graeme mcdougall's page

Organized Play Member. 110 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Edge93 wrote:
graeme mcdougall wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 if human.

18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 if anything else, with the 8 being the flaw.

What's your reasoning for baking in the difference between human & non-human, out of interest ?

I know it comes out the same at the end, is it just for simplicity, to eliminate the flaw ?

Because I wanted to preserve the 'flavour' of the ancestry flaws but let them use the boosts to 'buy' out of the Ancestry Flaw.
Or, in other words, I don't want to let them choose the ability their Flaw is in.

The difference between Human and non Human is because Human gets 2 floating boosts, ancestry gets two fixed boosts, a floating boost, and a fixed flaw. So unless you used the floating boost to cancel the flaw you end up with a different array.

Ah, I see. I specifically want to allow the Floating Boost to be used to cancel the Flaw, if the player wants. So I'll probably keep the array the same for human & non-human.


Watching this live, what a great idea. This could be THE promotional tool for PF2, you can imagine as they release more & more options making crazier characters every week, you couldn't highlight the USP of Pathfinder better.


Kyrone wrote:

18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 if human.

18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 if anything else, with the 8 being the flaw.

What's your reasoning for baking in the difference between human & non-human, out of interest ?

I know it comes out the same at the end, is it just for simplicity, to eliminate the flaw ?

Because I wanted to preserve the 'flavour' of the ancestry flaws but let them use the boosts to 'buy' out of the Ancestry Flaw.
Or, in other words, I don't want to let them choose the ability their Flaw is in.


Phntm888 wrote:

I don't find the ABC method convoluted at all, but YMMV.

Let's see...

+2 for class, Two +2's for Background, 4+2's for level...

16, 14, 12, 12, 10, 10. They can get an 18 in their primary stat if they wish, or they can round out their other stats.

I agree, in itself it's not too convoluted but as part of the character creation process with 1st time players (and probably via e-mail) it's just some complexity I can skip. I'm basically going to give them that great summary page in the core rulebook & let them pick Class & Ancestry, then move straight onto Background (minus the boosts).

Plus I've always preferred standard array, even in PF1, it's just how I like to do things. (Heroic NPC is what I always used)

Anyway, thanks, that looks like a good array to use, they will end up being able to make any Class/ Ancestry combo.


I like most things about PF2 but for the beginner players I'll be running it for, the 'life path' style ability scores are too convoluted & back & forth. Nor do I want the randomness of rolling ability scores.
So I'm after a standard array that evens out to exactly what you'd expect from the default method. I'm going to exclude all the Boosts & flaws EXCEPT the ancestry ones. I'd like to allow players to play against type with Ancestries ie Gnome Fighter etc.
I'm going to give the same array to all players, then let them use the Boosts & Flaws from their ancestry.
What do you recommend ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This x1000.
Needs to be in the CRB. Saves so much time & hassle for so little space.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I also prefer Starfinder's Hitpoints / StaminaPoints/ ResolvePoints to Playtest's HitPoints/ TreatWounds/ Hero Points.
Although I think both are decent & functional.

But more broadly, I find myself asking : Why isn't there more Starfinder in this ? If you took Starfinder, added 3-Action economy, sprinkled with some of Playtest's other ideas, trimmed here, expanded there, you'd have a pretty great system, I think. Starfinder seems to solve a lot of the traditional 3.x problems without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Some comments from 1 or more of the design team, seem convinced that the type of stories you tell in Fantasy & Science Fantasy are different enough that the same mechanics often can't work & I....I just don't see it myself.

I even think they should have considered Starfinder's route of making all spellcasters spontaneous & finding other ways to differentiate the spellcasting classes. Although I accept that might be a bridge too far for some people.


Thanks for doing this. I've enjoyed the 1st episode, about to listem to the 2nd.
I expect the final PF2 to differ quite a lot from the playtest (& my hunch is it will be more conservative towards PF1 direction).
But anyway, assuming you like the final PF2 & decide to keep going, I think you're off to a great start at establishing yourselves early.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

For me it's Armour, especially heavy Armour.

I know this might be controversial but for me, unarmoured or lightly armoured characters should NEVER be able to equal heavily armoured characters in AC (given the same level of investment).

Instead, the lightly armoured characters should make up the difference elsewhere.

