Personally, I love the Interface Zero from Gun Metal games (through RPG Objects)as a setting for cyberpunk gaming.
Further into the future than many cyberpunk settings since it is set in 2088. But it keeps the feel of Cyberpunk 2013/2020.
Allows options for playing borgs, genetically altered,robot-housed AIs.
They made some massive but well thought out changes to the world and the timeline isn't as badly outdated as Cyberpunk 2013/2020.
The books is 162 page pdf for 10.95.
All of this is from reading through the True 20 version. I dislike Savage Worlds as a system so I haven't seen if there are any differences between the True20 and SW version.
Recently played a pyromaniac gnome Oracle of Flames. He didnt worship any deities but revered both Asmodeus ( as Lord of the Destroying and Punishing Flames) and Sarenrae (as Lady of Illuminating and Purifying Flames). he revered them for providing their power to the Flames (and as the ultimate wielders of the flames). Even wore a medallion with a half sunburst on the right half and half of a pentagram on the left. It made for some interesting conversations and interactions with other PCs and NPCs.
Excellent to hear.
And no, I havent been paying much attention to the playtests since the APG really. Pathfinder is a pending campaign for my group once the current games end.
I recently bought the Inner Sea Guide and was noticing some radical changes from previous edition.
Namely the disappearance of the rifle, revolver and shotgun from the setting. Now we have only the pistol, the musket and the pepperbox. The revolvers already appeared in Pathfinder Fiction and are suddently gone.
Will these weapons return or are they gone forever from the setting or will the return in Ultimate Combat? How are players and gamemasters dealing with this sudden change in Alkenstar resources?
I found an article awhile back that reset my perceptions of the d20 system in regards to reality. Part of the problem is the trend of people to stat up their favorite characters from movies and literature as level 20...or at least 15th.
THe article make a very solid proposal that the problems with realism in d20 based systems is not the mechanics, it is the scope of the characters. Going on to suggest that characters such as Aragorn are not actually very high level despite some perceptions (placing that august figure at around 5th level).
This carries that up until passing 5th level the mechanics hold a reasonable similarity to reality. 6th level and beyond have exceeded "normal human" range and entered heroic or legendary scopes.
THe article was D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations by Justin Alexander.
Reminds me of an old Dragon Mirth with a one-frame comic and a party fleeing a humanoid palm tree...."Run Away! It's a Coconut Treant!"...a treant that grows his own missle weapons.
Treantmonk, I think that hits solidly. I think it is a certain minetality that some people never lose that sense of wonder. I still love driving. Doesnt matter where. I will drive just to drive.
None of the group I play with has ever lost that wonder in gaming. We play every weekend on Saturday and Sunday for usually 6-8 hours. Two games every weekend. Uusually four games going during a given month. Usually at least two different systems. Somehow it never loses the magic for us.
Going a while with out a game for us results in dice withdrawl...your hands start twitching, you see pips everywhere... ;)
In the end for me and my group it comes down to we make some consideration for a character's ability scores in how they look, but in the end we decide what our character looks like not the ability scores.
We also ignore the hieght and weight tables except to get an ide of what the average for a given race is. The character is as tall or short as we want...even if outside the possible rolls on the table. We've had elves that were only 5 foot and dwarves that were just as tall in settings where elves average 6 foot and dwarves average 4 foot.
When it comes to the the Strength ability there are several considerations.
Mirror, Mirror wrote:
I see crafters in general like this. They may have standard items for sale. But anything that is masterwork will probably be commission work. You might get lucky and someone never showed up to pick up their comissioned weapon or armor, but the smith doesnt stock more than a couple of pieces maybe.
The same goes for magical items to me with slchemical items, potions, low-level (1st to 3rd) scrolls and possibly wands being the 'standard' items.
If you want a bit more realism, just about any government is going to regulate the sale and resale of magical items, especially combat related ones. So it may be harder to find magical arms and armor or might require special licensing to sell or own them. Same as a commoner might need to have a good explanation for owning a long sword or plate armor.
This was part of why i liked the concept in Forgotten Realms of the Adventurer's or Mercenary Charter. It was basically a license as a security contractor.
By that same token though, the guy with the 2 knives would be a christmas ham everywhere else when facing mr greatsword. There are so many potential details with hand to hand combat, trying to represent them all would make for a nightmarish mishmash of rules and counter rules that would make combat take days of actual time.
Fully agree....barring adding in-fighting rules to the game. Which I dont see happening anytime soon. Darkurthe Legends was one of the few games I recall having rules for that sort of thing and did it well.
