thejeff's page

Organized Play Member. 28,165 posts (29,097 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters. 9 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 28,165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Fundamentally "non-spotlight NPCs just get fewer numbers to track" is just modern RPG design. If the tailor's job is to "make clothes" an "lie about the vampires in the basement" he doesn't really need more than a craft modifier and a deception modifier- if the PCs want to kill him, he's not going to put up a fight. PF1 had the kludge for run of the mill NPCs where, unless the tradesperson was a named NPC, we just referred to some stat block in a NPC codex- implying that most blacksmiths were exactly the same everywhere.

But it's easiest for the GM, in terms of respecting their time, to just limit most NPCs to "write down the numbers which are relevant to their role in the story". All you lose is the illusion that the game mechanics are a perfect simulation of a fantasy world everywhere all at once, but that was never really the case anyway. We see this with thing like the "troop" subtype in PF1.

For meaningful NPCs, we will probably eventually get tool to stat up the Hobgoblin General or the Grand Vizier who is secretly a Urgathoa cultist, etc. as PCs. It's just that their underlings who serve the role of "popcorn" don't require much written down.

Two different issues I think.

It sounds to me like PF2 NPC enemy design is fundamentally, mechanically distinct from PC design - much like it is in Starfinder. That's different from "just handwave appropriate numbers". The numbers you want are different from PC numbers. (I could be wrong about this, not knowing how the NPC generation rules work yet.)

That did remind me of a bunch of minor Cthulhu NPC villains whose stats were limited to "HP 14 Shotgun(40%)"
What else do you need?


Hey! Good to see you still around.

It's been so long the thread wasn't even flagged as something for me to pay attention to.:)

Still hanging out here, though not arguing as much. Or playing as much, unfortunately.


Edge93 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Is there any practical difference between ability scores and modifiers?

There are when odd numbered ability scores show up.
This is true, except is there a single situation in PF2 where it will matter whether a monster has an odd or even score? The only time it mattered in PF1 was feat prereqs and ability damage, but feats seem to only use even numbered stat prereqs now and ability damage as such is gone.

Even with PCs, it seemed like those prereqs were just there either as a holdover or a justification for having the odd numbers.

Made a little more sense back in 3.x where you could still get odd boosters.
Mostly it's just a holdover from rolling dice to generate stats, that's been gradually dropping in importance.


I guess it depends on what you mean.

Cthulhu uses the same basic stat block, for example, but handwaves all the skills instead of basing them on Knowledge and Intelligence as PCs do. Does that count? In practical terms, the same goes for NPCs - assign them appropriate skills, rather than calculate out what they theoretically should have.


Is there any practical difference between ability scores and modifiers?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:

And that makes it viable for two actions.

Casting and attacking for one action only would be absurdly good, even expending resources.

Yeah, one action would be ridiculous. Much better than it was in PF1.

Essentially in PF1 it took as long to cast and attack as it normally did to cast. It should do the same here.


Lord Snow wrote:

Finished reading The Drawing of the Dark by Tim Powers and started on By The Sword (Repairman Jack #12 by Paul Wilson).

** spoiler omitted **

I must ask - has anybody read the more well known Tim Powers books? are they similar to this one in tone and style?

I'm very fond of Tim Powers, but Drawing of the Dark was an early work and wasn't as good as his later stuff in my opinion. (Though I'm still fond of the basic concept of the Dark beer itself.)

He gets less predictable and more original. Emotionally impactful is more a matter of opinion, but I think so.

Anubis Gates and Last Call are probably my favorites. Time travel and British poets in the first and magic poker in Vegas for the second.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Worshipper of Cayden Cailean too.

Hope he does not kill his captive though. I thought Valeros was Good.

Killing people who have come to capture or kill you for anti-slavery activities does not strike me as an Evil thing to do. And that very much looks like what's happening given their nationality and Valeros's religion.
I consider killing opponents who are at your mercy ruthless, thus in my game at least not Good. I do not remember how it falls under PF2 playtest alignment definitions and of course we do not have the PF2 alignment definitions yet.

Leaving definitions aside, the opponent is only sort of at his mercy.

