the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh's page

734 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:


Pathfinder, with it's inherent imbalance, requires a social contract between the GM and the players - the GM to use levers to maintain balance between PCs and their challenges, and the players to show a certain amount of maturity to ensure that they do not exceed the expected power levels of each other (and of the challenges the GM provides).

Thank you; that cogently expresses much of what about I valued about PF1 that feels not to be so present in PF2. Except that the buy-in I look for from my players isn't "keeping their power levels similar and appropriate" but "getting into the wider range of roleplaying options available with more randomised power levels."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:


That isn't fair. Wanting your character to be viable isn't 'wanting to power build'.

A lot of complaints are "I want to do this, but it makes me an actively worse character." which means that they want to make a character based on a concept, but they can't because it would be ineffective as part of the party.

And if that's what all of you want, the trick is to play a different style of game where "effective" doesn't depend so much on combat.

Combat is such an important part of the game. Look at any Paizo AP, even the roleplay heavy ones easily have combat take up a third of the time.

And are in general well-equipped with suggestions of possible alternative ways to handle any individual encounter.

Quote:


You know what isn’t fun? Not contributing to the success of the game for a third of the time. Remember fighters from PF1e? How they had nothing to contribute outside of combat? That was the number 1 complaint about the class. Why is it ok to complain about that, but not okay to complain about having the same problem in combat?

I had kind of hoped that the bit of my post I have bolded would count as an answer to that. I was offering a suggestion for an approach to deal with the specific issue of combat-ineffectiveness getting in the way of making the characters people are interested in playing. I have no objection at all to people who want to play games almost entirely focused on combat to ameliorate the lack of utility of fighters in other contexts; the later parts of the Giantslayer AP suggest to me that neither do Paizo.

If I'm arguing for anything, it's support for playing the game you want to play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RiverMesa wrote:


Casmaron and Sarusan too.

Sarusan in particular strikes me as a blank canvas considering the whole "undiscovered mysterious land" shtick of its, though much like everything else I hope we avoid a colonialist outsider perspective of it.

Plus you don't exactly see "Aboriginal Australian fantasy" very often.

I'd really like to see Casmaron, but I kind of like having Sarusan as a blank for the moment. And if it's going to be not blank, I'd rather it not be Aboriginal Australian fantasy, because my understanding is that what we know of Aboriginal Australian myths represents the stories of one surviving cultural group where many more were lost entirely, and also many of those stories are specifically tied to being told in certain locations or contexts which make it essentially impossible to adapt them into an RPG context without being disrespectful. If Sarusan is to be detailed at some point, I'd favour it being original content not based on any real-world culture.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
With gnomes, we're taking the opportunity to emphasize that not all ancestries view ethnicity in the same way as humans do.

Among many cool things in this post, this one makes me particularly happy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gold Sovereign wrote:
I can't deny that the art for the hobgoblins is among my least favorite ones, especially since their illustrations in the Monster Codex and the Ironfang Invasion AP. I have nothing against their new head shape or their elongated arms - they are actually more fearsome in this way - but they do feel as smaller than they have always been.

I still don't like gangly hobgoblins, because if they're going to be the organised legions rather than the barbarian hordes, the more solid squat look of the PF1 hobgoblin is a lot more convincing to me as holding the line in a shieldwall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the new information in the AP summary and background information in Hellknight Hlll, the thing that comes very strongly to mind is; will there be support for running this chapter for PCs who find Mengkare's position sympathetic?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
AJ_Neuro wrote:
It would have been nice to include Celsius in the temperature table, as it's used in almost every single country in the world except the United States.
Bah. As someone from the country that invented the Celsius temperature scale, it is decidedly inferior to temperature measured in Kelvin (note: not degrees Kelvin. Just Kelvin).

Yep. 300 K = optimal temperature for a comfortable me; 0 K = absolute zero; intuitive endpoints split into a nice round number for easy maths.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Aerondor wrote:


As for how big a square should be. My vote is 1/11th of a chain. That's a nice easy number to remember and work with. Gives a bit more space for those overweight dwarves to stand in too.

3 light-(femto-fortnights).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Davido1000 wrote:


Honestly alot of the complaints from sherlock are things that needed to be fixed from 1e, Rampant magic strength, constraining battle mechanics and a need for a maths doctorate to play the game at high levels.

