Search Posts
Some wild s*** Whaaaaat?! Huh. You know, I still haven't sat down to read War of Immortals - I've been deep into catching up on my Starfinder backlog before diving into PF2E Revised - so thanks for the info! That's what I get for making assumptions I suppose.
Any update Yakman? I'm curious if you ended up pivoting away from DA. Or if you came up with something else. Are your players commonly optimizers?
As so many have said, there's so much to choose from and there's pretty much a place for anything and everything. Which might be why it's a bit slippery compared to what we get in Pathfinder. The solar system, as presented during Golarion's time, is much more tightly contained. Sure, each planet still has its own thing going on, but the scope is smaller, each planet feels like it has large barren mysterious spaces peppered with intriguing tidbits of lore from "beyond". That gives the Pathfinder solar system a theme as a whole: it's pulpy, its weird, and its creepy, with a few other major species isolated in the dark and trying to make their way. Interplanetary trade is a promising but near future promise for many of them. All of this gives the solar system a cohesive whole that's tighter to grab on to as a setting. Starfinder's setting is two orders of magnitude larger in scope. The species of the Pact Worlds are interspersed across each planet and into the stars. Most places are pretty cosmopolitan. Since none of the Pact Worlds are isolated anymore they all have to lean on doing their "thing" and serve much more like the nations and regions in Golarion. So the Pact Worlds end up functioning like the Inner Sea Region and feels much more "kitchen-sink" than pulpy and weird - sure the pulp and the weird are still there, in all of the thematically respective places. And then you throw Near Space and the Vast on top of all that. When the material from Distant Worlds shows up in a Pathfinder adventure it feels special, like a little piece of the wider universe that's crept in and and given a taste to the Golarion locals. In Starfinder, you are that wider universe. My recommendation, if you find the setting as a whole a bit slippery, is to look for the themes that interest you, find a piece of the galaxy, one world, that connects and dig into that place. Much the same as if you were getting into Golarion but started looking at the lore from a continental view, where it just looks a lot like most other earth continent analogues - don't do that, get into the Inner Sea Region and dive into the places that stand out to you. I'll add to the voices giving their recommendations, but at the end of the day, I think you'll be best served by going with your own gut and start with Aballon and the wider First Ones lore, which is getting expanded on in 2nd from the looks of it. I'd put up Verces like others already have, but it doesn't seem like corporate-facing sci-fi is your jam. Now, there's plenty of cool stuff on Verces outside the ring that contrasts against all the corporate stuff, sort of mysterious raiders and monasteries and cults (some going back to the Distant Worlds days) which gives a taste of the old Distant World vibe. So I'd recommend looking into the Fullbright and Darkside stuff. Castrovel is pretty much the new fantasy/Golarion stand-in. Absalom Station may serve as the actual Absalom stand-in, but the whole wilderness and towns and cities aspect is covered by Castrovel. And Triaxus. But Triaxus is getting a bit of facelift in 2nd edition with the huge overhaul to its seasonal cycle, so I'm not sure what it's going to become. Not to say those planets don't also have major modern population centers filled with corpos and businesses, but they have a lot more opportunities for traditional rural vibes. I also like the Diaspora. It still has a similar mysterious feel like it did in Distant Worlds, just expanded upon. And with pirates now. It's got ties to Aballon and Eox, regarding plot points, and quite a few anomalies hinting at wider cosmic mysteries and history while also being a great place to set an Expanse-style Belter-focused game or the Starfinder version of Skull and Shackles. One game I would like to do involves a massive Diaspora-wide dust-up between the Free Captains, the Android Abolitionist Front, and the inner planet security forces.
I figured as much, which is why I'm couching my Dominion wishes within a 3 AP format. Though, as Perpdepog noted, if 2nd edition Starfinder has leveling similar to PF2 Revised, with expanded level ranges for APs (see Spore War going from 11 to 20 in 3 issues), then a single hardcover could basically cover the same amount of levels as the old 6-issue APs. Whether that's a 1 to 13, 5 to 16, or 11 to 20 spread - a single hardcover can cover a big range thanks to modern formatting and design principles. But yeah, framed in the context of how they release books now, allow me to revise my suggestion to one of the following: a hardcover book of aberrant villains including a chapter on the Dominion, or a hardcover AP featuring the Dominion as the villains with a backmatter appendix/chapter on the Dominion as a whole. To moosher12's point, they could put the Dominion in a Vast book as well. I still think such a book should feature the Azlanti Star Empire, but it could have a chapter for each if that's the only place Paizo can find to put both of these groups. I hope Starfinder gets a Divine Mysteries style book that sums up gods and goddesses. (Genuine question, which books in Starfinder 1E actually show what the gods look like, if any? I'm only up to Near Space among the core books, and haven't seen any imagery of the gods yet.) That would be Galactic Magic. Desna's embraced her cosmic identity and is just a moth now (a really cool looking moth, mind you). Rovagug, er, I mean, "The Devourer", is still shown to be formless. Pharasma's gone all Professor X with her hover chair. Urgathoa, hilariously, is shown wearing a space helmet - to let you know, she's in SPACE now! I'm pretty sure no gods need helmets (though several are depicted wearing them), but the undead god definitely doesn't need one. I'll give it style points but it does strike me as funny. Zon-Kuthon also got the Hellraiser in space glow-up, but I expect their image to change pretty radically in 2nd edition given ongoing events. As for the new gods, many of them look pretty rad - Oras is probably my favorite, though I love the idea that Damoritosh has a halo, despite his 1st edition alignment, given how the Vesk see him as saintly by their cultural standards.
