WOOHOO!!! At last! Now to the reading...
:D
Yoink!
Thanks guys! Didn't think this would be out before Gencon. Good to have something to tide me over until the actual adventure begins! Also, is the purple-haired lady on the cover the same one on the 1st adventure's cover?
She is indeed.
In fact, all three of those NPCs will be appearing in the first adventure.
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!
I believe the page numbers referenced in the skills section on page 10-11 are from the Technology Guide book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I could shapeshift, I would want to look like that android lady forever.
This is another well done Player's Guide. I feel you've truly found the sweet spot in providing just enough information to be informative and enticing, without entering spoiler territory. Commends!
Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks guys! Didn't think this would be out before Gencon. Good to have something to tide me over until the actual adventure begins! Also, is the purple-haired lady on the cover the same one on the 1st adventure's cover?
I was worried that it wouldn't be out as early as it is, but things turned out for the best. Go Team AP!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's happening!
Remember that time Iron Gods was announced right before April 1st? Guess it wasn't a joke!
|
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It should also be noted that the campaign traits in the Player's Guide are slightly different than the ones presented in People of the River. The mechanics are the same for both, but with more space to play around with in the Player's Guide than People of the River, James provided a lot more flavor to help tie them closer to the story.
I noticed an error in the Player's Guide. On pg. 4, it lists the Galvanic Saboteur as a Rogue Archetype. It's actually a Ranger Archetype.
I was hoping for some favored class bonuses for the Android race.
Otherwise, I am very excited for this AP.
|
Developer
|
I noticed an error in the Player's Guide. On pg. 4, it lists the Galvanic Saboteur as a Rogue Archetype. It's actually a Ranger Archetype.
Thanks, Irnk. Evidence that I was pushing too fast. :)
I was hoping for some favored class bonuses for the Android race.
Player's Guides aren't really the best place for those kinds of new mechanics, and sadly People of the Stars just doesn't have enough space for that either. Especially as we add more classes to the game, the space needed for racial favored class bonuses grows and grows.
Glad you're excited for the Adventure Path!
Sounds like an interesting idea for a Blog Post, that Android Favored Class Bonus.
The images, including the cover, look really dark in my downloaded version. The cover on the product page looks much better.
Were the PDF images saved as CMYK instead of RGB?
I do not have this issue with my download.
The images, including the cover, look really dark in my downloaded version. The cover on the product page looks much better.
Were the PDF images saved as CMYK instead of RGB?
I've noted the same thing.
Usually, with many Paizo PDFs, they look too dark when I use Adobe Reader on Linux, or Goodreader on my iPad, but they look nice with Poppler or MuPDF on Linux, or PDF Expert on iPad.
With this PDF, however, it's also dark in PDF Expert.
Looks like something went awry with the colors on export. I'll be pushing a corrected version later today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly an intriguing look into the Iron Gods AP, now my anticipation for the actual first adventure is even higher!
...I also really want to know who that android is on the front of it! She's gorgeous!
...I also really want to know who that android is on the front of it! She's gorgeous!
Wish granted...
It's happening!
Remember that time Iron Gods was announced right before April 1st? Guess it wasn't a joke!
I guess technically August is right before April 1st, since that was when this was announced. :D
...is Meyanda's cape a hex battlemat? :D
Question regarding Androids in general. While they are described as, for the most part, passing for human; does this mean they get any bonuses to Disguise checks to pass as human, or just that they don't take the 'other race' penalty to Disguise checks?
*Dies* It's out! Now I just wish I could get a group together to play it... :(
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question regarding Androids in general. While they are described as, for the most part, passing for human; does this mean they get any bonuses to Disguise checks to pass as human, or just that they don't take the 'other race' penalty to Disguise checks?
They do not. They suffer the standard penalty for disguising as another race. They look like humans, but they have trouble acting like them. Kind of an uncanny valley thing.
Question regarding Androids in general. While they are described as, for the most part, passing for human; does this mean they get any bonuses to Disguise checks to pass as human, or just that they don't take the 'other race' penalty to Disguise checks?They do not. They suffer the standard penalty for disguising as another race. They look like humans, but they have trouble acting like them. Kind of an uncanny valley thing.
So then they don't actually have the circuitry unless it's 'active' when they are using their nanite surge or such, or is that part of what requires an actual Disguise check, to hide the 'tattoos'?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So then they don't actually have the circuitry unless it's 'active' when they are using their nanite surge or such, or is that part of what requires an actual Disguise check, to hide the 'tattoos'?Question regarding Androids in general. While they are described as, for the most part, passing for human; does this mean they get any bonuses to Disguise checks to pass as human, or just that they don't take the 'other race' penalty to Disguise checks?They do not. They suffer the standard penalty for disguising as another race. They look like humans, but they have trouble acting like them. Kind of an uncanny valley thing.