But at the very least, medium & heavy armour shouldn't be activly worse than light/ unarmoured.

They have done so well with all the cool weapon qualities that really make weapons visceral & meaty - let armour be the same, not just a series of punishments for using it.


Count me in for 'make snares good'.
It's a strong idea conceptually & if Rangers tend towards the battlefield control/ enemy movement denial niche that would be a cool niche.
But they need to be massively imporoved in every way: I want to see rangers able to toss snares down as they move to deny enemies space. I'd like to see some area of effect snares as well.
This idea has a lot of pootential - so set it free !


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also PF2 is using them as part of a 'degrees of success' system, so for save or die spells & the like, they actually smooth out the spikiness, allowing for more inbetween results between the previous extremes.
Now I'm not sure I like them being quite as universally applied throughout the system as they are but in spell results its hard to argue against them being an improvement, I think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find the Condition cards in PF1 & Starfinder are very useful, easy to make your own if you want to save money.
I think it's worth printing out action cards for the most common actions & giving them to the players as well.
Add to that some post it notes/ print outs of other common things & it should help out a lot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think some people are being a bit harsh on Colette here.
That style of extremely deadly, coldly adversarial game certainly isn't my preferred style but it IS a legitimate style that has a right to be considered. ESPECIALLY in the context of a Playtest where we're being asked to push the game to it's limits & break it.

Now, I don't think this kind of playstyle should be the main determining factor in the game design but it at least deserves a place in the discussions.

I think it will probably take until the 1st player-focused hardback in the real release for Characters to start to really have the versitility of PF1 characters but it's a decent goal.

And I don't see any reason to label people a 'dick GM' - their players are presumably more or less down with this style of game or they wouldn't be playing.


Themetricsystem wrote:

What is the over/under chance on getting Paizo to add another 50 or so Pages to the Core Rulebook for a price hike?

I'd gladly pay another $10 for a bigger book with the NPC/Monster Building Rules & another Chapter dedicated to Uncommon Class Feats.

They've said that the hard limit is the 575 pages of the original core-rulebook.

I hope it comes in a bit shorter - personally still prefer physical books for main rulebooks & not a fan of the unliftable tome of doom. That's why it was great when they released the pocket editions.
That said, there's alot to pack in that core rulebook, 450-500 pages would suit me fine.


I actually like this section - it gives some extra ideas for a player to create their character.
Example: I knew I wanted to make a human sorcerer, I chose 'Aberrant' bloodline. When I read that Kellids are supersticous & distrustful of magic , it fell into place - the character had been exiled for their abilities - I picked the 'nomad' background & the ethnicities section helped guide the character concept.

So while I'd be happy to see the ethnicities expanded to include non-humans & maybe seperated from specific ancestries to be more general (ie a Taldan halfling sahres most of the cultural touchstones of a Taldan human)I am in favour of it & I do think the 'Ancestries chapter is the right place for it.
But it should probably be at the end of the chapter & applied to all ancestries by region, trather than one ancestry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

'Sword & Sorcery' is only a narrow, well-defined genre to a niche audience of Fantasy Literature fans.
For the rest of the world 'Swords & Sorcery' means everything from Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, King Arthur, Game of Thrones, Skyrim, Dark Souls - literally almost any Fantasy story.
Paizo are writing for a mainstream audience, so they're using it in the general sense.

PF2 may or may not end up being to a given person's taste but I don't think this throw-away phrase is telling us anything about any change of direction or tone for the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A common problem.

The spell roll is actually explained much better in the glossary section on pg 423; but that page isn't referenced in the index & they don't bother to explain there that the spell DC is just the same modifier but with a flat value of 10 in place of the roll.

Obviously they are very happy with the consistant way that attacks & DCs are calculated throughout the game but that's no excuse for not spelling things out explicitly & in a sensible place.

They should explain Ranged & Melee Touch Attacks, Spell Rolls & Spell DCs all together, at the start of the 'spells' chapter and point out the differences between them.

You shouldn't give new players a bunch of general rules spread throughout the book & leave them to piece together what they actually need to do at the table from the general rules - you should give them the specific rules in the correct chapter & let them see the underlying similarity in their own time as they learn.


Yiroep wrote:
Doonamis wrote:

How about something more like:

Effect: Damage 6d6 (Fire)
Save: Reflex (Double/Normal/Half/None)
Heightened (+1): +2d6 (Fire)

That way you can use that same format regardless of Basic saves vs Complex saves.