I think for at least some of the small ships that seem under powered for their drift drive the concept was they basically shut nearly everything down while they are powering up the drift engine Oh agreed, on the small ships powering down sort of thing. That's how I handle it in my games, but I wasn't even including those ships in my stats above. I was talking about ships that, even fully powered down, wouldn't have enough power to turn on their drives. The number of ships that have Power Cores with exactly enough power to run only their Drift Engines but couldn't run anything else actually triples the figures I listed above. How I resolve it in my games - I've lowered the power requirement for tiny ships running Signal Basic engines from 75 PCU to 50 PCU. But yeah, there are a bunch of ships (especially those with Boost or Major Signal engines) in the small to large range that have just enough power to run those fancier engines but nothing else. I do hope they take the lessons they learned from SF1 ship construction and help make a better system for SF2. I like being able to have the build to order ships but it would be nicer to have more viable stock ship types. While you could do that in SF1 the builds of the default ships were just weird and inefficient and it was pretty easy to just min/max your own custom one that would be unpleasant to live in but is way OP combat power wise. This is actually something I houserule in my games. I use a similar breakdown to the 10% rule where the BP has to be split relatively evenly across all systems (some exceptions apply) rather than allow for a ton of min-maxing. I like all the weirdness and inefficiencies in ship designs available on the open market. My groups always have to acquire existing ship models and then they can improve upon them. That's half the fun for my group. For example, my current campaign features a bunch of corporate espionage and politics related to Verces and Vercite corporations. So the party is currently competing for contracts and some of them involve Vercite ship companies. At this point, they're soon set to acquire a new Tier 8 ship. Depending on which company they choose to side with for their contract, they'll get to pick a Tier 7 (or lower) ship from existing Opulos, Redshift, Terminator, or Ringworks models. They've been siding with Opulos a lot so I suspect that's what they'll settle on. They'll more than likely take something from Tier 4 or 5, which gives them several Tiers-worth of BP to work with: rip out an expansion bay there, install starmetal thrusters here, add an extra turret, and so on. The other major houserule in my game is that I've taken every weapon and part that can go into a ship and assigned it a minimum Tier (based on BP costs and tech accessibility). Similar to the Level assignments for equipment. That means that while something that's rated for Tier 8 or higher can be picked up and put on a lower Tier vessel (much like buying a gun that's several levels higher than the party), it's typically much harder to acquire or could even be restricted. This came about early on because I didn't like the idea of certain weapon types just being freely available for any ship. Things like antimatter or nuclear armaments, even the light tactical nuke torpedoes. Running into a ship that has nukes instead of plasma or traditional torpedo warheads should always be an oh-shit moment (see the early chapters and books of The Expanse for example) where it's a signal to the party that they're either dealing with a military vessel or some other serious business. So tactical nukes are Tier 7, which means they only start becoming more common once you're dealing with frigates, military corvettes, on up to cruisers and ship-of-the-line type-stuff. Now, if they run into a ship below Tier 7 that's sporting nukes, they know it's serious business and there's probably a story there. In addition, I have "tech-tree ratings" for different ship manufacturers and alien races that are better with certain types of technology. So while gravity technology, for example, has a minimum Tier of 8, some companies or species that specialize in such technology would be able to lower that threshold to 5 or 6 depending on their tech-tree rating for gravity weapons. So if my party wants to install a particularly powerful type of weapon tech on a lower Tier ship by sacrificing a bunch of BP they should be spending elsewhere, they have to actually earn it in-story by cutting deals with the right company or aliens to get it installed. If my party is going to min-max, then by god, they're gonna have to generate plot hooks and complications while they're at it.
Oh yeah, I wouldn't expect them to do a whole book just on the Dominion but I feel it's about time they got an actual feature in some sort of supplement. What I'd really, really like to see would be a Starfinder AP that features them as the main threat. 3 issues or a full 6, I'll take what I can get, though I think they'd work best as a mid- to high-tier villain group. So at the minimum, if they only get a 3 part AP, it should be one that starts at 7th level and goes to 13th or thereabouts. I'd hate to see a cop-out adventure featuring the Dominion where it fafs about at the low-levels with the bigger, meaner Dominion threats sitting in the background. My true wish, if I could have anything, would be something like The Devastation Ark; a high-end 3-part AP that goes all the way to 20th and featuring the absolute worst terrors the Dominion has to offer.
I'll add to the names asking for a planar book and a more detailed god book! I'd be very interested to see how the various outsider races have evolved post-Gap. We've had glimpses of angels, devils, velstracs, aeons, and many more, but only snippets. Some haven't made appearances at all yet, such as asuras and rakshasas. It looks like the oni have found places across the galaxy to carve out their own little empires, I'd like to see more for them and the other native outsiders especially. Whether these would fit into a planar book or a god book, or a mix of both, I'd like to see the outsiders get more covereage. They're just as important in terms of galactic trade and influence as any interplanetary species, IMO. Getting a book on the Azlanti Star Empire also makes sense, as others have said. I could see it as a book that covers the Vast similar to how the Veskarium was in the Near Space book. Obviously, there will be the books that round out the 1st edition material and updates big chunks of it. Armory and tech and magic and all that. I like the idea of splitting tech into a hardtech book and a biotech book. My big wishlist ask would be a book on the Dominion of the Black, and possibly other major aberrant antagonists. Sort of a Lords of Madness for Starfinder 2nd. Could include things like the Dycepskians or the Swarm, or leave those to other books and keep it just as weird, creepy aberrations.
As an addendum: I've only ever run ship combat and ship scenes with correct BP ships, so it's entirely possible the tolerance threshold is well beyond what most of these ships are at. I used 5% as the limit (which means almost half of all ships make the cut) because that's what is used for PCs with the advanced ship upgrade rules from FFoD and Ports of Call. It's entirely possible ships could go up to 50% of the way to the next Tier level and be fine. If that's the case, ignore me and tell me to go pound sand.