That is why a great deal of the debate about crossbows is purely hypotehetical to me. The system cant handle it really. I think the problem is weapon design trying to be both general and specific at the same time. We have schitzophrenic sub-system from that. I personally wish it was as clean as the armor sub-system.
Thomas Austin wrote:
That also brings in the other advantage of the crossbow...space needed to fire it is far less than a bow. Cant fire even a short bow usually in a crawlspace that is 2 feet wide. You can fire a crossbow in that space. And with a cocking lever you can even reload in it.
Ufortunatrely space need to wield weapons is not factored in either. So no mechanical represntation of that will be forth comming. There are days I miss apsects like that..."You are in a 4 foot wide and 6 foot high corridor...good luck using that great sword. The guy with two knives is about to slice you like a christmas ham."
In previous games the only items that were commonly stocked in any of my groups campaigns were limited uses items like wands, potions and scrolls. You might find a magical weapon/armor/wondrous item that was on the minor category. anythign higher was strictly commission for the most part.
More often the shops stocks 'display only' pieces that told the customer what they could get, not what was actually there.
Most of the magic shops made their bread and butter on alchemical items, spell components, blank books, blank scrolls and other magical supplies more than actual magical items. And often where the items they did have were stored was in vaults at the local church of [Name of god of Commerce for the world].
Fantastic to hear. I found his artwork a few months back and started corresponding with him. I suggest your company might be looking for artists and gave him the link to the website. I think his style will fit really well with a chinese-based group of Bronze Sky. I will definitely be picking up a copy of the core book.
The Farscape species were The Scarran.
My question is why when it comes to naming a species that resembles an animal do people tend to go for something deritive from a real world animal? Reptiliad...Wolfen...etc. Elves arent called "dagger-ears" and dwarves aren't called "shorty-beards" as a species name...unless one is trying to rude. I would say think more about what the species language mght sound like and name them based on that.
I personally prefer original names for a species that doesn't draw on an animal name.
LMP, i heard form a guy I know that i steared in your company's direction that you are getting a comission from him. James Ng...does some great imperial chinese steampunk work. Any idea what book his art will be in?
Not naughty when you buy the PDFs. Personal use is included. I just have access to machines better than any desktop printer as well as several binding options (i prefer coil) and various paper stocks.
Also lets me do things like print up character sheets, NPC cards, spell cards, power cards, feat cards and such that I make using Publisher. I do most of the layout work for my groups game information.
Rhys Grey wrote:
It helps that one of the GMs and I work at a print shop with access to all the waste paper and padding glue we could want for free.
My group is not particularly loud or particularly attention-hungry, but the ninja notes work fantastic for us anyway. Now if i could just fold them like shuriken.....
I just enjoy them for the being able to let the GM (or another player) know something without everyone at the table knowing it as well. Which cuts down on some meta-gaming and above-the-table/out-of-game conversation that can be dirsuptive of some intense roleplaying.
Greg Donaldson wrote:
Are these people you consider friends outside the games or just people you game with? Either way really It comes down to I would say something and explain to them why.
I would bring it up in private with the GM first. Have them talk to players who constantly roll over someone else.
If that doesnt work i would bring it up to the group at large. It could be that they are not aware of what they are doing...it could also be they are just inconsiderate gamers.
I know in my group both GMs will slap down someone interrupting another player's actions or interactions. It is as simple as "wait your turn, the game is not all about your character".
For some things we also use "ninja notes" (either so you dont verbally interrupt another player or because it is something you want your character to do on the sly) just a slip of paper where you can write down something you would like to do either later or in the background and our GMs are good around to it or if it just needs a simple response writing it back on the same note.
With the addition of the Master Craftsman feat the person making the items may not even be a caster at all.
A 6th level Expert can craft the masterwork weapon needed himself and with Master Craftsman enchant it himself. Same with an armor, weapon or wondrous item that they have enough ranks to enchant with rank = caster level for these purposes thanks to the feat (which also grants a +2 bonus to the skill itself.
I think you would be more likely to find an Expert with Master Craftsman selling magical arms and armor than a Wizard or Sorcerer. Expert (Master Craftsman) could easily be where most minor arms, armor and wondrous items comes from actually.
Those are not flotation devices.
Their mass is specifically designed to cause drag which grants her the equivalent of Featherfall at will in the event she falls from a skyship.
And if the drag coeficient is not enough, they cushion her landing for half damage with a DC5 Acrobatics check to land face down.