He's restrained, but not out and his companions are still trying to kill Valeros. Mechanically, he's in a grapple. That's all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think multiple checks for picking locks makes sense if we're talking about pin an tumbler locks, since you have to set all the pins to the correct height in order to pick the lock.
Given that pin tumbler locks are a 19th century invention, (and the kind you are probably thinking of mid-19th century), you probably aren't going to be encountering them on Golarion.
We have airships and spaceships on Golarion.

Yes, but you're probably still not going to be encountering them. It's not what your average rogue is trained to deal with. They exist, but they're exotic.


Captain Morgan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I suspect that lock being unpickable wasn't obvious to the people complaining. It felt obvious to me, but it didn't seem to get mentioned a lot by the folks complaining about locks being a pain. Which would make sense, especially if they were players. They wouldn't necessarily know there was a key to open the door elsewhere in the dungeon. Conveying expected difficulty seems like something a lot of games or game masters struggle with. There are all those stories of GMs putting in unbeatable monsters expecting people to run only for the players to try and fight, and so forth.
I call this phenomenon GM-nearsightedness : forgetting that what is obvious to the GM because they knows the whole story is not obvious to the players who know only a short slide of it.

It's even more so here than usual, since this was a playtest and thus very likely the first lock players had run across in the system. Was it intentionally unpickable? A miscalculation in the design? Did my character miss some build trick that would make it easy?

You've got no baseline for judging.

It's like running into that unbeatable monster you're supposed to run from as the first fight in a test of a new system. Not quite the same as doing so once you know better how the system plays.

How the system handle an "unbeatable" challenge actually seems like something you very much want to stress test. That's why we got part 5 after all. But a disclaimer for GMs would have been nice.

I guess, but there's not really any "system" to "You can't pick this lock". Not sure how you'd test it, since the whole point is to go do something other than pick the lock.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I suspect that lock being unpickable wasn't obvious to the people complaining. It felt obvious to me, but it didn't seem to get mentioned a lot by the folks complaining about locks being a pain. Which would make sense, especially if they were players. They wouldn't necessarily know there was a key to open the door elsewhere in the dungeon. Conveying expected difficulty seems like something a lot of games or game masters struggle with. There are all those stories of GMs putting in unbeatable monsters expecting people to run only for the players to try and fight, and so forth.
I call this phenomenon GM-nearsightedness : forgetting that what is obvious to the GM because they knows the whole story is not obvious to the players who know only a short slide of it.

It's even more so here than usual, since this was a playtest and thus very likely the first lock players had run across in the system. Was it intentionally unpickable? A miscalculation in the design? Did my character miss some build trick that would make it easy?

You've got no baseline for judging.

It's like running into that unbeatable monster you're supposed to run from as the first fight in a test of a new system. Not quite the same as doing so once you know better how the system plays.


MaxAstro wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply Magus will have a full spell list, just Focus Spells.

Oh. I guess I see what you're saying.

That seems even more limited than I'd like.

Of course, who knows? Maybe they won't even pick up the spellstrike concept and take an entirely different path for a full gish class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

That means Paladin/Champion would be able to grab it because of Lay on Hands. This would also make the Fighter MC Archetype almost completely worthless since this would be the better option for 7 of the 12 classes; even if Spellstrike was ignored.

It also wouldn’t be as Universal as Cavalier or Pirate, since it requires casting of some kind. I feel something like this would pigeonhole the majority of Gish builds as a ‘must have’ feat choice.

This puts into words really well why I was thinking Magus can't be an archetype and needs to be a base class. Also Captain Morgan's comments about how the disadvantage of having to target regular AC is gone.

Whatever form Magus takes, I don't think there's any chance at all we'll see something that let's you spellstrike with 9th level spells of an arbitrary list. That would have been arguably broken in 1e, and is definitely broken in 2e. Plus it would mean every new spell has to keep Magus in mind for balance reasons.

Not to sound like a broken record, but as the thread goes on I'm more and more confident that focus spells are how Magus is going to be handled, and it'll be a base class instead of an archetype, with spellstrike only working with it's own focus spells. I think most likely even multiclassing won't let you spellstrike with other spell lists.