Greetings! After finally getting my login fixed after several years away, I figured I'd start my comeback with a discussion I've been wanting to post for years but couldn't while my login was busted. Let me start by saying I love Starfinder, maybe even more than Pathfinder, and I've gotten a lot of mileage out of 1st edition. However, during that time, I've really only had a single concern regarding the system and its many supplements. That concern is around design consistency, and with a new edition dawning, I feel now is a good time to bring this up - a new edition brings new opportunities for improvement! Now what I mean by design consistency has nothing to do (mostly) with the starship rules at large. I love the shipbuilding rules and my group and I enjoy the combat system, especially with many of the additions that were added with the Starship Operating Manual. The starship stuff is so fun, in fact, that I've spent a fair amount of time really getting into the nitty gritty of it - I've built A LOT of ships. It was all of this fiddling around that would lead me to my concern as I noticed early on that many of the published ships didn't match up in build point properly for their Tier. . . so I started a spreadsheet. Every time I used a published ship in one of my campaigns, I'd check the designer's math. Unfortunately, more often than not, my skepticism of the published content was rewarded. For every ship that was off in BP, over or under (usually over), I would alter the build, keeping it within theme for the ship, and add the change notes to my spreadsheet. As time went on, I just caved and did (almost) every single ship published. (For anyone interested in my ship corrections and notes, I can start a different thread with actual spreadsheet details if there's enough interest). The results of this spreadsheet includes nearly 150 ships currently. Of that number, only 23% of published ships have the correct amount of BP. Now, this wouldn't be a particularly major issue if ships were mostly flavor, but BP is directly attached to Tier and Tier functions a lot like CR. This would be the equivalent of Starfinder using a build-point system for monster design for CR and then having only 23% of the published bestiary be the correct CR, which would be a crazy-low number for quality control. Now, in some cases, the BP are only off by 1 to 3 which is no biggie (except at really low Tiers), but most ships are off by more than 5% of the listed BP for their Tier. In the name of balanced encounters, I would like to request (nay, implore) the lead designers of 2nd edition to please double and triple check the math on submitted starships in the future. Luckily, I'm a big old nerd who doesn't mind spending some of his spare time doing this for his own games, but there are lot of other people who will use ships as is and while many times it'll be fine, there are definitely cases where if certain ships are chosen (for the PCs or the enemies) it's going to lead to feels-bad or feels-boring encounters. And if this has already been noted/covered by the design team, then my apologies. I know the game is in good hands. Now, the above was the gist of my request to the designers, but for anyone with the patience and interest to keep reading, here's some more context from my spreadsheet data: Additional Notes: 1) I am aware that the fairly drastic (and needed) changes to BP in the core book from the first printing to the third are the cause for much of this chaos regarding ships published early in the game's run. Because of these changes, of the 15 ships that are in the core book, only 2 are correct from the 2nd printing onward. Removing all core ships from the larger sample improves the quality control, post-corebook, to a whopping 25%. I assume the BP changes also affect quite a few of the early AP issues but I'm not sure where the exact cut-off should be. Assuming the first 18 issues are affected, cutting those from the data as well, aaaaaand you still get 25% quality control. Obviously nothing could be done for the AP issues, but personally, I think the core ships should've been errata'd with the BP rules. Perhaps it wasn't feasible.
2) Speaking of bestiaries, the Starship Operations Manual basically serves as one. I think this was worked on and published after the BP changes to the core as well. The number of correct ships in the ship bestiary is 34%. That's still not great, especially since most of the ships are out by over 5% of their BP or have other issues entirely unrelated to BP, such as illegal build choices or non-functional ones. 3) Speaking of illegal build choices, these often go hand-in-hand with incorrect BP allocation, but sometimes the ship has the correct BP but there's another issue. One example of this occurs with ships of Tier 1 or lower, where they don't have enough power to run their Drift Engine. Now most ships of Tier 1 or lower don't have Drift Engines, but of the small number that do, over half of them don't have a Power Core strong enough. Or if they do have a Power Core strong enough, it's only because they ran over in BP. 4) Now I noted earlier that if a GM uses specific ships in encounters it could lead to balancing issues. Even in most cases where the BP difference is over 5%, it should still be alright most of the time. However, there are a few cases where the BP difference puts ships in entirely different Tiers. This mostly occurs at the low end of play (which is also the most played) and is really only an issue for a select few corebook ships and ships from the early APs, again, due to the BP adjustments. I doubt this has ever blown up anyone's game but I think it's worth noting as it makes the case that the corebook ships should've been errata'd as well. My point is that if the 2nd edition corebook has BP errata'd in the future, they should definitely do the ships too. 5) The BP issue gets slightly rougher in the mid-Tier range where the correct BP ratio drops to 16%. Very few ships in the mid-range have exact BP. Tier 8, for example, has one. 6) Again, a lot of these ships are only off by a few points, so maybe these are purposeful choices. Especially in the mid-range, where 1 or 2 points doesn't make or break the CR/Tier scale. Let's call it designer's fiat. If I include all ships that are only off by a few points in the "correct" category. That raises the number of correct ships to almost 45%, but that's still below half. 7) My data doesn't include all the default ships for the Starfinder Society or anything that might have been introduced in a society module. I have to assume, for the good of the organized play community, that those ships are all correct.
Sooo, just a heads up; in a somewhat amusing turn of events, the first package did finally end up arriving. . . on the exact same day as the second package. I've sent one of them back to y'all. Sorry for all the extra the trouble and please let me know when you get your other package back. Also, if there's any additional reimbursement you need me to cover for all the shipping nonsense, just say so.
Thank you so much for the assistance. I'll be sure to keep a look out for the original shipment in case it still arrives. Otherwise, I'll look forward to the secondary package. Sorry for the inconvenience to you guys as well. I know it sucks taking a loss on missing merchandise. I'll be sure to select UPS for future orders (wasn't aware there were even any selection options other than what just came up). If by some crazy chance the first package ends up showing up after the replacement package arrives, I'll be in contact again to arrange the return of one of the shipments in full. Cheers!