I wish people would stop using that sort of shorthand for finding high-level play complex; the arithmetic may be long and fiddly, but it's arithmetic, not calculus or anything more abstruse than that. When the group I currently GM for get together, the average number of maths/sciency doctorates per person is about 1.5; and while I am well aware that makes us statistical outliers (y'know, because of having a grounding in statistics), I still appreciate the game being fun for that set of people as well as for newcomers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:


For the future, aggressive archetyping to reduce class proliferation. Investigator, Gunslinger, Inquisitor... all better done as archetypes than classes.

Has this been confirmed as a design goal? Because I would find it a very strong negative if so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that "reward system mastery" and "avoid trap options" should not be mutually exclusive goals. A system with a baseline of everyone's character being competent and capable enough to succeed at whatever challenges the game offers them, but with options opening to be better than that, might be difficult but I don't believe it is entirely impossible.

My personal preference would be for design around a greater increase in complexity as the level goes up, rather than complexity in the initial build. In other words, give new players a chance to get a handle on that scale of complexity as the game progresses (it will always be a sight easier to implement E6 for those that favour a simpler game than to build working house-rules for high-end complexity). It does not feel to me like PF2.0 is going in the directions I would favour for this, but I am willing to wait and see.

Things I am unambiguously looking forward to:

1) significant reduction in attacks of opportunity.

2) cool flavourful unique monster abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:


Do you use your computer via command line like you had to with early computers? No because someone thought "Maybe users have an easier time if the interface was graphical" and not "I had to use command line so new users should also struggle with it".

It may be worth noting that there are a non-trivial number of people for whom graphical interfaces are awkward and non-intuitive and who work and think much better in text.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asgetrion wrote:


I generally don't like playing "sidekicks" to heroes anymore, and I think it's also harder for the GM to design encounters that challenge everyone but don't end up killing the "less capable" PCs. Naturally you want and need your PCs to cooperate in most campaigns, but it's tough when there is disparity in their abilities. For example, in that Undermountain campaign I mentioned before my elven magic-user/thief had AC 5 and the "elven hero" fighter had AC -4. That campaign ended when my PC and another roguish elf died in combat, but the "hero" survived, I think? And my first new 3.0 PC was an elf ranger with Str 12, Dex 15 and Con 13... and the "alpha" PC in our group had 14 in his *lowest* stat. That campaign wasn't really fun either, and I think it ended at level 3 or something?

That sounds a lot more combat-focused than the games I tend to run, which I can quite see making a difference; if your focus is social intrigue, I see no reason for those two characters not to be equally capable. Then again, if a magic-user/thief with AC like that is in frontline combat at all, it would seem to me that something's gone off the rails on a tactical level.

I love playing competent logistical support. One of my life goals is to take a character from 1 to 20 without ever doing a single point of damage directly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:


The Material Plane (composed mostly of the vacuum of space) is wrapped in a giant bubble of air. The Plane of Air is the sky for the Plane of Water. At the bottom of the Plane of Water's endless sea is the Plane of Earth. The deeper you go into the Plane of Earth, the warmer it gets until you eventually arrive at the Plane of Fire, which acts as a gigantic sun for all the outer planes.

I dislike this, compared to earlier D&D cosmologies, on a practical level because you can only kind of squeeze the equivalent of three of the paraelemental planes in there and there's no room for the quasi-elemental planes at all. (I also miss the outer planes from the Great Wheel that did not make it into Paizo's cosmology.)

I dislike it on an aesthetic level because it reduces most planar travel to essentially extremely long-distance teleporting. I far prefer thinking of Shadow and Faerie as adjacent to the Material Plane on opposite sides in one extra spatial dimension beyond the Material's three, the Ether adjacent in a second which leads to the Elemental planes, and Astral and the Outer Planes in a third.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
Rahadoum could work in a setting where religion and Gods are left up to faith, but in Golarion it sticks out like a sore thumb, and one that would be better off amputated at that.

I have a strong desire to run a campaign in which Rahadoum turns out to have been intentionally helped along by agreement between the gods in order to create a location where, for example, outsider representatives of LG and LE deities could meet to negotiate a temporary alliance against some specific CE threat, without having to worry about that upsetting or demoralising any of the faithful of the LG deity in question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:


Yeah, there's always going to be that with made-up fantasy names. It either sounds great in your head, and then some chucklehead mispronounces it once at the table and it's a running joke for the rest of the campaign.