However, what does occur to me is that gives Magus a lot of mechanical (but not thematic) overlap with Kineticist. Not sure how much of an issue that is.

The problem with that though is that they're trying to get away from classes having their own spell lists. Sticking with just the arcane/divine/occult/primal division.


The Only Star wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
If you want to allow free replay of scenarios at you events, that’s fine, but it’s not organized play anymore and your organizers and Venture-officers should not allow it.

How do you propose they stop it? Seriously the idea that a Venture Officer could go into a game store that is allowing people to break the rules and tell them to stop is laughable.

Your only recourse is to tell them it's not official, which obviously won't matter to the people breaking the rules.

Look I'd rather see people stop playing then break the rules, but this idea that Vo's could just not allow it is extremely laughable.

They can not allow it at events or games they're running. They can tell people it's not official, which may matter, since not spreading the word it's not official can leave people thinking it's perfectly fine.

They can, in theory, audit characters and disallow characters benefiting from duplicate chronicles when playing at their events. (Not sure how possible that would be in practice.)


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I like it. :)

I've always had a soft spot for Valeros and this story suits him.

In terms of mechanics, I think it's just highlighting the shield mechanicsas shown in the playtest (ie: shield as weapon, how shield blocks work, the fact that shields are disposable to some degree).

Now I want every picture of Valeros to have a different shield. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I'm not surprised they changed how melee touch spells worked, since those spells were previously confusing (almost no one I talked to believed me when I said you could cast the spell, move, and then deliver all in one turn) and also hard to use if you didn't start your turn at a distance.

Starfinder fixed it by making melee touch spells not provoke; switching them to saves is another option.

That does leave spellstrike in a weird place, but again - I honestly don't think Magus will be a proper spellcaster when it comes back. I don't see them giving Magus 9 levels of spells, which means Magus spellstrike is going to be entirely based on Focus Spells, which will be custom designed with spellstrike in mind.

It's not impossible they'll just have spellstrike change the way they work. It's not that big a leap from "let's you deliver the spell with a weapon attack instead of a touch" to "let's you deliver the spell with a weapon attack instead of a save."


CBDunkerson wrote:
As to Tesla in general... they've made great strides in improving battery technology and I suspect that the kind of over-the-air software updates for vehicles they pioneered will eventually become standard, but otherwise yeah... Musk is a buffoon. Their approach to self-driving vehicles has been reckless (to the point of killing people), and will likely either make the company a pariah or ridiculously profitable. Possibly both.

The problem with self-driving vehicles is that they will kill people.

Much like people driven vehicles do regularly.

It's just that we've come to accept that with human drivers and yet there's a huge backlash when self-driving ones do the same. It's likely for the foreseeable future we'll demand perfection from autonomous vehicles and any serious accidents will cripple programs - even if their overall safety is higher than human driven vehicles.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Again, I want to throw out there that we don't actually know if they are pruning the wizard spell list. It was identified as an issue they ran into, but I don't think they claimed to have fixed it, and they could have fixed it in other ways. Making the other lists more robust, for example. (That would take away from the essence idea though.)
I don’t feel they will have pruned the Arcane spell list in such a short time, personally speaking. The discussion on School specialization and outside spells was more meant as a thought experiment rather than a prediction. I agree with making the other spell lists more robust, or have more focus on them; at least with future publications.

It wasn't a short time. They identified the problem during the playtest, because it was extremely obvious Arcane sorcerers were the superior pick out of the four spell lists. What they did next is another question, as Captain points out. Shrugging and doing nothing is certainly one approach. They could have beefed up the other lists (primal especially could have used the boost), but to be honest that seems like more work than simply pruning back the Arcane list.

Ideally, and this would have been the MOST work, they'd have started from scratch. From what Mark has said, the essences of magic were something they came up with relatively late. They were able to finalize the lists using that idea, but it wasn't there initially. So, one way to rebalance the spell lists would be to start over completely, and choose the lists with that in mind from the beginning this time. They'd have had to look at the each spell again and decide what essence(s) that spell would represent. They'd then pick 30-40 spells to really represent what each essence is, and build the four lists around those, adding flavor and thematically appropriate spells on top of those as needed.