Excellent insight, Mok. Unfortunately not something that can be fixed without a massive overhaul of the system which would destroy backwards compatibility for the most part. I see why Steve Kenson is doing such a massive overhaul of M&M for 3rd Edition/DCA and trimming out a lot of the OGL material. It means Green Ronin can jettison some of those issues wholecloth.
I don't think it matters that the martial weapon that deals 1d4 damage with a threat range of 18-20 is called a Kukri. That's just a choice the designers (of 3.0 if I'm not mistaken) went with because they needed a weapon to fulfil that role. I'm not up on all my ancient weapons, but I'm sure other choices could have been made that fit the role just as well. And that's why I think you can describe the weapons any way you like. Just like a Bastard Sword is generally accepted to substitute for a Katana. I do the same with darts being equal to throwing knives. You're absolutely right that a dagger doesn't suit a throwing knife because the latter are not balanced at ALL for melee combat, and should be accurate for more than 10'. So if I want a character with throwing knives, I give them darts with...
that is why overall I would prefer a very generic weapons list in an abstract system. Instead of several different swords with different mechanical advantages something like:
Very Light Blade (1d4) - knives of any sort...katar, stilleto, seax
Describe/decide, the weapon your character uses then figure out where it fits best. Default type being slashing for all blades just for abstract sake (in a more detailed system the rapier would be moved up one level when used as a piercing weapon and the broad sword down one when used as a piercing weapon).
That looks about right to me.
There is whatever built the city that is now ruins in the polar region. But there has not been anything beyond mentioning they are older than the aboleth.
All the mentions of halflings' past refer to them havign always been there alongside humans. I am hoping the Halflings of Golarion goes more into that.
In general, I agree with you. The point of my post however was that the Kukri is unique compared to your generic knife-like weapon. It's not balanced for throwing at all, and it's capable of causing grievous wounds for a blade it's size. Now there's nothing wrong with describing it as something other than a historical Kukri-type blade. Perhaps a short sword with a serrated edge (just spitballing, I know there's probably better ideas). And I'm all for the generic dagger being described as a stilleto or a butterfly knife, or switchblade, whatever you want. My point was that there are significant mechanical differences between the dagger and kukri, and thus they should stand separate.
And that is the issue we run into (and something I brought up on a crossbow thread). Weapons are at odds with the rest of the combat subsystems. Weapons are tryign to be specific while the rest of combat is abstract, sometimes oddly so to me. As example, AC would be better shown more clearly as "TN to Wound" than "TN to Hit" (which is one area i think True20 is better than Base D20).
If you are going to factor the mechanical advantages of the kukri (which I acknowledge there are...not the least of which being it behaves more like a hatchet than a knife) you would need to do it for every single weapon. There is a huge advantage against plate or chain if using a stilleto instead of a seax. But a stilleto doesnt get a bonus against those armors, so why should the kukri get any? The RAW also doesnt draw a distinction between a fighting knife and a throwing knife which are balanced differently.
It comes down to two options (as it so often does), either generic weapons with no extras beyond maybe reach for some or a proliferation of weapons that each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Which still leaves them at odds with the rest of the combat system.
Part of the issue is that the weapons are at odds with the armor system and the combat system itself.
Weapons grant extras beyond damage. Criticals (threat range and multiplier), bonuses to maneuvers, reach, some specific ones (like the meteor hammer's AC bonus or Double Weapon choice...think it should still have reach myself). Complex weapon mechanics comparatively.
Armor meanwhile gets...well, it gets AC Bonus (and a bunch of penalties). That is all armor does for you. Very simple mechanics more in line with an abstract combat system.
Tht leaves two options:
2) a simplified weapon system. Very Light = 1d4. Light = 1d6. Medium = 1d8. Heavy = 1d10. Very heavy = 2d6. Everything is Crit of 20/x2. Just about every other bonus (trip, disarm, etc) would get stripped out.
As a side note: I have long foud it strange to have Bastard Sword as an exotic weapon if weilded one handed. The long sword/bastard sword/langschwert/spadone was one of the more prevalent weapons of its time and wielding it one handed would have been learned alongside learning to half-sword (something Germans and Italians loved to do) it and thus be covered as a martial proficiency. Of course the Italians and Germans also loved to use it to grapple...someday I would love to see a feat that granted a +2 CMB for using a bastard sword to grapple.
Some of the magic for me is when at the end of our session my groups looks at the clock and 8 hours have gone by, it's 3 in the morning and we are all wanting to keep going even though we are dog tired, the GM says "...and that's where I'm calling it." and suddenly the fact that it is 3 in the morning catches up with us all and we start shutting down.