I agree with this! This is an excellent way to read it.

Agreed! This works perfectly & keeps the stat-block self-contained.

If it were a choice between the orignal or the new suggestion in the blog, I prefer the original: I really hate when a stat-block doesn't contain all the info but assumes that you know where to look for the missing information.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why are we still using aligment ?

Because it's a really useful tool for character & NPC building, a very intuitive & elegant 1st approximation/ rule of thumb for quickly fleshing out a character's motivation.

Just asking a player why they chose their alignment for their character often results in lots of great info.

I really think the anti-alignment sentiment some people have is just an inability to deal with ambiguity.
They can't stand that there are several different ways to be Lawful Neutral, or that a particular character might fall almost exactly between Chaotic Good & Neutral Good.
It's like they can't take the system for the flexible, approximate tool it is. If it isn't capable of unambiguously catagorising every character in existance then it has to be killed with fire.
I don't agree.

And I would defend Alignment as mechanics as well, as long as it doesn't become too overbearing. It's good to have limits sometimes. It helps to give classes & creatures an identity instead of just a bland anything can be anything mush.

Anyway, that was my 'in defence of alignment'


Aramar wrote:

This bit actually has me the most concerned - some of the changes seem easy enough to make, but I'm not sure how we get a guarantee that they'll change in the way that many of us might want them to. (after all, I'm not sure how to determine which layout changes were oversight and which were intentional)

e.g., Erik Mona specifically said that they're changing rarity indicator from color to something else. But I'm eager to hear confirmation that other large-scale layout changes will also occur, such as separating powers and spells, sorting arcane spells by school, indication which list a spell is part of, etc...

I look at it like this - this book has evolved from what was probably just a document with a few long lists of feats, spells, etc in it. Where we are now is really just a stage on the road to a fully polished book. The devs are getting loads of feedback about layout & I've read many a well-laid out Paizo book, so I'd be surprised if they didn't come up with something pretty useable by the end.


I much prefer the PF1 sheets. Because you had enough space to actually summarise the rules for your abilities. It's like the new sheet is designed to provide an overview of your character's whole career with little detail, where old one was to provide a snapshot of your character at current level.
I do like that both sheets shows all the workings though. It makes them good tools for learning.


@Micheal Smith - I tried to reply to you some days ago but the website problems ate my response. Hopefully I have better luck this time !

I agree with you the sub-chapter markers from the Starfinder CRB are definitely worth bringing over.

It's not that I'm opposed to the traits & the little box is a good way of presenting them. It's just that there are too many overall in my opinion & some of them are used to tag extra rules onto a statblock, which means that if you don't lookup/ know by heart what they mean, then the statblock doesn't give you all the info you need to use it (I'm using statblock here to mean feats, items etc).
I don't mind traits that provide a hook for other rules to reference but not keen on ones that add extra rules to the statblock.

@Pedro Sampaio - I agree with most of what you say too. I get what they're trying to do with the exploration mode - they're trying to tell a GM who only has the CRB & no experience how they can run the non-combat parts of the game. And it's probably better than previous attempts at teaching them this. It just feels a little too rigid & codified.
I think they got it right on downtime mode- a more conversational tone & not trying to pin too much down. It feels they want a more defined structure for exploration mode so that tactical decisions can carry over into encounter mode in a balanced way - I'm not quite sure that really matters but time will tell.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

There's been loads of feedback on this stuff already but it does seem to get lumped together, when really I think these are seperate issues.

1) Layout: This is just where things are located, how they're referenced & organised.
I agree with the majority; it's proper rough right now.
Location of powers, organisation of feats, lack of feat effect summary in the feat summary table.
I'm not really worried about this at all. It's a playtest document, with all the problems I expect. I'm confident Paizo know how to organise a rulebook come the final.

2) Graphic Design: I actually think this is a big step forward, even in it's rough state. It's finally incorporating some of the Beginner's Box presentation.
The way you go to a class & everything is there at a glance - you can see what's for level 1 & what's for later.
Much better than the 'giant wall of text' paradigm of PF1 CRB.
Action icons work really well in practice - I don't mean that these particular icons are especially great vs any of the other possible alternatives but that action icons generally work great.
Again, I have a lot of confidence in Paizo about this.