But I kind of doubt they went that far.

Given that the lists mostly came from existing lists, that would probably upset more people than anything else.

Also, it's not clear that balanced spell lists are actually what's wanted. It's the obvious approach for fixing sorcerers, but the other main caster classes can have their lists balanced with their other class features. Bards, Clerics and Druids all are better fighters than wizards. Bards get their compositions, druids get wild shape, etc. Their spell lists have long been balanced with those other abilities in mind.

In my mind, that's what made balancing the new sorcerers hard.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

You don't gain on anything against creatures of your own level.

You can, however, absolutely WAIL on anything below your level.

And be wailed on by higher level things.

That's the whole point of having the level bonus.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Valeros's and Sajan's scrawniness make Amiri less objectionable in hindsight - clearly PF2's art direction has adopted an all is chaos, nothing matters, YOLO approach to this sort of thing.

I think there's something to that. Part of the reaction to Amiri may just have been that she was first. The others make it clear that it was part of an overall art shift, not intended to be a specific change to her.

That said, I don't think it's anything like "all is chaos, nothing matters, YOLO". It's just a shift in art style.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But that flamewar aside, I like this one. The stance is a little odd and I kind of echo the other comments about the color scheme and the shield, but overall I do like it.

It's a lot brighter than the old one, but still seems nicely grungy at the same time. That outfit's definitely seen some hard use. I like the layering on the armor too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
That is exceedingly confusing.

Is it more confusing than creatures that are overwhelmingly of one alignment not being given an alignment in the listing, since they're not all that way. Maybe only having a comment somewhere in the text that mentions they're usually CE.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
i mean, two months is over a month technically speaking; but yeah, i goofed on that.

No worries, I have noticed I said magic missiles dismembering gargoyles "suspend my disbelief" instead of "break my suspension of disbelief"... I wonder how many other mistakes I've made just on these forums...

In other news, paring down the arcane spell list sounds like a great idea, most of all to make it fit the material/mental essences concept better. It's not easy to remove the right spells without touching any of the most iconic wizard tricks and at the same time give all specialists enough options and power, but I trust Mark and his team.

If Seoni's portrayed ability is indeed hypercognition and it's an imperial bloodline spell, that's good. If imperial bloodline sorcerers have a power similar to hypercognition but acting in a different way, that works too. I just hope 2e sorcerers are more powerful than in the playtest, about on par with the other spellcasters using the same lists. It doesn't take a lot to bring arcane and occult sorcerers up to speed with wizards and bards imvho, but with divine and primeval sorcerers - the designers had their work cut out for them, I imagine. It will be interesting to see what they added to bring all sorcerers up to par with the other classes. Crossing fingers.

Yeah, the trick in my book is too boost the non-arcane (and maybe non-occult) sorcerers up significantly without boosting the arcane ones too much.

And your first bit reminded me of: "my disbelief has not been merely suspended, but hung by the neck until dead." :)


Elfteiroh wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Pennate wrote:
I'm a little disappointed by this redesign. Paizo has already filled the design space of "cloaked, staff-wielding Mage" with their Iconic Wizard,
Ezren has a scarf, not a full on cloak.
Quote:
Oracle, Arcanist, and Summoner,
Those haven’t been released for 2e yet so I highly doubt they won’t also get updated art when they do.
Also, just saying that Seoni have always owned a staff. It was just very weirdly drawn.

It was also slung across her back and thus less emphasized in the Iconic portrait.


I agree that the illustration doesn't really fit either the mechanics of magic missile or the description in the story. One of them also appears to have hit the foreground gargoyle on the way to the background target which also isn't how they work.

That said, I like the picture as art. The missiles look cool, the effect around her hand of casting them and the blue glowing trails.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elorebaen wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
So we're missing out on some context for the colors, that makes sense. Are all the iconics being drawn in the same light?
Of course you/we are missing out on context, you/we are not a professional artist with decades of experience ... you/we are probably missing A LOT. ;)

I think that was more, since we're seeing the iconics in isolation, without any environment or visible lights, we can't tell whether they're in a "warm, bright light" or something else.