When the game is going well we forget about what time it is, we forget that we woke up at 8am, even when we play for 8 hours it never seems we played for long enough, and we are chomping at the bit to play again and trying to figure out what bribe to offer the GM to run the next night.
Part of it also is creating a character. Not the numbers on the sheet, but his history, who his friends are, what his childhood was like, who trained him, who was his first love (has he even had one). Typically in my group a character has another 3-4 pages of write-up beyond the character sheet. Some have more, especially from one of the players in my group.
This solidly illustrates my view that what is on the character sheet is not even 1/10th of a character. Two players can take the same exact stats but end up playing two very different characters.
Some of what I consider the finest moments of characters I have played was when they did something monumentally against their survival but was firmly in character as I had created them and played them. Even when it cost my character their life or left them maimed for life it was enjoyable to play it out.
My current character has the deck stacked against him according to some...a gnome oracle of wind with the lame flaw who uses a meteor hammer as a melee weapon and chakram for range (despite lacking the proficiency to use them). The weapon choice just fit the character's air theme to me. Concept and image trumps mechanical advantage to me.
This brings up something I (and my group) would like to see more worldbuilders take the time to do. When it comes to the urumi, meteor hammer, chakram, scorpion whip and other such exotic weapons I would like to seem them firmly assigned to given races/ethnic groups/nations instead of just thrown out there and maybe a few mentioned regarding a given race/nation.
Biggest problem again comes that we are dealing with a fairly abstract combat system better viewed as exchanges than blow-by-blow here. Which makes it difficult to accurately represent the capabilities of any weapon really.
*No rules for in-fighting to get past an opponent with a longer weapon.
I think the rules do the best they can to represent the capabilities of various weapons without a complete and massive overhaul of the combat system. So I dont mind how crossbows and bows are represented in the current system. If I want more realism based combat there are other games for me to play that fill that.
Never have had a problem with a "lack of magic" in any campaign I have played in that had at least some decent story.
To me it isnt the game system you play in. It is how you play and who you play with. "The magic" to me comes when everyone at the table is acting out their characters and their character's mannerisms (amusingly something that Vin Diesel talked about regarding D&D).
If you have players and a GM who are as interested in the story of the characters (or more so) than getting optimal mechanical performance from their character or seeing how much loot they can gather I dont think the magic of gaming ever goes away. At least it never has for me in 30 years and almost as many systems.
But that is the sort of games i enjoy...where characters dont always do what their player's know is the smart thing to do.
Ross Byers wrote:
Thanks, Ross. My game master will love having these.
In reply to Mok: - Personally I prefer the broad to focus development of the fighter instead of narrow to broad. More so when it comes to fighting styles than weapons admittedly. In what I see in fiction and in real life, generalism only gets you so far, focus is what takes you to mastery. And with 21 feats it is easy to master at least 3 fighting styles even if you use an exotic weapon.
In reply to Zappo: - This brings up what I am in general against...seperate stats for every single weapon out there. Unless the weapon has something very unique it does that others in its class dont I think it should be treated as a 'generic'. Especially in an abstract combat system like Base D20.
To take dagger as an example....I dont think there needs to be seperate listings for a stilleto, kukri, seax, katar, tanto, aiguchi, kitchen knife, etc. Stat wise they should be 1d4 and nothing special in an abstract combat system in my view.
Same with Katana. Once you strip away the hype surrounding it, then it is just another bastard sword (i dont miss the days of the 3d6 Katana).
It would be different if the combat system were less abstract and more direct including attack vs defense rolls, armor as DR, dodge as an option not a flat +1AC and such. Then I could see needing more detail of a weapons abilities.
In general:- My biggest issue with the exotic weapon system is that the -4 non-proficient is too steep to me if you are simply trying to hit someone with the weapon. I would rather see it as "you cannot use any of the weapon features if you are not proficient with an exotic weapon" or something similar
I fail to see how a Fighter is "lacking in feats" he gets a total of 21 feats (11 from his class alone). By fifth level he has six feats already. Unless you are trying to be a jack of blades and advance several combat trees at once a fighter should be devestating with his chosen weapon or style. If advancing several at once, well that's what generalization gets you...jack of blades and master of none.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote:
This is what I disagree with. You can have straight tens and still do quite a bit in the game. As I said earlier, the bonus is only a small part of skill totals compared to Ranks and Class Bonus.
