The first is really scary because it works off your concept of evil (also, the mass murder makes you one of the evil people in most codes of ethics)
Also, the curing of all diseases runs into some ethical issues as well, as some of what you may see as illness people may see as an essential part of who they are (for example, if someone cured my autism I wouldn't be me anymore, the same with my friends bipolar) and some ailments have a culture of their own that members often don't want to leave (deafness is one example of this).
The problem with the infinity gauntlet is that unilateral action of any kind generally tramples over peoples free will.
I guess if I had the infinity gauntlet I would use it to modify my body slightly (there are things that need fixing there) give myself enough money to live comfortably, maybe fix global warming (it is a pervasive threat to all life on earth) then wish the gauntlet into a pocket dimension where no one can access it without reaching a global consensus to get a single use out of it.
Reading the playtest rulebook, I have had the novel experience of an rpg rulebook actually starting with an explanation in simple terms of how tabletop rpgs actually work.
That it actually in clear terms explains the roles of the gm and the players, how the game works, the modes of play, and how the flow of actions works straight up is very good.
Most rpg books seem to assume a lot of knowledge on the part of players and gms, so seeing everything spelled out from the start, and things arranged in a hierarchical way with clear definitions is very refreshing.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Both - I tend to space out and dissociate a lot and my memory is a bit broken so the passage of time is very weird for me at times, and I am also a person who is under a lot of time pressures all of the time and sometimes I wish I could just have an extra day in the week.
Really weird they got that right when ship scales are so crazy.
Crazy, or just abstracted? The non-mechanical statistics of the planets don't have any effect on gameplay so they are free to be completely accurate. The ship rules need a certain level of abstraction and looseness to work well (all of the tabletop space combat games I have played have had a weird relationship with scale - battlefleet gothic and firestorm armada for example often have their 1km long starships flying alongside cardboard cutouts or miniatures of planets that are only slightly bigger than the starship miniatures, while x-wing takes a lot of liberties with the relative sizes of its ships to ensure the large ships are small enough to work in the game).
hindsight (scent) also has the advantage of being 20/20
So, I have noticed a bit of a balance issue with the polymorph spell. 2nd level polymorph enables you to turn into CR3 magical beasts.
Now, normally this wouldn't be an issue, except for the existence of the CR3 Tashtari.
The Tashtari, colloquially known as LASER WOLVES, are wolves with phosphorescent fur that looks like crystals that shoot LASER BEAMS out of their mouths. Which raises the question - if you where a spellcaster able to cast 2nd level polymorph, why would you ever turn into anything other than a freaking laser wolf? If you can think of a reason why you would turn into literally anything else, then you are wrong and need to re-examine your position.
RPGs are supposed to be about choices - some choices should be better or worse than others, that makes things realistic. However, in this case, only one choice is valid (turning into a laser wolf) and all other choices are wrong and you should feel bad for even considering it. The laser wolf warps the balance of the game (and potentially space-time) with its sheer radness. Whenever it's name is spoken all vans within a 100 km radius spontaneously generate metal art of a pack of laser wolves running through a storm and shooting lasers out of their mouths. The Tashtari is so awesome that it breaks one of the cardinal rules of reality - that all dogs are good boys. This dog is a Bad boy (the capital B is intentional). It is way cooler than you. It is so cool that it is forbidden from riding motorcycles, as that would be too much concentrated awesome in one place. Of course, being a Bad boy, the Tashtari is a master of motorcycle riding and doesn't care about what is forbidden.
So, should paizo ban the tashtari from being a polymorph form?
There are no explicit rules for attacking starships - I was just using the rules for attacking starship bulkheads to extrapolate how much HP a starship could have based on the only thing in the book that assigns HP to starship components. Until there is a better point of reference that is the most realistic way to do it.
It also seems consistent with how much damage starship weapons do when targeted at ground targets (one of the lowest level starship weapons does 60d4 damage to ground targets, so 12k HP for something that can survive multiple shots from that weapon seems fairly reasonable)
BTW I meant like a romantic relationship. Should have been more clear.
There is so much more to relationships than just the romantic ones. Most of the historical figures I admire I would not sully the connection with romance or sex - they are people who are better enjoyed intellectually than emotionally
I actually recently did the maths for this based on the statistics for starship bulkheads and interiors in the core rulebook - a 10 ft by 10 ft section of wall (starship bulkhead) has 2,400 hit points, while a similar sized section of interior has 1,440 hit points.
Assuming the smallest possible starship (tiny starships bottom out at 20 ft long) and that each side is comprised of 2 10 ft sections, with a pair of 10 foot sections comprising the smaller interior compartment, that's sitting at about 12000 hit points for the smallest possible starship (with a hardness of 35, and whatever effect the gm decides to represent the ships shields and armour upgrades)
10:1 is an incredibly conservative ration. 600-1000:1 is far more consistent with the data that is available
My group briefly had a player with a dragonkin exocortex mechanic and it didn't really seem to cause any issues for game balance. The lashunta solarian in our party has been a much bigger issue as he deals obscene amounts of damage and is pretty tankt (he laughed at multiple waves of formian drones trying to kamikaze him with grenades as his DR made it impossible for them to hurt him, and he consistently halves the HP of enemies in one hit). Meanwhile, the best the dragonkin character was able to do to try to mess up encounter balance was to do some light aerial recon
You don't really need to worry about the stats of the disease in relation to the entire population of absalom station - if you don't want it to be a pandemic just don't say it is, you don't have to roll saves for every npc or try to accurately simulate the spread of the disease if it doesn't serve the narrative - you actually straight up shouldn't do those things.