One minor irritation I have, though it makes sense in terms of what Paizo can plausibly afford, is that their fantasy names appear to go through a rather limited localisation check. If I were still living in Ireland, running a game with characters whose name ends in "fek" or a major ethnicity whose name ends in "s~*&e" would be a non-starter because of those being local pronunciations of common obscenities.

(Huh. This interface doesn't censor "Keleshite" as a whole word.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:


It is interesting how flexible the 'eurocentric' concept is, in that several game settings (not just Golarion) have fantasy equivalents to Egypt (Hamunaptra, Osirion, Mulhurand), Persia, Japan, China, even India, but while very few have a 'fantasy Ireland' or 'fantasy Spain' or 'fantasy Germany'

As a person who is actually from Ireland, lack of a fantasy Ireland in Golarion is something I am relieved by, because the overwhelming majority of fantasy Irelands are excruciatingly bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corathonv2 wrote:
I'm one of "those people". The grim fate of all souls, whether good or evil, is a very repulsive feature of the setting.

An afterlife that works like a physical process, at that level, rather than being solely morality-based is a major plus for me in terms of suspension of disbelief. The fundamental underlying principles of the universe being something like entropy rather than something like justice is a scale I find works better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asgetrion wrote:
I definitely do not want to return to days of rolling ability scores, that often resulted in bitterness when one of the guys rolled up an "elven hero" and the rest were playing farmboys with pitchforks.

My players would likely rise in revolt if there is not an option for getting exactly that result, because making characters of that sort of different level of capacity work well together is a large part of the fun for us.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Meraki wrote:


I love that the queer characters Paizo makes don't have being queer as the sum total of their identity, but are multi-faceted characters who are also explicitly noted as queer.

Oh yes. And I do value that the range of stories we have about these characters covers some involve that aspect of their identity prominently and some to which it is less central. Thank you for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm still kind of puzzled why people used to PF1, where the range of of modifiers for rolls was something like -2 to +98, think PF2 having the range be something like -1 to 30 is bad.

Because I do not like the reduction in granularity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
A class I have been thinking about recently that would be fun to port over is the 3/3.5 Jester, a master of improvised weapons, the man who always wins the bar fight (that isn't the monk). Someone who can play out the "Faceless Knight" Lancelot stories where he bludgeoned a man in full plate with a chair leg. I want a guy who can walk into Copper Tree, pick up LITERALLY ANYTHING, and then go and fend off a horde of goblins with it, maybe even a hobgoblin or 5.

That's kind of what I've always wanted a Brawler to be.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:


Points in favor of it being Mengkare are the way it's being talked about as a surprise, and that people will make wrong assumptions as to what's going on when they find out. He might have decided that the world is unsaveable and it's time to burn it down and start over. Or maybe it's weirder, like he figures the only way to bring out the ultimate good is to bring about the ultimate threat to the world, and it will inspire goodness to counter, or some other odd reasoning.

I am really hoping it won't be Mengkare, because the trope of "Utopian experiment turns out to actually be horribly evil" is massively overdone, and pernicious besides. As Kingmaker players may have learned from a certain particularly irritating NPC in the second volume, there is no better way of stopping power being used for positive ends than to foster a culture of instinctive distrust of anyone trying.

Kingmaker spoiler:

Spoiler:
I loved Grigori, he was a wonderful way of not only vexing PCs in ways that needed them to think outside the box, but making them really think through what they were doing and why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
"Killing them doesn't stick" for anybody with at least 9 mythic tiers, since they just come back in 24 hours unless they are CDG'd with an artifact. I guess if you're at the level where you're fighting things with 9 mythic tiers you should have an artifact appropriate for this laying around (ideally a weapon and not, like, a drum).

See that's a problem though. If it has explicit rules for it, you can kill it. It might be challenging, but it could theoretically be done.

With things like "catch Baba Yaga's death and return it to her body" you have a hard time even beginning to know what that means or where it would be. That's pretty much the domain of "if the GM wants this to happen at all" then you can do it, and if they don't you can't even start.

Players: We look for Baba Yaga's death!
GM: Where?
Players: Do we have any clues?
GM: Nope, good luck.