The background sketch at the start of the Evolution video does have the braids and that seems to have the rest of the details that got changed between the initial 2E sketches and the final version.

Would be nice if they made it into the main image, since that'll be the reference other artists focus on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Cheers. I hadn’t thought of some of those. I totally agree that the whole feel of SF is a little too optimistic, as you put it. Many of the setting assumptions would change.

I suspect you could do a lot of that with just focus on the characters immediate setting. That's what they're going to be paying attention to, after all.

There may be nice places elsewhere, but you're stuck in this hellhole.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Jeff Alvarez wrote:
Game On's back end is also far superior to that of Kickstarters and that was a big part of why we chose their platform. That and we believe that there's room for a more gaming-centric crowdfunding platform for our market. A platform that caters to the gaming audience in ways that KS never will.

That's fine, and I hope it works for you. But from the consumer end, it may be useful for you to know that some people are really, really, really tired of market fragmentation.

The obvious example is streaming video. I've got a Netflix account. That's it. Disney pulls their content, thinking I'm going to subscribe to yet another provider? They lose all income from me. The corporate world has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with personal information, including banking information. The best way for a consumer to protect themselves is to minimize the attack surface. If I have a hundred sites with my payment information, I'm a hundred times more vulnerable than if I only had one such site.

I created a GO account reluctantly, and only because I feel it's important to put my money where my mouth is. I asked for PF1 support, as a reasonable transition product. I got it. To NOT buy that is... self-defeating, misleading to Paizo, and sort of fraudulent. To wait until the product is available in retail doesn't send the up-front message of "I meant what I said", which is important to me. But make no bones: if PF2 had never happened and this was merely a PF1 product, I absolutely, positively would never have backed it on GO, even if it meant paying more via retail.

I'm not unique. Maybe I'm part of a small percentage of consumers, but we're not negligible. I read this sort of discussion other places as well.

I won't be buying Borderlands 3 at release day because it's not available on Steam, my CDN of choice. I am totally aware that there are serious fiscal differences on the table between Steam and Epic as far as Gearbox is concerned,...

While I share your frustrations with streaming video, that's because those are subscription models. To see everything I want to see, I'd have to maintain multiple subscriptions. Market fragmentation there actually costs me more.

This? This is like going to one retail store for a purchase rather than another. Makes no difference to me.

Credit card information is already in enough places. I just can't see one more as being a significant threat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting bit in the talk about his original misunderstanding of the character's background too.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

How does one combine games downloaded from GOG.com that are treated as separate games when downloaded, but are actually just expansions of the same game that would all be combined into one if only you could still friggin' buy them as CDs from stores?!!?

My Pertinent Example: I have Disciples II: Servants of the Dark/Guardians of the Light, and Disciples II: Rise of the Elves, but despite their all being expansions to the same game, they're treated as wholly separate games - so I can't access all the new Quests in the latter when I'm trying to play the former.

How do I put them all into one program?

I'm not familiar with that one, but isn't the usual approach to run the latter and you'll have access to everything from both?

Or is that those are both expansions and whichever you run doesn't get you the other?


Set wrote:
TomParker wrote:

At least two groups are running servers, the Homecoming team and the /coxg/ team. There's some infighting going on, which you can safely ignore and just go play for now. So far, NCSoft has been quiet.

As long as it was under the radar, they could legitimately say they had no idea it was happening with a nod and a wink. Now that it's all blown up and multiple servers are up and running their IP and, most importantly, people keep blabbing about it, I feel like they are going to feel compelled to shut it down to protect their *other* IP from being ripped off shamelessy (using their willingness to turn a blind eye to this situation as legal precedent, since it's incumbent upon them to 'protect' their stuff).

I loved the game, and would love to be part of it again, but it's, IMO, fight club, in that first rule of fight club is...

Who knows. We could get a happy ending and the big company sells the right to use the IP for a dollar to the various entities using it anyway, and then postdates the check and nips any challenges to their other IPs in the bud, but that's not something that usually happens, and a cease-and-desist followed by lawsuit to protect the IP seems far more traditional a response.