Many of the diseases or other things that can spread in rpgs, if you actually simulated their spread using the rules as written, would become world ending pandemics - this is because they are written to be a threat to adventurers who have really good stats, while the average commoner has almost no chance of making their saves.
I remember reading an article in which someone used maths to simulate what would happen if a wizard in 3.5e summoned a single shadow and let it loose in a city - iirc it is essentially impossible for a civilisation (or a world) to survive a single shadow after it has had a few days to start spreading if you simulate what happens using the rules as written, as shadows are difficult to deal with and can multiply exponentially once unleashed on a population.
My point is, the rules of rpg systems are not intended to be used to simulate the entire world literally - the are supposed to only simulate how things interact with the adventuring party.
So, I would advise you to not get into the trap of worrying about the save DC being too high for off-camera npcs, as you don't need to make rolls for those npcs. Just set the dc to be the appropriate level of challenge for the party.
I am a GM (starfinder) and player (D&D 5e) who finds rpgs to be one of the best things for my mental health. I have severe depression, anxiety and ptsd, and sometimes my two weekly games are all that keep me going. The GM of our d&d group and two of the other players have mental illness as well, so it is often challenging to keep that game running.
I have been going through a particular bad patch lately, so having ongoing commitments that are an unqualified source of joy in my life have been one of the main driving forces keeping me from having to be hospitalised again.
It has been really gosh damn difficult to keep hope alive this year. 2018 has been a year of pure hell for me and I have struggled with suicidal thoughts and self harm for the entire year so far. If it weren't for my studies at art school, my gaming groups and my cats, I would probably have died or spent most of the year in hospital.
I don't think any reasonable person could read about some of the more controversial Barbies produced and argue that there wasn't sexism and various other "isms" involved. They literally made a Babysitter barbie complete with a small pretend diet book that said "don't eat", a person of colour barbie called "Oreo barbie", and a "computer science barbie" book in which she was portrayed as insultingly incompetent compared to her male colleagues. Barbie dolls are also literally the most famous/archetypal example of negative influences on body image and gender roles for girls.
Funnily enough for the teddy bear thing, there are real world examples we can pull from; the golliwog doll is an example of a doll made primarily by one race depicting a caricature of another race (and historically mostly given to children), which are pretty universally considered a very racist thing to make or own - people aren't offended by dolls made to represent people in general, because people make the dolls of people. If aliens made dolls of humans that represented stereotypes about humans, we might disapprove of that
It all largely depends on how you classify things as evil - some viewpoints would argue that gods can only be truly evil if they actively are making a conscious choice to be evil instead of having been "born" that way (nature vs nurture and all that), while others would argue that you can be inherently evil without needing free will.
This argument is strongest when applied to rovagug - it could be considered to be more a primal force of destruction that is just considered to be evil because it is in opposition to the aims of all of the other gods.
Heck, rovagug itself complicates the evil status of the other evil gods - from a utilitarian perspective, Asmodeus could be considered a good deity because the beneficial consequences of his actions in imprisoning rovagug probably far outweigh all of the bad things he has done since then.
Though personally I would consider Asmodeus the most evil, because I feel like his actions against rovagug don't count as good as they where likely completely self serving and hence do not count as his motivations where corrupt, as he likely helped to save reality just to enable him to continue existing and perpetuate suffering for a long time.
A trick I have learned - always roll seperate initiative for each individual enemy. It might sound tedious but it smooths out the initiative and action economy disadvantages that npcs suffer against players. It gives a better chance of at least one or two of the enemy getting to act (and do some damage) before the entire party gets to unload.
If you just roll one initiative for all 4 void zombies or whatever, then there is a good chance that it will be lower than whatever the players get and that 3 of the zombies will be dead before they get to do anything.
I feel like this discussion gets started every three weeks, and it usually goes like this;
OP: starfinder has no shields!
Historically, paints varied in price between different colours, due to each colours pigment being made from a different material - blue paints where particularly expensive, due to their pigments being created from lapis lazili, which caused renaissance and pre-renaissance European painters to reserve the colour blue for important religious figures, such as the Virgin Mary, giving the colour a great deal of symbolic significance.
In a modern context, price differences between paint colours still exist for higher quality paints that still use high grade pigments for the same reasons.
Let's compare weapon stats then - the box on starships shooting at ground targets say they do 10x damage - so a low bp, light starship weapon like the chain cannon does equivalent to 60d4 damage (potentially in a large AOE depending on how the GM interprets the text). The best an infantry (and as you said, non-starship vehicle) weapon can do in the core book is roughly 12d10 (using the level 20 paragon reaction cannon as an example)
Meanwhile, if a ground vehicle wants to destroy the airlock door of the starship (just the door!) it has to do 160 damage to a hardness 35 object. A 10-foot section of the starships bulkheads has a hardness of 35 and 2,400 hp.
If treating the entire starship as one object, well there are no rules for that but I guess it would be in the 10s of thousands for hp (much higher if you where generous and just added up the hp of each 10 ft section but that is just tedious) and a hardness of 35 based on those numbers, which puts the stats of a tier 1 starship well beyond any ground vehicle. It seems pretty clear that comparing a starship to a ground vehicle is like comparing a battleship to a rhib - you can have the fanciest rhib in the world but it will never cost as much as even the most basic battleship
RAW if you give them a weapon they use that weapons damage dice+CR+str for melee or damage dice+CR for ranged, with all of the relevant rules for that weapon.
The combat stat tables are just for natural or integrated attacks such as claws or spitting or whatever.
Well, they do for weapons just as much as PCs do, unless you give them a natural attack