Good afternoon, I have two concerns that I'd like addressed: 1) So my order (5356136) is marked complete and has been for some time now, but I never received my order. Apparently it shipped on the 31st and should only have taken 6 to 11 business days to arrive. We're on day 15. Now, that's not too overdue as of yet and wouldn't normally be a huge concern for me except that the dang package isn't traceable which gives me some cause for concern and brings me to my other point. 2) Is this a new thing for Paizo, permanently, going forward? This is the first time I've ever had a package from you guys that I couldn't track and its the first time I've ever seen "Mail Innovations International" as the shipping company. It's certainly not a case of the old shipper (UPS) not delivering to my neck of the woods since I live on the east coast of North America, which is reasonably populated last time I checked. So, is this change in shippers permanent? 'Cause I feel like if it is and Paizo's gone with a shipping company that doesn't allow for package tracking then I'm just going to keep having this problem in the future since I live in an apartment building. I really would like to keep giving my money to Paizo directly - I buy a couple big bulk purchases from you guys each year, despite it costing me almost 85% more than what it would cost if I either bought local or Canadian online. I'm willing to take the bigger hit on shipping and customs duty just so I can be sure that Paizo gets my money directly. I really love you guys and want to keep giving you my direct business but I'm worried that the non-tracking shipper situation just won't be reliable in the long-term. Thank you in advance and your time taken to read this message is appreciated! Cheers,
While I agree that 7000 miles would indeed be mythic, there's no disputing that such a such a scale is of epic proportions (as pointed out by Distant Scholar), I do think it's a typo. The Black Desert is impossibly massive (as are all the Vaults of Orv), but it still has to keep in line with the geography and proportions of Golarion. The planet is roughly the same size as Earth so a vault of 7000 miles would run right under Casmaron and beyond - which it doesn't. The Black Desert occupies a space roughly the size of most of northern Garund (see Into the Darklands for a good perspective on the size of the different vaults). This regional scope is further confirmed in Black Desert article of Mythic Realms. Looking at my Inner Sea Map Folio and using the accepted scale provided, comparing that with the outline shown in Into the Darklands, I'm estimating that the Black Desert is probably closer to 950 miles total lengthwise. Edit: Granted, I only took slight curvature into account. If you trace a proper curved line (with minimal curvature) from the farthest west point to the farthest east point (under Stonespine Island), you're probably looking at closer to 1100 miles.
I also agree. I did say "if I wanted to write" but the fact is I would never want to write something so simplistic, but others might and it was mostly just to illustrate a point. Also, I find TV Tropes to be lazy and overdone, so variable mileage and all that. ;) Anyway, the point being that races like Orcs and Drow should be able to exist outside the realm of socio-political scrutiny and interpretation if the author so chooses. The fact that almost nothing can exist outside the realm of misguided scrutiny anymore speaks more to an issue with the audience rather than an issue with the writer. Please note, I'm not trying to absolve all writers as some truly are deserving of such scrutiny. While I do think verisimilitude among any single race is often far more interesting, I would like to point out that the idea that an entire race CAN'T be uniformly evil (or anything else) is also problematic. There is room for both ends of the spectrum (endless variety and singular uniformity) and everything in between. The real problem is entirely conceptual - people spend too much time focusing on what can or can't exist, trying to root everything to either the human experience or something personal they can relate to, trying to categorize everything in an effort to establish meaning or understanding (be it in the real world or one built in the mind's eye). It's a fundamental problem with humans in general. It's a matter of stepping outside oneself and realizing anything is possible (creatively speaking) and nothing should be ruled out, nor should we try to define all things. I really don't want to veer this into a philosophical threadjack but when people discuss things as "part of the problem" I find it important to address the real problem rather than the micro-problems that spin off from it. Finally, yes, I recognize that we can't magically transcend the limitations of language and thus all experiences and ideas must be conveyed in some form humans can relate to. The problem is matter of framing, not of conveyance.
It also hurts those who are playing to a concept e.g. my batle mage, 1 level ranger to qualify for 10 levels eldritch knight = effectively an 18th level arcanist who's still 11 levels away from a capstone ability in the arcanist class. You do realize that the Prestige classes have their own Capstone abilities, right?Yes although I've only looked at eldritch knight and it seems a fair bit less useful. Perhaps, but regardless, that doesn't negate the fact that the Prestige Class still provides a Capstone. It's not a matter of "not getting the Arcanist Capstone", the fact is that the concept (i.e. battle mage via the Eldritch Knight route) still gets "a Capstone". That's sort of the point. And then there are people who feel that 90% of all Capstones aren't that great. So perhaps it's all moot. So Capstones aside, I think the main thing people were getting at is that testing the later modules while going outside the boundaries of the module expectations (i.e. Max Level is 20, Max Tier is 10), doesn't really test the modules. Unless testing isn't the purpose of your NPC exercise.
To turn it around another way, what if I wanted to write a story about a sun-blasted desert world where there are two civilizations: a pale-skinned race living underground and the dark-skinned surface dwellers. One of the civilizations is evil (mutated and gone slightly insane) and the other is good. Now, perhaps the dark-skinned surface dwellers are the good guys (with the evil faction having been driven underground) or perhaps they are the evil ones (having been driven mad from being forced to live in the above-ground wastelands). What do we take away from this? Should all writers for the rest of time just avoid using a setting like this for their work in case it might offend? Or perhaps writers should just save these sorts of stories for a rainy-day-future, a future in which all of humanity finally achieves a reasonable level of common sense.
Again, Sobek was never seen as truly Evil in ancient Egypt, not as we understand the concept of Evil anyway. Sobek was necessary evil, which technically makes him "not evil". CN is a perfect fit. Sobek was super violent and fairly unpredictable but not malicious. In fact, he was seen as a protector deity - his violent outbursts would ward off evil spirits. As for his association with crocodiles: there is a huge difference between killing (all carnivorous animals kill as part of the cycle of life) and purposeful or systematic killing with malicious intent (which would be Evil). As for Set, he's a tricky one since there are so many interpretations. Some of those interpretations do tend to mix him up with Apep (which I don't agree with and it gives Set a worse reputation then he deserves). Depending on which version of the Egyptian pantheon you use and which myth cycles you keep and which ones you ignore, Set could be NE, LE, LN, N, or CN. The thing is Egyptian mythology underwent many story changes and myth cycle revisions throughout the religion's 3000 year history. So it's all a matter of which snapshot of time you go with (Early Dynastic, Late Kingdom, etc.) or which myth cycle you choose (Ogdoad, Ennead, etc.).