I'm a little conflicted on the subject. I loved the game and would love to see it both continue and grow (adding many more powersets and ATs!) for many years. I love superhero stuff in general. But also, theft and piracy are what they are, and whether or not IP law (or company policies or decisions to cancel games) are 'fair' or 'right' or 'just,' they are what they are, and this whole thing is kind of a thinly-veiled rationalization for taking what you want and screw the law. Hardly the stuff of heroes, IMO.

I'm certainly not going to throw stones. I've got my share of books I got used on Amazon for half-price (or less!), essentially cheating the publishers (and authors) out of the money I would have paid for a new copy. But I'm not gonna claim to be a hero, either.

Buying used books isn't in any way cheating any more than buying a used car or any other physical thing is. That's part of the point of physical things. The author (or car company or whatever) got their cut from the original purchase.

Technically, in most the original author gets their cut when the retailer buys the book, not when you buy it in a store. Even more technically, authors mostly get paid an advance and often don't sell through to the point of getting any further royalties, so they're not really getting a cut of individual purchases at all.

And while I agree that the law is clear in cases like this and do expect it to be shut down now, I have few moral qualms about cases like this. No one's actually being hurt directly, since the game is otherwise dead and the pirate servers aren't competing with the company's legitimate ones. No sales are being lost, it's just that something that would otherwise be dead is continuing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:

When I first read about ditching xp I thought: "Outrageous! Never in my life!"

But when I tried going without them, I realized that is doesn't only reduce bookkeeping and the risk of in-party unbalances: the real boon is that the game becomes much less focused on encounters, and much more goal-oriented.

What do PCs want? To get their mission done and to get out alive, possibly with some treasure. Even when they are just exploring and looking for shiny things, they (usually) don't want to hunt down every single dangerous thing they can find in the dungeon.
Having xp, which mostly come from encounters, gives the players a different goal, and that's bad. I had my good share of players who asked: "How much xp is that worth?" about almost every living (and unliving) thing they met. I didn't do that when I was playing, but it was mostly because I already knew how much xp most things were worth, and that subconsciously influenced my decisions! :)

Now, it's like fresh air. My dear xp, I was in love with you, I really was... but I got over you, forever.

Agreed.

You can also take an intermediate step - that might be more appropriate for a sandboxy, player directed game. Just set XP rewards for accomplishing missions or goals, based on the opposition, but not worrying about exactly which encounters they fight and beat along the way. Bypassing encounters doesn't penalize you and stumbling onto extra ones won't benefit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm an old fart too, but I've never cared about "having my levels handed to me by the GM" or "earning my XPs".

We always brought in new characters at the same level (or roughly the same XP back in the AD&D days or some equivalent in other systems). I've been perfectly happy to start games above 1st level if that fit the campaign better.

We were always more about the story and the characters than the levels, even back in the day.

Different strokes. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Weird that they put up the video, but didn't have a blog post. Fell through the cracks? Hopefully we'll still get the Encounter.

I like the art on this one. The clothing changes aren't too drastic, but they do nicely cut back on the cheesecake factor while still keeping the bare arms and legs to show off the tattoos.

The cloak makes a bold color contrast as well, which I like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hobbun wrote:
Jeff Alvarez wrote:
Hobbun wrote:
Count me as someone else who still would like to play this with 1e. I see it has the 1e Bestiary, but what about converting all the information in the actual AP itself? Like what skills to use in which situations, the DCs involved, etc?
Hey Hobbun, estimating what's going to be in the final 1E and 5E bestaries is tough business right now as we've just barely started on these projects so far. I'm sure as we work through the content, there will be plenty of updates to the campaign that will speak to topics like these.

Thanks for the response, Jeff. I understand it is early on right now with the project, but any idea on how the update with the content (1e skills, DCs, etc) would most likely be distributed? Maybe a free PDF download?

And I know it’s been stated this information is in the original PDF of Kingmaker, but I don’t have the AP (in softcover or PDF) and really don’t want to have to purchase Kingmaker twice. Also, would like to see whatever brand new content is in the AP to be updated as well (besides what is given in the Bestiary).