Unless you're playing an AP where the relevant information is defined and so is how it can be researched.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:


Losing individuality is the problem.

Why ?

Quote:
You can't enter a state of ecstasy because there is no you. Joy is only desirable because it's something you experience. 'Being' is a prerequisite for experiencing and the afterlife strips you of that.

It seems to me that the more intense a joy, the less aware one is of anything else other than it, so an all-encompassing bliss being accompanied by annihilation of self in a vaguley Buddhist direction seems a logically desirable endpoint to that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
VoodistMonk wrote:


It is a completely BS imaginary, fantasy game... why would you ever spend a single second arguing about rules? Lol!

Because some people need consistency and coherency to suspend disbelief enough to enjoy the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
It's not evil, but it is tacky.
It's only tacky if you have glued rhinestones to your fingernails while you're doing it.

I suppose some kinds of glue could manage to be tacky all by themselves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:


Now imagine two dead souls, one good and one evil. Both have meet all the conditions of becoming Worm that Walks. In pathfinder a soul returning from the dead always knows what is bringing them back. The good soul is experiencing the joy and pleasure beyond anything they have ever felt. The evil soul is experiencing pain and terror beyond comprehension. Both feel the opportunity to become a Worm that Walks. Do you really think that the good soul would want to leave? Can there be any doubt that the evil soul would jump at the chance?

What that immediately suggests to me is that a truly Good soul, offered the choice between eternal bliss and the chance to become a powerful entity in the material world, is likely to feel duty-bound to the latter as an opportunity to do more good for those less fortunate. Not prioritising your own wants above all else seems fairly fundamental to Good, to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


"Kill Yog-Sothoth first" is definitely the hardest "permanent death" solution, but considering how large the universe is, killing the current one and having the next one reappear in a random location elsewhere" is probably indistinguishable from death for almost everyone.

At-will interplanetary teleport makes that less reassuring than it might otherwise be.

"The replacement Tawil at’Umr typically does not reappear where it was killed, and it usually does not seek revenge against those who slew its predecessor. Usually." is one of my favourite bits of description in all the bestiaries; makes it sound like the most important part of killing Tawil at'Umr is somehow to do so without annoying it, which, Great Old One inscrutability as get-out clause aside, seems like a really nice challenge to throw at players and see what they come up with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:


No, and if I started to read a story that began to lean that way, I'd stop. I don't play escapist RPGs to feel bad.

Same thing goes for movies, books, and television shows. While emotions are fine to have tweaked, I'd rather leave negative ones like sadness and rage off the table.

To each their own, but that would feel to me like painting without using half the colours.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Magda Luckbender wrote:
Morality is relative.

Not in a setting with alignment it isn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Name Violation wrote:

Stormwind fallacy.

That is all

Not necessarily. It is entirely possible to believe minmaxing is compatible with roleplaying, and still prefer not to have minmaxing at your table because you find it incompatible with your group's preferences. (Such as rolling your stats with a d6 like Gary intended, as specifically opposed to point-buys that give a boringly even set of stats to each PC.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I read that as saying "good people shouldn't follow deities who condone and enable torture" which is legitimate, but you could say the same thing about good people following Abadar (who's A-OK with slavery, at least before the gap) or good people following Torag (who's strangely enthusiastic about genocide, depending on how you read "my people's enemies.")

Only if for some reason you want Good the alignment to map onto a real-world value of good.

Myself, I prefer Good the alignment to generate maximum amounts of drama for my players, and I would give seriously dubious looks to anyone who used that standard for determining real-world good.

"Here is this thing you personally do not believe is good, now see where roleplaying in a setting where it is Good leads you" is both fun and an interesting challenge provided you can keep the concepts separate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:


Paizo is not entirely family friendly... minotaurs are firmly in the 'Lamasthu' faction, which tends towards serious Ick.

A female minotaur is a fairly significant character in Ironfang Invasion, for what that is worth.

Also, considering that Paizo is not averse to specifying potentially icky reproductive strategies in lore for some creatures in the bestiaries (skum, sphinxes, and the difference between satyrs and fauns come to mind), I would presume that if minotaurs were intended to work that way it would be pretty unambiguous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
You'll be able to roleplay your ignominious defeat to your hearts content.

if I'm roleplaying it to my heart's content, it won't be ignominious, it will be positively tragic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magda Luckbender wrote:


Here's the definitive answer to the question, "What are the class toles".

