

Lavabeing wrote:

Any reviews of this one up yet? I'm tempted to run it based on the blurb.

I'm planning to review it, but I was busy reading 2e and running plaguestone today :'D So tomorrow it is.

I'm curious what the themes are in the AP. Survival? Horror? 100% action? Are there many or few breaks in the action? Any intrigue among those being attacked? Does the AP give players a sense of empowerment and agency given the plot or a sense of powerlessness and struggle against an ominous turn of events?

Here's my take on the first volume specifically related to the questions you asked.

I noticed something odd about one of the Alien Archive entries in this book and would love to get some dev input:

+1 for everyone's favorite insectile psychic space-dad!

I'm glad we finally get to see an avian race to play with in addition to having Sazaron and Dirindi to round out the common Pact Worlds races (outside of some missing children of Golarion).

Really excited to see how the Sazaron look as well as dig in and see some of the other races.