At first level, simply taking a class skill puts you on par with another charater who has a 18 in an attribute relevent to the skill but no ranks in it.
This drops off very quickly as you advance and add more ranks.
The effects on the damage of weapons is also not that much when you consider what else is often added into damage from a weapon...damage enhancement bonus, energy effects (flaming, frost, etc), feats (weapon specialization).
The impact of minimal to me compared to Class features, Feats, Magical Items, Skill Ranks (and the accompanying Class Skill Bonus). A big part of what makes a fighter a living wrecking machine is not having straight 16 in physical abilities...it is his combination of feats and class feature and a player who nows how to maximize the impact of those combined.
A character does not have to start at first level with a pair of 16s or even a pair of 14s to "do anything". You can start with a single ability at 14 and the rest at 10 and get quite a bit done in the game (either starting out or later at 15th level).
The only classes hugely impacted in my view by low-average ability scores are the casters due to the requirement of having a Caster Ability = 10+ Spell level to be able to cast certain spells.
My two cents on stats.
First, I despise rolling stats (in Pathfinder or any other game). That is based purely on my view that everyone should start on the same base. Where it goes from there is based solely on player choices in developing their character as they advance. So I prefer the point buy system and it was one of the things I was happiest to see in 3.0. I am glad Paizo continued it in PFRPG.
However, given the small bonus that Abilities give compared to Class Skill Bonus and purchased Ranks combined. Right out of Level 1 you can easily start with a +4 just for putting one rank in a skill (+6 on some race/class/skill pairings) before even considring adding ability modifiers. Low stats steadily loses their impact the higher the levels go when it comes to skills. Having recently reread Justin Alexander's article "D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations" that is a pretty good bonus to start with actually in my view.
Where it really stings is the limitations on casters (what level they can cast and the Save DC of their spells) and the effect on HP at higher levels.
I would be all for it myself. having the various human ethnicities fleshed out more really brought a more solid feel to Realms for me. I think the same would happen for Golarion.
This was actually something I liked about 3.5 Forgotten Realms. They had the Vital Stastics for the various human ethnicities (and the non-human ones as well). I think it added to the flavor to have NPCs and PCs matching the hieghts for their ethnic stock. If you have Races of Faerun you could find the Vital Statistics that closest match the descriptions of the Golarion human ethnicities.
Defnitely one of the things I liked was the assist others having such a big effect and at times being even necessary to complete a task. instead of in many games the effort is negligible.
Megan Robertson wrote:
It works quite well with young people: my 13-year-old daughter enjoys playing it!
The mechanics are easy enough for any kid over 7 to grasp it i think. Which is defnitely one of the strengths. There are just some aspects of the setting information that I dont think would really be appropriate even for most early teenagers, especially not if this is played a family. There are some BDSM aspects to some of the characters in the setting material.
Setting and Character Spoiler:
Princess Pea/Sophia and her prince are very much a BDSM couple, but a very loving and considerate one (makes me wonder who at FFG is familiar with actual BDSM). Cinderella is a flat-out sadist of an unhealthy sort. Beauty and Beast are pushing a boundry even not all adults are comfortable with.
Pretty much set on cat or bat for animal companion. Those are the two that came up in the character concept phase. Either prowls the northern woods on the back of a hunting cat or cruises the skies over the Land of Linnorm Kings. The campaign is not going to have many dungeon crawls.
Mainly I am wondering if the trade-out of Wild Shape for the mentioned Monk and Ranger abilities seems balanced in Pathfinder as they did in 3.5. I can see the Monk AC and movement really benefiting a "forest mystic"/primarily caster type of druid and one who whose animal companion is also their mount (keeping down weight from armor).
The spontaneous casting aspect is something my group has done for a while now for divine casters.
I am about to start a game as a gnome druid. I am not a big fan of wildshape and as i have covered in previous threads divine casters are seen as being spontaneous casters ("prayers known") in my group.
What I am looking at is a variant of the variant from Unearthed Arcana that trades out wilshape for monk's AC subsystem and movement...the ranger's Favored Terrain (the variation on the variation from UA ,this makes more sense to us than the UA version that grants Favored Enemy), Track and Swift Tracker.
Caster wise using the Sorcer/Oracle's spells per day and spells known (both for druids and clerics). Summon Nature's Ally would be a free spell known at each level appropriate to the Summon Nature's Ally XX and if a Domain is taken those spells are added free to the list of known spells.
Animal companion wise I am debating between large cat (tiger)/small cat (leopard) or dire bat.