I think that's more of a matter of having an issue with well-known gods or "pop-culture" gods being in the setting. The Egyptian gods are hardly even close to the first mythological deities to be incorporated into the setting. And I don't think it's fair to hold different deities to double standards, unless you're also not a fan of any of the following: off the top of my head Golarion is already familiar with Asmodeus, Ahriman, Lamashtu, Sun Wukong (plus several other Asian deities that are identical to their Earthen counterparts and only have slight spelling variations to their names), and I won't even begin to list the fiendish Demigods hanging about. Plus, even if the Egyptian deities were the only Earth gods with a connection to Golarion that would be fine too. There's no rule saying that if Ra decides he wants to be worshiped on multiple worlds then Zeus, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, and Shiva have to play follow-the-leader. It has nothing to do with the Egyptian pantheon being special, they just happen to be interested in another planet. Maybe some of the other Earth pantheons are as well or maybe they aren't. I don't think it's a matter of something metaphysical stopping other pantheons from interplanetary worship, but rather a simple matter of inclination.
Yeah, I imagine it was probably a huge headache (but a fun headache), trying to pin these 20 down and which 20 to pick for that matter. Trying to map ancient religions (based on cultures with relatively alien moral and ethical views compared to more recent cultures) using the Alignment system is challenging. If you ever do a supplement on Iblydos, I'll be curious to see if you incorporate any Greek gods. For your sakes, I hope not, because that could get tricky. Where do you even start when you've got guys like Zeus. Short of making most of them pure Neutral, there are a lot of fuzzy areas. (And, yes, I know the Greeks and many other pantheons have been detailed over the years in various D&D supplements, multiple times in fact, but I've rarely ever agreed with how they've been handled. It goes back to the round peg square hole business.)
Yeah, like Sissyl said, there just aren't a lot of evil entities in the various incarnations of the Egyptian pantheon. Even Set, in some interpretations, isn't necessarily evil, it's pretty much just Apep (and some smaller weaker entities that would probably "just" be Demigods in Pathfinder). The Egyptian gods existed in their culture mostly to teach and oversee orderly conduct, the ancient Egyptians didn't have as much in the way of sweeping drama plays involving light vs. dark, good vs. evil, and that sort of thing. Their culture was vastly different than even other ancient cultures that would come onto the scene later. The core tenants of their faith pretty much revolved around the concept of Ma'at (see the LN deity above). A lot of the moral and ethical issues of Western cultures and ancient religions would have been pretty foreign to them. Being a "Good" person to the ancient Egyptians was pretty much all about being a "Lawful" person, in pathfinder terms. Even then their culture wasn't about Law vs. Chaos, as entities such as Sobek (rightly described as CN here), were seen as necessary evils to maintain the balance of the world. This also explains why Ra is LN. If you read the myths, Ra never really does anything "Good" (he can actually be a bit of jerk), it's all about cosmic order. All in all, I'm incredibly impressed (though not really surprised) at how well the Paizo people nailed down the various alignments and portfolio dynamics here. It's always nice to see when people "get it" as opposed to just trying to shoehorn round pegs into square holes. They could have made more of them good and/or evil to make it a more rounded pantheon for an RPG, but no, they stuck to core tenants and kept the pantheon culture intact. Well done, Paizo!!
Wait, I just noticed Erik Keith's title - Paizo's got Customer Service Algorithms now?! . . . . So Jim, when do you think they'll replace you with an algorithm? (I think it's safe to say they'll start with the Freelancers before they move on the in-house writers, y'know, to work out any bugs).
So you'd recommend Last Revelation of Gla'aki then? Glad to hear its one of his best. I haven't had a chance to read it yet - I'm so far behind on my reading that I haven't read anything written past 2012 yet. Trying to catch up but it's slow. By the way, excellent answer to my last question (about hard to find books), very interesting. Now, I think it's safe to say you're a book collector and obviously you buy a lot of stuff involved in creative mediums (video games, movies, music, TTRPGs, etc.), but do you collect anything that would fall outside the "standard" sphere of gamer/artist culture (e.g. model trains)? If not, is there a hobby or collector habit you'd some day want to get into? For me, it's model rockets (particularly the Estes ones). I've gotten away from it for the past decade or so but I'm trying to get back into it.
The info can be found in the Ask James Jacobs All Your Questions thread. He's responded to questions about it multiple times so there should be multiple instances where he discusses it. Part of said information is also officially noted in the book Inner Sea Magic. In that book, four of the Runelords are listed: Karzoug at Level 20, and Alaznist, Sorshen, and Xanderghul all at Level 20+. Basically the thinking is that Karzoug is the "middle Runelord" with three being weaker (Krune, Belismarius, and Zutha) and three stronger. Since Karzoug is "max level" the three strongest Runelords get Mythic Tiers to boost their power.
Even if you keep it limited, rather than Pathfinder's interpretation of it being usable everywhere, I recommend restricting it to region rather than city/surrounding area. So instead of Local: Magnimar or Local: Korvosa, it should be Local: Varisia. This helps strike some balance between too limited and too broad.
That sounds like something way beyond what the Campaign is dealing with. Making a viable population would take decades and careful selection. Just thought I'd note that some of the Runelords are already Mythic. I agree with sticking a couple of Mythic Tiers on the the non-Mythic Runelords if you're going to be running them in a Mythic campaign, but the most powerful Runelords already have more Mythic Tiers than what you'd be giving them - unless you're also planning on rearranging the hierarchy of power of the Runelords as well. As it currently stands, according to James Jacobs, both Sorshen (Lust) and Xanderghul (Pride) already have 10 Mythic Tiers and sit in the power range of CR 26 to 28. Alaznist is closer to Karzoug in power, sitting on only a couple of Mythic Tiers around CR 23. If you're adding Tiers to all the other Runelords (including Karzoug) and you want to keep Alaznist ahead of lower Runelords then you may want to boost her to 4 to 5 Mythic Tiers and Cr 24. Now, I think giving Xin somewhere between 4 to 6 Tiers is a good call (I've been planning on giving him 5 in my eventual Shattered Star campaign). But I think you should keep Sorshen and Xanderghul at 10 Tiers rather than 2 to 3. Xin was never the most powerful Runelord (he isn't even a Runelord) and near his end, Sorshen and Xanderghul were already beginning to eclipse him in power. After his fall, they had over a thousand years to increase their power well beyond Xin. But that's just my take.