The tattoos are only active when they're naniting, but their flesh and bodies and eyes and blood are all different two. There's lots of subtle differences.
The tattoos are only active when they're naniting, but their flesh and bodies and eyes and blood are all different two. There's lots of subtle differences.So then they don't actually have the circuitry unless it's 'active' when they are using their nanite surge or such, or is that part of what requires an actual Disguise check, to hide the 'tattoos'?Question regarding Androids in general. While they are described as, for the most part, passing for human; does this mean they get any bonuses to Disguise checks to pass as human, or just that they don't take the 'other race' penalty to Disguise checks?They do not. They suffer the standard penalty for disguising as another race. They look like humans, but they have trouble acting like them. Kind of an uncanny valley thing.
Cool! Can't wait to get the Iron Gods AP, I had to quit subbing for awhile but Iron Gods I had to resub for... Numeria and Alkenstar are my two biggest loves in Golarion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The tattoos are only active when they're naniting
So then they don't actually have the circuitry unless it's 'active' when they are using their nanite surge or such, or is that part of what requires an actual Disguise check, to hide the 'tattoos'?
I think there's some confusion about what "active" means. The initial question seems to equate "active" with "visible", so that androids do not normally have visible circuitry, but when they use their nanite surge, the circuitry becomes visible. James' comment seems to agree that there's a change when the nanite surge is used, but I'm not sure he means the same thing with "active" as the original poster.
My impression was that the androids always have visible circuitry, but that it glows when they use their nanite surge. This from the "Ecology of the Android":
Each android bears a set of unique markings that resemble tattoos but are in fact a kind of biological circuitry. When androids use their nanite surge ability, these markings glow
So instead of
invisible>visible
the circuitry goes
visible>glowing
when nanite surge is used.
The tattoos are only active when they're naniting
So then they don't actually have the circuitry unless it's 'active' when they are using their nanite surge or such, or is that part of what requires an actual Disguise check, to hide the 'tattoos'?I think there's some confusion about what "active" means. The initial question seems to equate "active" with "visible", so that androids do not normally have visible circuitry, but when they use their nanite surge, the circuitry becomes visible. James' comment seems to agree that there's a change when the nanite surge is used, but I'm not sure he means the same thing with "active" as the original poster.
My impression was that the androids always have visible circuitry, but that it glows when they use their nanite surge. This from the "Ecology of the Android":
Each android bears a set of unique markings that resemble tattoos but are in fact a kind of biological circuitry. When androids use their nanite surge ability, these markings glowSo instead of
invisible>visible
the circuitry goes
visible>glowing
when nanite surge is used.
Ahhh, yeah that's what I meant... so it's obvious that they have these "tattoos" so at the very least even if you think they are human, you'll be like "whoa, strange tattoos, bro"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool! Can't wait to get the Iron Gods AP, I had to quit subbing for awhile but Iron Gods I had to resub for... Numeria and Alkenstar are my two biggest loves in Golarion.
Similar for me. I stoped my subscription for some time, but Iron Gods has brought me back. Numeria is among my favorite areas and I love science and sorcery.
I noticed in the Player's Guide that androids are referred to as her which is very strange shouldn't they be referred to as it?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed in the Player's Guide that androids are referred to as her which is very strange shouldn't they be referred to as it?
Uh...androids have sexes. They are anatomically correct and can have sex. They might not be fertile...but they have all other necessary prerequisites of having a sex. Why would you refer to them as 'it'?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed in the Player's Guide that androids are referred to as her which is very strange shouldn't they be referred to as it?Uh...androids have sexes. They are anatomically correct and can have sex. They might not be fertile...but they have all other necessary prerequisites of having a sex. Why would you refer to them as 'it'?
I imagine a lot of android characters would take offense to "it".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine a lot of android characters would take offense to "it".
This is also true, and I'd imagine they would. But while calling them 'it' would still be problematic, it would at least make some sort of sense if they had no sexual characteristics. They have such characteristics...so it couldn't possibly make less sense.
I would disagree, I would say androids aren't human and they aren't living beings which means to me that they should be "it" not her nor him...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would disagree, I would say androids aren't human and they aren't living beings which means to me that they should be "it" not her nor him...
Actually they are living beings, and they have a soul. In game terms, they are humanoids with the android subtype, and thus affected by anything that targets living creatures. They do, however, have the Constructed extraordinary ability, similar to inevitables, so they are also target by effects that constructs. The fact that they have souls and outward sexes implies that they also have gender, and as such should not be referred to as "it" unless you have the intention of insulting them.