3) Tone/Language: This is my biggest worry for the book & in fact for the whole PF2 project.
A huge amount of people have remarked how dry, technical & clunky the book is right now.
The excess of traits & keywords is a huge problem. It's a manual that feels like it prioritises machine-readability so much that it actively obstructs human-readability.
The final version of this book will be the 1st & for many, only point of contact with the game for the next 10 years to come - it MUST be instantly inspiring & readable.
I kind of feel like after a decade of putting up with all the inherited jank of 3.5, the designers are trying to pin down & pre-empt all the possible future stesses on the chassis, at any cost.
Right now all the scaffold is showing on this game.
I just think that a good system (and I think this IS a good system, at it's core) WILL fail if it's presentation is so far off what is comfortable for the ordinary punter.

TLDR:
Layout - They'll sort it by final
Graphic Design - Good & will get better
Tone/ Language - Pretty worried


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you're completely right, Tamago.
When traits are used to append additional rules to a rules structure like an action or feat, they act as a barrier to comprehension & understanding.

The aim should be for these types of rules blocks to be free-standing as much as possible.

When it's the other way round & it's a way for more general rules & spells to refer back to the rule block, it's much better.

And if they're going to use traits to parachute in rules, they need to be a lot less than the 150-170 they have now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, 'adventurer's kit' etc definitely need to be in the final CRB, with the total cost & bulk pre-calculated.
I can JUST ABOUT be bothered to buy all the bedrolls, pup tents, flint & steel etc but it's unreasonable to ask that of a beginner who just wants to get in & play.
1 kit per class would be great - with thieves tools for the thieves, alchemist's kit for the alchemists etc.

'Overall, I'm pretty happy with the playtest. This is the direction I want to see Paizo go. It's still going to have more rules than D&D, but to some degree, Pathfinder needed to be slimmed down to grab other players as well. '

Agreed with the overall impression. There are many, many things to be fixed & tweaked but this is the basis of a good system, in my opinion.


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

Yes. It has it's problems but many more merits.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

No.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

Never tried 4th.
I Read 5th before I tried Pathfinder, it seemed good, even clever in many ways but also kind of bland & conservative (just rehearsing old tropes). For whatever reason, it just didn't interest me like Pathfinder did.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Class balance, options & ease of use. High level play is not a big concern.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

It's perhaps the most important thing in PF2

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

Only a little. There's a balance to be struck here.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

Of course, I view this as the 1st proposal for PF2

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

I'd like to see the weaker feats of all types (Ancestry, General & Class) brought up to scratch, a somewhat wider range of feats, a simpler version of Resonance if it's to survive, a 'free' signiture skill for all classes. Beyond that, I haven't even finished absorbing the Playtest rules yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OP, I agree with your case against Charisma, although I could live with it.
Since we accept they need a mental stat boost, I would also vote for Int. I see it as a combination of 'low cunning', 'mechanical ingenuity' & 'diabolical imagination', rather than academic intelligence.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Jason Bulhman confirmed on one of their Gencon panels (I watched the twitch video after the fact) that it was an oversight - all classes should be 'Trained' in 'Unarmoured' by default.
Said it's #1 on their errata list.

1:54:00 in this stream:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/293043872


Perfect,that's what I missed, Thank you !
It would be great if the formula were explicitly explained like it was in Starfinder CRB.
The section on page 291 doesn't give a spell example,


As far as I can tell, nowhere is it actually spelled out how to calculate spell DCs.
We are left to infer it from more general information scattered through the book.
I want to see if I have it right, for example for a wizard :

10 + Character Level + Int Modifier

I get this from :

- page 8 'Your Difficulty Class'
- page 136 'Arcane Spellcasting'
- Page 291 'Determine the difficulty Class'

What confuses me, is you normally add proficiency level as well.

The Wizard, on pg 135, in the sidebar has 'Spells' - Trained in Arcane Spell rolls and DCs & in attack rolls for Arcane spells.

So this is +0 for trained. But can the wizrd ever be more than trained in Arcane spell rolls & DCs ?

And if so, does he do it by adding ranks to the 'Arcana' skill ?

And if so, would the formula be ? :

10 + Character Level + Arcana Proficiency + Int Modifier

They could really do with explaining spell DC calculation at the beginning of the spells chapter, with a specific example.