I'd like to note, that if you don't purchase it online, Inhabitant of the Lake has got to be one of the hardest anthologies I've ever had to track down in my entire life. I finally got a copy a few years back but I had to search well over a dozen bookstores across three Canadian provinces before I found a copy. And on that note, James, what is the most difficult book to find that you now own?
EDIT: And in regards to the book itself, I suspect that some of the gods from outside the Inner Sea region—such as Tian Xia and Vudran deities—will be given some coverage with that many gods. They've already said that this book won't cover Tian Xia or Vudran deities at all.
Yep. Was just going to ask the same thing. After having just finished watching the True Detectives finale I know where I stand on the show as a whole, so now I'm curious, does it stay in your top 5? Obviously I get that this question may take a while before you can answer it depending on when you get a chance to watch it.
Pretty much what Tholomyes said. Any creature which can grant spells to worshipers and is capable of granting 4 domains is technically a Demigod. Most are CR 26 - 30 (currently there are stats for 9 Demon Lords, 3 Empryeal Lords, 3 Great Old Ones, and Ahriman), but there are also "Nascent" entities in the CR 21 - 25 range that also qualify. And to echo what others have said above, Achaekek is a fully deity not a Demigod and his 3.5 stats no longer count in Pathfinder.
@Snickersimba: No apologies necessary and welcome to the game! I hope your first experience goes well.
Did you mean Module? Adventure Paths begin at Level 1. As for the rest of your post, you may want to elaborate since it's a bit hard to follow (ex. you understand why they did this... did what?).
Well, Planetary is as good a place to start as any with Warren Ellis' work. As for True Detective, a had an inkling (more like giant alarm bells) you'd like it. It's in my top 5 all-time list as well. 1) Actually, what are your top 5 favorite TV shows of all time? I know you've answered this before but with True Detective now out, your list must have changed. 2) I can't recall seeing this one ever asked, but maybe I missed it: Obviously there are certain Great Old Ones that are inappropriate to use on Golarion (either due to IP issues or the fact that they're too Earth-based, e.g. Ithaqua), however, I'm wondering if Xhamen-Dor isn't perhaps a nod to a certain Severn Valley Lake slug in the British Isles? A slug that also happened to arrive by meteor/comet and controls undead minions?
Roll to avoid steering the topic farther afield (DC20):
[EDIT: Keeping it brief then.]
Still waiting for my copy to arrive at my FLGS. Grrrr. Stock deliveries are slow this time of year. And still looking forward to it, with crossed fingers that it's as excellent as the rest of Mr. Pett's large body of work. I'm having trouble imagining anything less.
I'd go for that. I'm leaning more toward Eternal-Autumn. The temperature is the same as Spring but the air just feels crisper. I also prefer the Autumn colour palette and I love Halloween. I also think it would be a more likely theme for a fey-centric AP since Autumn fey tend to be more villainous than Spring fey. Also, Halloween. Great idea, Belle and Mikaze, and an excellent example of project-building via community. Group brainstorming for a better world - Terraforming North America one Adventure Path at a time!
Well, I already posted my praise but I hadn't realized it was just the Blog thread about the Player's Guide rather than the product thread itself. Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself, I must say that this is the best Player's Guide to date. Hands down. It's clear that Daigle and McCreary listen to feedback since they did everything right with this one (for me at least). This Player's Guide is a winning formula of awesome compounded by the fact that it's done for free and without diminishing the production value. Between the obvious effort that's put into a free product and an ever-improving presentation based on customer feedback, it's pretty apparent that the designers (and, assuredly, all the people at Paizo) care about the consumers and making sure they deliver the best product they can. This may come across as a bit sycophantic but I truly am impressed with how spot-on this Player's Guide is after seeing iteration after iteration over the years, not all of them great but always improving. Player's Guide 14 has nailed it completely. Well done, Daigle and McCreary!! I'm excited more than ever to see what secrets under Osirion's sands will be revealed in the pages of Mummy's Mask. A perfect start to what will undoubtedly be an Amazing 6-part journey. Now, if you'll excuse me, my nose is feeling a little too brown (must be the mud from the River Sphinx).
On a more selfish note, I'll keep my fingers crossed that the pattern continues. Not only was it a brutal winter for America, but it was for Canada as well since bad weather (of the cold variety) tends to be magnified from what the US gets. So if you guys get an insanely hot summer thanks to Mummy's Mask, us Canucks might get an extra-long summer for once, as compared to the usual 2 months out of 12 that we get where I'm from. Though I'm not a sociopath, so if that nice Canadian summer comes at the expense of a deadly heatwave down south, I'll withdraw my cross-fingered wishing.
I appreciate the Player's Guide has some marketing value, but seriously, this is an insanely nice guide for free. I would add this to my downloads even if I wasn't going to run this campaign. Here, here! I've always been impressed by the quality of the Player's Guides. Back when they cost money I was impressed, and once they became free I was even more impressed when the quality didn't diminish. Now, count the most impressed I've been yet - I agree with those above who've said this is the best Player's Guide to date. Whatever magic formula you guys stumbled upon with this iteration, don't lose it. This is everything a Player's Guide should be: spoiler free but with an excellent amount of references to help players ground their characters in the AP and enough flavour to convey a good grasp for the setting's atmosphere. Well done Daigle and McCreary!
10) The Walking Dead, Planetary, The Dark Tower. Oooh, all excellent choices (but you already know that). I will say that I highly endorse Planetary - it makes my top 5 list of greatest comic mini-series of all time. Pretty much anything by Warren Ellis is absolute gold, in my opinion; not just his comic work but many of his short stories and both his full-length novels are excellent as well. When it comes to Transhumanism and/or Pulp/Noir/Hardboiled, and the fusion of the two, there are very few in his league (again, just my little opinion). 1) Have you read any of Warren Ellis' other work?
2) Speaking of Hardboiled and Pulp, have you had the chance to start watching True Detectives yet?