TarkXT's masterpiece "On Building a Balanced Party"

The above document is the Pathfinder equivalent of Sun Tzu's Art of War. If you heed the advice you will be victorious. If you fail to heed the advice then only an easy GM can save you from ignominious defeat.

...or a GM who cares about roleplaying far more than about combat utility. These are not necessarily the same thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sir Belmont the Valiant wrote:
No dump stats. I've always hated them. Stats should not go below 10 unless they are racially modified.

Meeeh. Stats should be rolled with a bunch of d6s as God and Gary intended. Point buys just encourage minmaxing, and the expectation that characters should start off some abstract value of evenly matched, both of which IME cut against interesting directions of roleplaying.

I can see the point of 4d6 and pick your favourite three, but I would be absolutely opposed to anything that meant you can't ever have any stat below average.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Piccolo wrote:


Nope. Selfless dedication is incompatible with evil alignments. And yes, I can cite real world examples too. Want some? Getting lots of kickbacks of money while you hose over the nation, that's evil, but these jokers justify it in lots of different ways. How to tell if it's evil is easy. Look around. If you see a lot of misery as a result of this person, then you know it's evil.

I'd entirely agree that that behaviour is Evil, but it is clearly Chaotic Evil to me.

On the other hand, people who dedicate their lives to a cause that involves killing innocents and generally causing misery, join organisations that do so, are constantly loyal to that organisation, and makes ongoing sacrifices up to and including their life for that cause, also exist. I grew up in an environment where there were a fair number of such people around. Selfless dedication to group A while being entirely willing to cause endless misery to group B because you regard group B as the enemy or in some way inherently having fewer rights is every bit as Evil, to my mind, and in some ways more dangerous. (The corrupt and selfish are easier to subvert than the murderous zealot.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

5. Stop Meta-magic stacking

6. Wizards pick 1 school, cast all spells outside that school at 1/2 CL.

I'm strongly in disagreement here. The way to address CMD is to make martials more awesome, not to nerf casters. (People who object to martials being too unrealistic/anime can always play E6 in a system that makes martials awesome at higher levels.)

Quote:

8. Remove hard-lined alignment requirements. Make DMs own up to their convictions and force it themselves.

Oh heck no. The last thing you want involved in alignment is the DM's own convictions.

Something along the lines of "Here are some common issues that come up with alignment. For game purposes, A, B and C are defined as Good, X, Y and Z are defined as Evil, 1, 2 and 3 are defined as Lawful and 7, 8 and 9 are defined as Chaotic. Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic are game-specific technical terms, their purpose is to be consistent and coherent and allow for quick judgements to keep a game moving. Any resemblance to any real-world morality, living or dead, is entirely accidental. Also, Paladins can only ever be Exalted Good, So There."

Quote:

13. Stop excessive number scaling for the sake of scaling. It basically has no meaning after a certain level.

The bigger your numbers, the more granularity you have, and this strikes me as a plus. I want to see lvl 20 Fighters with effective Str of 40 once all the relevant buffs are counted.

Quote:

14. Ability modifiers dont give you extra spells.

Why not ?

Quote:

17. Limit multiclassing. Honestly the GURPS-style of plug-in-play class/feature PF espouses is really annoying.

18. Remove prestige classes, treat them as extensions of the main character - sort of like a template.

I'm strongly in agreement here. GURPS is a great game if you want to play GURPS, but what I want from PF or any other D&D-type game is well-defined classes with a distinct feel to them as they progress from newbie to legend.

I'd go so far as; no multi-classing. No prestige classes. No archetypes. Give me forty well-tested base classes with solid progressions that fit forty worthwhile character concepts, or fifty, or seventy, rather than hundreds of feats and skills and whatnot where it is not humanly possible to test all possible interactions for trap options or game breakers.

(Also, I would like something front and centre that says "Here are the basic axioms about how the game and the game world work. Any combination of interactions between game rules that causes these axioms to break is automatically not valid.")


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:

What happens when they discover that poisons are overpriced crap, their caster teammates make their skills obsolete, and their "lone wolf" style character doesn't funktion in combat without teamwork? How good do you think the player feels about the game then?