Senkon wrote:
There should be nothing stopping you from using the weapon. The feat is simply for classes outside of fighter and for fighters that want to use an exotic goblin weapon. Those are not in the game yet but might be when the game releases for real.

Thanks Senkon, that make sense.


Mach5RR wrote:

No, you don't need the Weapon Familiarity (Goblin) feat to unlock the weapons for a Goblin Fighter. On p. 181 Dogslicers and Horsechoppers are Uncommon Martial Melee weapons with the Goblin trait. P. 182 defines the trait as:

Goblin People of the goblin ancestry craft and use these weapons.

The weapon familiarity feat goes further by stating that all Goblin Martial weapons are treated as Simple weapons when you possess the feat, meaning Goblin Alchemists with the feat can use those (formerly) martial weapons, but Goblin Wizards (no simple weapon feat) cannot. IF this feat was required to unlock those weapons, then why bother listing them as martial and then reducing them to simple? Why wouldn't you just list them as simple weapons, and require the feat to unlock them?

However, for any goblin with martial training, this turns Weapon Familiarity into a feat tax. If you are already martially trained, you get NO bonus from taking Weapon Familiarity. Except that it is a requirement for Weapon Frenzy which IS useful.

Thanks Mach5RR, I should have picked up that extra text on the Goblin trait, I think that does settle it.

I'm glad to think that martial goblins can just use them anyway, otherwise it seems they're getting poor value from that Ancestry Feat. Good point about the Weapon Frenzy, might be worth thinking about after level 1.


So, my Hardcover Rulebook & Softcover Doomsday Dawn arrived today in the UK & I finally had the chance to sit down, have a skim & make a character.

For all the rough edges & niggles, I think the presentation, overall, is significantly easier to use & learn.

I'm basing this mainly off the Class Descriptions, Skill Descriptions & Weapons section.

In the PF1 CRB, which I have grown to like & navigate fairly comfortably over time, you are still mostly faced with dense walls of text with little formatting.
Very refreshing to turn to fighter & get some concise flavour texts, followed by a menu of choices, where I could tell at a glance what mattered now & what I could come back to at later levels.
The sidebars & summary tables were spot on.

The action formatting for skills is also much more user-freindly IMO & better for reference.

Overall, I like the new format, it brings some of that beginner box clarity that I hoped we would see more of in the Starfinder CRB. Overall, I liked Starfinder but I was disappointed in how it was much closer in presentation to PF1 with regards to big wall of text entries.


I admit 'Anathema' is a bit unfriendly for non-europeans. It does have the advantage of being quite flavourful, in my opinion. And it is still in use in English today, though it's 'Uncommon'.

I think they should swap 'Somatic' which means absolutlely nothing to anyone outside of D&D for 'Gesture', which is instantly self-explanatory.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the change a lot.
In PF1, silver & Copper were basically pointless - now at least silver is real money.
Additionally, I think that the wealth of adventurers vs commoners stays a bit more under control, at least for the first few levels.


Rameth wrote:


The wording in Weapon Familiarity seems to suggest that you have to take it in order to be for it to be considered a Simple and Martial weapon for Proficiencies. So it seems Uncommon items will usually be locked behind a feat or maybe a class ability?

BUT under Uncommon in the glossary it does say that "the GM
can allow access for anyone she chooses." Which I would say if you're a Goblin Fighter from a goblin place why wouldn't goblin weapons be considered common for YOU.

To me there needs to be a little more information on uncommon and weapon familiarity feats and how they work with everything else.

Thanks, I agree we seem to need a little more info to settle the matter. I think you're right that strict RAW, I would probably need to take it, just seems that being a fighter, he's getting a lot less value from that Ancestry Feat than a class that didn't already have martial weapon proficiencies.

Think it's one a dev might have to weigh in on, except they've got enough on their plates right now, I imgine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just watching Paizo's gencon video on Twitch - there's going to be a Starfinder Beginner box, following the same format as the Pathfinder one.
Very welcome.


Yes, it's from the 'Uncommon Martial Melee Weapons' catagory.

My point is just that I don't need Weapon Familiarity (Goblin) to be trained in it, because as a Martial weapon, I'm already expert from fighter.
It's got the 'Goblin' trait & I'm already a Goblin, so I don't need Weapon Familiarity (Goblin) for that.