As always, cheers, and thanks for being so sporting.
Yeah, I'm not sure where you're getting that but Mythic Adventures doesn't assume anything about level progression in relation to Tiers (other than what should be the minimum "acceptable" level for certain Tiers). Mythic Tiers, being entirely independent from Levels, have no impact on Level progression or non-progression beyond the obvious of allowing parties to fight more powerful encounters than normal and thus gain experience faster. But a party can progress in a campaign designed to provide one Mythic Tier every two levels or a campaign where they gain no Tiers until after level 15 or 20 with no adjustment to the rules as written. The Pathfinder Core Rules option was a placeholder until Mythic came out. Pathfinder (as a Campaign Setting) is designed with a hard Level cap of 20 in mind. I've got one campaign going right now where the players are gaining one Mythic Tier every four levels (on average), and another campaign setup and ready to go after this one in which the party will hit the level cap of 20 first before starting to gain Tiers (with no more levels being gained). Both of these campaigns required the exact same amount of work - using the core rules with no adjustments and building adventure scenarios around them.
I'll third the motion for for more info on the Player Guide. I'm very excited about this AP. So very excited. But I've felt this way about the AP line for several years now, so I'm not sure when the excitement will ever end. Not this year anyway. Maybe next year all the writers will go on vacation to the moon and they'll need to fill in the gaps with awful fanfic for 12 months - then I can finally stop feeling so giddy from month to month. Until then, I guess I'll have to stomach these feelings of anticipation and satisfaction. ;) Part of it, for this issue, probably has to do with the fact that Jim Groves is 2 for 2 so far in back-to-back APs. And I can't imagine this issue will do anything but up his score to 3 for 3. High expectations and all that.
While I'll wait and see the reviews for the final product before throwing my opinion in the ring (though I'll more than likely still buy it to hear it for myself), my optimism is slightly dimmed by all these comments. Normally, I tend not to be too cautious of a product based on comments alone, but I have absolutely no experience with audio dramas (for example, I didn't realize the hour run-time wasn't standard for Big Finish or price appropriate), and those who are much more experienced with these products all seem wary. Hmmmm, here's hoping I suppose. :( P.S. On another note to you Brits, BBC Radio has regular old-school audio dramas? That's awesome! Slightly jealous. (:
@Nanatsusaya: Fair enough on the lack of equipment bonus. As for the stat bonuses - Krune can just barely cast 9th level spells (he's also level 17) and he got the Exceptional Stats bonus. Also, that bonus comes from the fact that the Runelords are 25-point-buy Azlanti (not from inherent bonuses from Wish or similar things). So if it's a just an equipment thing, then that still technically doesn't make him less powerful than Karzoug since if you took away Karzoug's equipment as well then they'd be back on equal terms. I suppose it's fairer to do so when discussing raw Runelord power, so Karzoug is CR20, rather than 21; and Krune is CR17, rather than 18. With Zutha still also at CR20, at minimum. @Alleran Zutha as a Mythic Lich would makes things even weirder since Mythic Liches use CR to determine the number of Mythic Ranks whereas at least with Mythic Tiers you can lower the amount that an NPC has, so you can have a Level 16 character with only 2 Tiers. So even if Zutha was a Level 15 Necromancer (CR 14), plus Lich (CR 16), he'd then have 8 Ranks of Mythic Lich which leaves him at CR 20 and this time without even worrying about 9th level spells or a stat boost. In fact, I've been assuming Zutha couldn't be a Mythic Lich for precisely this reason since you need to handicap his Mythic rating to bring him in under Karzoug. Assuming the Exceptional Stat boost (all Runelords seem to get it) but ignoring equipment, the absolute minimum for Zutha in a vacuum would be Level 11 Necromancer (CR 10 +1 stats +2 Lich = CR 13) which as a Mythic Lich would give him 6 Ranks, making him Total CR 16. This is too weak since it comes in under Krune who is already the weakest Runelord. If we give him 9th level spells (why not) at Level 17, then we're looking at (CR 16 +3 as above = CR 19) 9 Mythic Lich ranks which would give him a Total CR 23. The sweet spot (above Krune and below Karzoug), factoring out equipment but including the stat boost, is Level 13 as a Mythic Lich (Level 12 nets you CR 17 [Krune] and Level 14 is CR 20 [Karzoug]). Granted, using the Mythic Lich option does at least do the work of nailing down Zutha's level spot-on, but it doesn't feel right - Zutha, Runelord of Necromancy unable to even cast Create Greater Undead or Horrid Wilting (both 8th). Deepest apologies to James for cluttering this thread. Though I am really curious as to his thoughts on this. However, if other people want to discuss this further I say we start a new thread.
Alaznist was and is more powerful than Karzoug. Zutha may or may not have had mythic power himself, but you can be mythic and less powerful than Karzoug at the same time.Ooh, I rather like the implications of this answer, thank you! I hadn't even considered the possibility that Zutha might be weaker than Karzoug, given that the Cenotaph seems to be how Tar-Baphon became mythic. I've often wondered this myself. Assuming Zutha has access to 9th-level spells: minimum level of 17 (CR 16), + 2 for Runelord stat and equipment bonuses, + 2 for Lich template, + 1 for minimum Mythic Tiers (he could have between 1 to 3 thanks to rounding down) = CR 21 which puts him on equal footing with Karzoug. If Zutha is to be weaker, either he doesn't have access to 9th level spells (which doesn't seem right since he should have 9th Level Necromancy spells), or he doesn't have the +2 for stats and equipment that Karzoug has (though, again, it doesn't seem right to deprive Zutha of Exceptional Stats as both other Runelords to date have gotten this boost). His +2 for being a Lich is pretty much locked in thanks to his phylactery backstory (and Artifact). And it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that he's Mythic unless parts of Mythic Realms entry about the Cenotaph are either ignored or retconned. Personally, I'm fine with Zutha being equal to Karzoug. James Jacobs, any thoughts on this matter? Should Zutha be equal to Karzoug? Or do you see a way to weaken the necromantic Runelord's power?