Would it be reasonable to distribute the original PDFs with the new version?

It's essentially cost-free and I can't imagine there'd be a lot of lost sales - not many people are going to be interested in buying the old version and the new one.

Doesn't get you updated new content, but it's a big part of what you'd want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Hmm wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks your Shadowrun campaign should use the entire Pact World setting as its backdrop? There are so many places to go and explore the seamy underside of the Pact.
I kind of want them to be dirt poor and not have easy access to a ship. Being under the heel of a local crime boss isn’t such an oppressive situation if it’s easy to up and leave.

Aballon.

All despotic drow family megacorps, mostly dealing military black market. It's not exactly like any particular part of Shadowrun, but it doesn't get any more cyberpunk than having to buy air to breathe.


Especially the Veskarium, since they're not actually part of the Pact Worlds, but fought them to a standstill for centuries (off and on) before allying in the face of the Swarm.


Or just keep talking about it here. We're all smart enough to figure it out.


pauljathome wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
So when is it too late not to exceed the +1.5°C limit?

When we've exceeded the +1.5°C limit.

Until then it is, at least theoretically, not too late.

That is complete nonsense and you know it.

Momentum exists. In climate change as in other things.

Thus "theoretically".

Remember, he's arguing with someone who routinely conflates "We're on track for enough emissions to hit a certain limit and I don't think we'll change" with "We already have enough emissions to hit that level."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Which is the problem many of us have with Amiri's art, since there's no explicit superpower aspect to an 18 strength in Pathfinder, there should be some visible basis for it in natural biology.

As I mentioned in another thread, there actually is an explicit superpower aspect to Amiri's Strength score. There always has been to some degree (what with Rage and all), but it's gotten much more explicit in PF2.

Giant Totem specifically allows the wielding of oversized weapons, and does so irrespective of stats. It allows a Str 10 Halfling to wield a Large Greatsword (ie: a sword bigger than Amiri's). It allows them to wield a Large sized Elven Curveblade (ie: a sword of similar size) well.

That's a Strength-related superpower. Saying that, in Amiri's case, it also increases her actual Strength score is not at all a stretch.

Differently focused response here, since I had more time to think:

Sure, it's possible for strength to be a superpower and thus not reflected in the character design, but I'm pretty sure that's not the artist's intent, nor do I think it's what most of those that like the artwork actually think.

There have been a number of posts that seemed to fit the "She looks weak, but that's intentional and it makes sense" category, but I don't think any of them stuck with that when asked explicitly, so it seemed to me more of an "I think she looks strong enough, but if you think she looks weak that should be fine because it could be superpowers."
Which as far as I'm concerned isn't necessary. I think she looks weak. I think she was intended to look strong. Others think she does. The whole "It would be okay if she looked weak which she doesn't because magic" argument doesn't seem to make anyone happy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I'm a little disappointed to hear Battle Medic still bolsters your target for the day. I liked the idea of Battle Medic just letting you Treat Wounds faster. Now I'll have to continue with my idea that Battle Medic is hitting someone with a shot of adrenaline that would make their heart explode if they took it more than once a day.

I like to think of it like that: Battle Medic is you trying to bandage up some wounds very quickly in the middle of a clutch situation. It definitely helps, but there's only so much you can do this way. If you want to further help that person recover, you actually need to take the time to examine wounds and treat them more carefully. It makes sense to me.

(Also from a balance perspective Battle Medic just letting you treat wounds 100 times faster with no drawbacks or extra restrictions would probably be too much for a level 1 Skill Feat.)

OTOH, it doesn't really make sense that once you've bandaged up the wound they took to their left arm in the first fight, you won't be able to do anything about the wound to the leg they got in the second fight.

But hey, it's an abstraction for balance reasons. I'm happy with it.


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff had me pegged three years ago (at least!, though I think his opinion of me could use some improvement in certain areas), and it would be good for your intellectual development to emulate his style. Of course this advice is no more than ####### into the wind.

Now I wonder what I said 3 years ago.

Was that when I decided it wasn't worth responding to you seriously?