In my recent GMing experience, they feel great about it, because it gives them an actual challenge where mechanistic optimisation is boring, and it gives them more hooks for roleplay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Piccolo wrote:
Don't they all effectively have the same goal in mind, that is, destruction/corruption etc?

A win for devils is the entire multiverse under their control, forever.

A win for demons is them being top dogs with an endless supply of stuff to trash, forever, because what they enjoy is the act of trashing stuff.

A win for daemons is everything ceasing to be, including themselves.

As real-world lore goes, the distinction between demons (evil since the moment of Creation) and fallen angels (evil only since the fall of Lucifer) seems to me to be where the Pathfinder/D&D distinction between demons and devils originally comes from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShroudedInLight wrote:
I have a philosphical question, if the Maelstrom is eating all the outer planes what happens if it succeeds?

Apparently the multiverse as a whole goes through cycles of existence, the manasaputras are strongly connected with this.

So far as I am aware, there's nothing been said definitively in lore about how this works, but "the Maelstrom wears everything down to nothing except Pharasma and a bunch of proteans leaping around and doing proteanishly random things for timeless ages until one of them lets some qlippoth in again, or otherwise does something that starts more defined outer planes crystallising out of the quintessence for long enough to develop inhabitants" would feel a plausible answer.

The question would be whether the Maelstrom eats the Outer Planes faster than recycling souls and outsiders builds them up; it must be fairly closely balanced for the current multiverse to have existed on the timescale it has. (Which raises the thought that the effects of the Drift in the Starfinder era might just be enough to throw that balance off and eventually destroy this instantiation of the multiverse; now stopping that would be a fun really high-level campaign.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Massoudi wrote:

I am at a strange place with this AP.

The summary for the whole thing puts me off, as it has a too high fantasy feel (and also sounds almost the same as Legacy of Fire, efreeti invasion and all) but the individual books descriptions all sound good.

For what it's worth, the amount of high fantasy content in this is what I find appealing about it; there are any number of good systems and settings out there for doing harder SF, and lots of fantasy in the science-fantasy mix is what I am starting to rally appreciate in Starfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:


- Land of the Mammoth Lords; come on, let's go. Giant animal section and maybe cold survival

I'd like to see a Realm of the Mammoth Lords AP that then delves into Deep Tolguth, the Vault of Orv underneath it, so we can have arctic megafauna and jungle megafauna and troglodyte civilisations.

I'd also love a Geb and Nex one, come to think of it. Or for "Kings of Absalom" to come out in a generally available form, be that an AP or a mega-module.

Also, planar stuff. Lots and lots of planar stuff. Particularly given that with the existence of Starfinder, it feels like spacefaring in the Pathfinder era will be less likely to show up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:


1. A system with which you can make almost any character concept that you can think of within the rules, without the need for significant GM favors.

Lots of people seem to be enthusing about this point or something very similar to it, and it feels unbalanced to me.

I am absolutely opposed to any game that operates from a basis of "players must be able to make any concept they like without consulting with the DM" as a fundamental axiom, because that undercuts getting a set of tonally consistent characters in a tonally consistent story, and the collaborative aspect of that, between players and DM both is most of what I am there for as player or DM. Strongly defined classes feel to me like a strongpoint of PF1.0, because they give a DM something to assess for any given story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm very aware of being in a minority perspective on the boards in many of my preferences as a DM, and as a player; such as the strong preference for restrictive classes mentioned above, really enjoying playing characters whose utility is entirely outside combat, favouring mechanics strongly tied to role-playing (such as the Sin and Virtue points in RotRL and the influencing significant NPCs rules from Jade Regent). At this point I don't expect PF2.0 to contain major shifts towards my preferences.

I appreciate the insights into the game design process, I really appreciate Paizo's approach to customers on these forums generally and specifically Jason's here. If I have to houserule PF2.0 significantly to make it work for the particulars of my table, that will not be notably different from PF1.0 or make it notably less appealing; and in the unlikely case of a PF2.0 so far from my group's tastes that houseruling it enough to work for us would be more work than porting APs to GURPS, I'll still be here for Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:
I imagine these gargantuan creatures shake the ground when they walk; I'm not sure how they move around like church mice.

Mu spores have a 30ft. perfect fly speed; I've always thought of them as silent like a drifting blimp.

1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>