2: They end the game high lvl 17 teir 1, however I need them to be at least tier 10 lvl 20 to take on Baba Yaga, or very close considering that she is CR 30. . . the problem is that I've only 2.5 - 3 levels to up them 9 tiers. How do I do that logically? Do I just make every encounter a trial? That seems a bit extreme. Do I make all tiers only 1 trial each? Seems a bit cheap. Well, the nice part is that Tiers aren't experience dependent. What I would do is organize the story arcs to fit one Tier per level up to Level 20. At this point, the characters would be Level 20 and Tier 4. Now, just do the remaining 6 Tiers and their Trials as their own story arcs. At this point you can throw as many or as few challenges, mooks, and big bad guys at the party as you want. Experience benchmarks aren't a factor so just write the Trials as you see fit - maybe a Trial involves a lot of Mythical problem-solving without the need for a bunch of combat (and, again, no worry about XP rewards) or maybe they fight of an entire flight of a dozen white dragons on Triaxus. Pace it out as you see fit. And actually, that same advice applies equally well for the Tiers you assign during the journey from Level 17 to Level 20. You could easily fit two Tiers in at Level 17 or 18 if those Tiers don't have a ton of XP awards associated with them. Again, since combat isn't the only Mythic Trial option, and XP awards for story and/or problem-solving are completely arbitrary, you can completely control the pacing of progression at this point in the game. That's actually one of things I love about Tiers (and using them as a substitute for Epic Levels), it helps to keep the game sane. If I want to advance the party from Level 20 to Level 22 (aka add 4 Mythic Tiers) I don't have to worry about designing an adventure where they're fighting a hundred mid-range enemies or a few dozen Balors (though those stories have their time and place) just to meet the XP requirements. Also, I don't have to break world verismilitude and say that suddenly their are dozens of level-appropriate enemies now in the world for them to fight in order to progress. Now, I can just build tightly-focused yet cosmically important short stories that their Mythic Trials can revolve around (for example, the destruction of a Nascent Demon Lord, or solving the riddle of a Protean Lord, or negotiating the stolen crystallized love of an Empryeal Lord from one of the Eldest), while allowing the party to muck about and do whatever else they want to accomplish in the downtime. All without ever worrying about whether they're going to advance too quickly or too slowly due to too many/too few quests or side-treks.
Wow, sad to see such a titan of the industry leave Paizo. I've been following his work since he was writing Greyhawk modules back in late 2nd edition (his additions to Against the Giants in the Silver Anniversary series was my first taste if I recall correctly). He's taken me on some fantastic journeys over the years, sometimes as a player, sometimes as a GM, and always as a reader of his work. Aside from his phenomenal contributions to the industry, I've always enjoyed his candid and frank discussion and his willingness to help out and participate with the community. I've never made it to a gaming convention (someday) and so I've never had the opportunity to meet him in person but the amount of time he has dedicated over the years to interacting with the fans who share in the love of the game certainly speaks to his character. As for the ridiculous amount of negative posts in this thread, while I can't say I'm surprised, I will say that it is absolutely disgraceful. Immature derision and a lack of class is not only shameful but it's slightly pathetic as well.
I can honestly say I've never listened to or purchased an audio book. Ever. But this will soon change. I never thought I'd see the day where an audio product (not counting actual music, obviously) would fill me with anticipation. Bravo Paizo, yet again. Another first for me. First the minis (never collected them before other than my Games Workshop stuff, but never bothered to for TTRPGs), then the adventure card game (never bought or played an RPG card game before), and now this. You guys keep going at this rate and I'm not sure how many "cherries" I'm going to have left.
Anguish, having a Visa or MasterCard logo on your debit card means you can use it at any place that takes credit cards. Yep, we're finally making progress but it's still pretty scattershot. I recently was on a trip to Toronto and had arranged for a rental-car service in advance using my Debit-Visa. I cleared it with them (twice) over the phone before my arrival to make sure that Debit-Visa would work the same as a regular credit card and they assured me it would. Fast forward two days later when I arrive at the good ol' nightmare that is the Lester B. Pearson airport - I get to the teller-station for my car rental only to find out that, whoops, nope, they can't use Debit-Visa as Visa. I talked to the manager and told him that their national service center informed me that it would be fine and their website (which they had on their monitor at the station) even stated the same. But no, they told me they couldn't help me and I was now stuck at the airport needing to get to Waterloo with my travel arrangements now shot. Anyway, long story short, the trip worked out fine and I was able to arrange for alternative travel but, suffice it to say, that car-rental business won't ever be getting my business in the future. /rant.
I've been meaning to ask this for some time now, but I've continued to forget until now - what is it about musicals that turns you off? You're obviously very inclusive and eclectic in regards to your many interests be it music, games, movies, etc and I noticed you don't have a dislike of things like R&B or hip-hop which sort of drives this fact home. Not liking Country and pop music, I get that, since you also happen to have "good" taste (as far as I'm concerned and from what I've gleaned over the years from this thread and your blog). But your disinterest in musicals eludes me. I think pot should be legalized. There IS something I can do to change that—I voted for it and helped make it legal here in Washington. Well said sir, and three thumbs up, both for doing so and for being open about it. You have my dirty-liberal-Canadian approval. Way to lead by example with the voting, which leads me to my next question: Do you feel that voting apathy is still a growing concern or is there still hope for younger generations to realize that voting is important? Or perhaps the youngest have realized it and are already primed to be more pro-active once they finally get old enough to vote? As a Canadian, though I'm normally fairly optimistic, this is one area where I wish I could be less cynical. But the trends up here keep proving time and time again that the incredibly easy-going culture we're so famous for in the north is sadly damaging our government to no end (Rob Ford being the most famous example but, sadly, not the worst). Do you feel there are similar trends/issues in Washington or back home in California? Or on a federal level? Sorry for the heavy questions near the end, just feeling extra-philosophical this weekend. Also, not trying to rope you into discussing actual politics - more a sociological line of questioning.
That could work. It's certainly the angle I would approach it from - getting another deity in on the action, be it Rovagug or someone else.
|