Quark Blast wrote:

HOBBY GAME SALES TOTAL $1.5 BILLION IN 2018

Collectible Games Decline, Especially at Mass, Pulls Down Category

ICV2 wrote:
Roleplaying Games, the smallest category, had the biggest move, up 18% from $55 million in 2017 to $65 million in 2018.
How much of that increase was at WotC? How much was MtG vs 5E?

I'd guess most of it was at WotC, since they've got the lion's share of the market.

And all of it 5E, since that was in the Roleplaying games category, not the card game category.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

It took all of them to carry Meri? I hope this means they reworked Bulk rules...

More seriously, kickass work Sutter. I think this is my favourite yet.

"Merisiel's unconscious body bobbed as if floating on a sea of devils."

I choose to believe they were crowd-surfing her like at a concert.


The Artificer wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
dot.
what In the Nine Hells does this mean?

Making a comment so you can find the thread later.

Threads you've posted in show up on the forum main page followed by a dot.


Fumarole wrote:
Sometimes a story is just a story, folks.

Sometimes.

I wouldn't hold even most PF fiction to this standard, but these are explicitly being written partly to highlight certain rules and abilities, so they really should match the actual rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Should be clearer, actual threats that can still be dispatched quickly.

Actual threats in what sense? The Bearded Devils in that story are only a threat because Merisiel is unconscious (and anybody is a threat then), and to a lesser extent because Seelah is hurt, and because of their huge numbers. My general impression was that, after a hard fought battle with some greater Devil (plus Bearded Devil minions), Merisiel is unconscious and Seelah on her last legs and the tension is her saving Merisiel when one lucky hit could take her down.

Yeah, they probably only hit Seelah on a 19 or 20, but if she's one hit from going down and still suffering bleed damage from an earlier hit or two...

One lucky hit or something nastier reinforcing them.

Or just them delaying her long enough for the bearers getting away with Merisiel. Or killing her as one attempts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

One thing I was pondering lately - I watch Game of Thrones (am quite the fan, actually) and you see all manners of people brandishing swords and other melee weapons on the show. Arya, with Needle, would probably be some kind of rogue or other Dex martial if translated to PF, but Jon Snow for instance is a very good fighter, and you wouldn't give him Str 18 if you just judged him on his physique. Same for Ser Jorah Mormont or Beric Dondarion. They do need it in PF, but they're not the typical big muscular people you'd associate with it. Ned Stark was another fighter who didn't look super strong, but if statted out would just need a top Str, just to be decently optimized. Podrick has become a very good fighter too. Jaime Lannister doesn't fight very well since losing a hand, but before then he was one of the best in Westeros, and he's another fit but not powerful fighter if you look at him.

Now, the Hound, Brienne, Tormund Giantsbane - they all look the part of the big burly fighter, sure. But that's an advantage they have over other swordsfolk, not their defining trait (now, the Mountain was probably more in the 20s, and right now... who knows. Probably even more).

Essentially, if you wanna depict a range of physiques for your martial types, even setting apart the lightly armored finess types for the rogue class, you just can't portray them all with obvious max Strength, they would all look the same and it wouldn't even be very realistic.

So, Amiri might be too skinny, sure (although that seems to be part of the art style too if you look at Seelah's waist) - but that's just the way you draw a fighter without letting yourself be shackled by the numbers on the character sheet. Otherwise all fighters and champions would have very similar, very powerful physiques... which just doesn't look like most warriors from fiction (shrug).

That's a perfectly reasonable approach if you think she doesn't look quite up to 18.

If someone thinks, as Garretmander said, she looks around 10, it doesn't even make any sense.

We're all reading different things into the art. We're not starting from the same place when we're talking about this. There's really nothing more to say here than "Nah, she looks strong enough to me."


I don't think the relationship stuff is really tied to the myths. The different variations in D&D are just attempts to reconcile various different mythological traditions of sphinxes, which weren't intended to interact with each other.

The interrelations between each kind seemed to have been invented out of whole cloth for D&D.

This ties into the Male versions of archetypically female monsters thread, since it's all based on crappy gender stereotypes.

1 to 50 of 28,165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>