So the only reason I need Weapon Familiarity (Goblin)(If indeed I do need it), is because it's an Uncommon weapon.

If so, it's not the end of the world, just pondering what RAI is.


Thanks for your reply, Voss.
It's inconclusive so far, isn't it ?

I kind of think Weapon Familiarity (Goblin)is probably intended as a cheap option for non-martial Goblins to get access to a couple of specific weapon proficiencies.
But I might be wrong.


It will take me a while to absorb the document, my system mastery is not as high as some people.
I think it's genuinely A LOT easier to explain to new players - a lot of vets don't see that, because they've long since internalised all the complication & weirdness of the 3.5 chassis, to the point it's become invisible to them.
Also, it may be a bit premature, but I think the fighter is genuinely good out of the gate - probably should have 4+ Int skill ranks though.


I read it as you do, but a better phrasing would be :

"Your spells and alchemical items that deal fire damage gain a conditional bonus to damage equal to half the spell or the item’s level"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pg 10 : The uncommon rarity indicates an element available
only to those who have been initiated into a special kind
of training, grow up in a certain culture, or come from a
particular part of the world. A character can’t take these
options by default.

Pg 31 : WEAPON FAMILIARITY (GOBLIN) FEAT 1
You are trained with the dogslicer and horsechopper.
In addition, you gain access to all uncommon goblin weapons.
For the purpose of proficiencies, you treat martial goblin weapons
as simple weapons and exotic goblin weapons as martial
weapons.

Pg 86 : Fighter Weapon proficiencies - Expert in all simple and martial weapons. Trained in all exotic weapons.

I'm building a Level 1 Goblin Dex Fighter.
Am I correct in thinking I need to take Weapon Familiarity (Goblin) in order to use a Dogslicer ?
As a fighter, I already have Expert prof with Melee martial weapons, which the Dogslicer is. Nor do I need the change in status for Martial Goblin Weapons to Simple, or Exotic Goblin to Martial.
Do I need Weapon Familiarity (Goblin) just to overcome the (Uncommon) trait, or is my fighter Expert Martial prof enough ?


You'll never get anything official, for the reasons the other posters have stated.
But I actually think it's a really fun homebrew idea, you could certainly do it yourself but it could be a lot of work.
It would be intersting what ruleset you would choose, or if you would even swap rulesets as you went from the past to the future.
Maybe you could actually mash together a Pthfinder 1e adventure path & a Starfinder adventure path ? Like find a point where you can swap. I guess that famous point in Regin of Winter you could go to the future, instead of you know...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, why not, if they've got the page count ?
Personally, I'd rather have Kobold, Tengu or Ratfolk but I certainly wouldn't object if Orcs turn up in the eventual CRB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most intersting thing here is the Adoptive Ancestry general feat; this seems to be the answer to 'what if I'm a dwarf raised by elves' or 'what if I'm a goblin adopted by gnomes'.
Overall, I really like their approach to race in this new edition - the only potential problem being how much more work it will take to invent new ancestries compared to PF1 races. I think it's a problem that will be overcome as 3rd parties get used to it & maybe with an Advanced Race Guide later on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice 1 hour + review on Youtube :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FYmLi3pWcU


This now seems to have filtered through to UK retail - I just caved & ordered it from Chaos Cards (Not ordered from them before). I'm not a collector - I always aim to use every book I buy.

I don't have an immediate opportunity to use this but it strikes me as one that I will regret not picking up for years if I don't.

Obviously it's not going to replicate COC in Pathfinder, because the assumptions of the systems are too different - but what I think it will do is make a unique take on both Pathfinder & Cthulu Mythos that isn't offered by either of them alone.


A form-fillable PDF seems to come out almost instantly for any major RPG. I know the 1st time I looked for a starfinder sheet, I found one which was the offical one fan-converted to form-fillable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems really good.
The classes along with the 3-action economy are my favourite parts of what has been revelaed so far.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Armageddon Orb & Spinning Blade Pillar are really cool - I like the rules presented here.
Once again, I think the presentation could use work.

I wish they would de-emphasise the keywords attached to actions & emphasise the base action.

Instead of saying:

"That creature can use the Grab Edge reaction to avoid falling."

I wish it was more like:

"That creature can use a Reaction (grab edge) to avoid falling."

Or something like that.

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>