Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it the norm for half-orcs to be discriminated against wherever they go? Like, if you stopped at a small town or village, could you expect an angry mob or just a slightly cooler reception, or for there to be no difference at all? What about half-elves? I ask this mostly because the half-orc and half-elf entries still kind of retain a tone of possible discriminations vs the character that I feel is kind of outdated after decades worth of having these guys as PC races.
One thing I do want to add to this question (couldn't adjust the previous post) is that discrimination is absolutely present in the world... but my preference is that this is something practiced by enemies or foes that the PCs can then fight against or otherwise fix. Having a PC in a group who discriminates is fine if EVERY player/GM in the group is fine with it, and even then I'd strongly suggest not playing out such games in public areas where your roleplay can be easily mistaken for actual racism/homophobia/transphobia/misogyny/misandry/agism/whatever. And in org play games you should just flat out never pursue this sort of play. It's simply inappropriate, because it makes the game no longer a safe place for everyone to play. Even if it's included in a game by a GM and meant to be something the group of PCs fight against, it can be tricky and awkward.
Player consent is key if you want to tell stories about fighting discrimination. The more it's obvious that the discriminators are the bad guys and are meant to be the ones the PCs are to fight or oppose, the less tricky and fraught it gets, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't make sure all your players consent to that sort of content in your game.
Very little can kill a campaign faster than a GM running a story that distresses a player. Related: That's also how you drive players from the hobby entirely, and/or lose friends. Don't do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it the norm for half-orcs to be discriminated against wherever they go? Like, if you stopped at a small town or village, could you expect an angry mob or just a slightly cooler reception, or for there to be no difference at all? What about half-elves? I ask this mostly because the half-orc and half-elf entries still kind of retain a tone of possible discriminations vs the character that I feel is kind of outdated after decades worth of having these guys as PC races.One thing I do want to add to this question (couldn't adjust the previous post) is that discrimination is absolutely present in the world... but my preference is that this is something practiced by enemies or foes that the PCs can then fight against or otherwise fix. Having a PC in a group who discriminates is fine if EVERY player/GM in the group is fine with it, and even then I'd strongly suggest not playing out such games in public areas where your roleplay can be easily mistaken for actual racism/homophobia/transphobia/misogyny/misandry/agism/whatever. And in org play games you should just flat out never pursue this sort of play. It's simply inappropriate, because it makes the game no longer a safe place for everyone to play. Even if it's included in a game by a GM and meant to be something the group of PCs fight against, it can be tricky and awkward.
Player consent is key if you want to tell stories about fighting discrimination. The more it's obvious that the discriminators are the bad guys and are meant to be the ones the PCs are to fight or oppose, the less tricky and fraught it gets, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't make sure all your players consent to that sort of content in your game.
Very little can kill a campaign faster than a GM running a story that distresses a player. Related: That's also how you drive players from the hobby entirely, and/or lose friends. Don't do it.
[Same poster, but different account due to maintenance issues]
My main problem was how even the 2e entry for half orcs stressed that "half-orcs are typically not welcome in human communities."
I can forgive 1e for almost being a copy-paste of DnD 3.5, but I look on what 5e has now down for half-orc (much more subtle, implicit bias, it's not gone but it's better/more relatable rather than a blanket "humans normally don't like you.") Heck, even in Starfinder the half-orc entry states that half orcs are discriminated against in a universe of literally millions of races!
Why has Paizo chosen to keep this message of overt racism in the "half-race" entries? Even if (especially if) GMs are not meant to display it, I fear that a new GM/player could read the entry and automatically think "oh that's the official way to play them so I 'll play like it I guess!"
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main problem was how even the 2e entry for half orcs stressed that "half-orcs are typically not welcome in human communities."
I can forgive 1e for almost being a copy-paste of DnD 3.5, but I look on what 5e has now down for half-orc (much more subtle, implicit bias, it's not gone but it's better/more relatable rather than a blanket "humans normally don't like you.") Heck, even in Starfinder the half-orc entry states that half orcs are discriminated against in a universe of literally millions of races!
Why has Paizo chosen to keep this message of overt racism in the "half-race" entries? Even if (especially if) GMs are not meant to display it, I fear that a new GM/player could read the entry and automatically think "oh that's the official way to play them so I 'll play like it I guess!"
That's an example of how decades of half-orcs being set up as hated by everyone continues to influence and color the writing of modern authors, developers, and editors. We're trying to be better, but it's obviously something we're still working on.
That said, SOME monsters in the game are meant to remain monsters; creatures that very much earn the "not welcome in human communities". Serpentfolk come to mind, which is why we're not doing a PC ancestry for them. Ogres are another good example, as are bugbears.
Orcs are not in that category. While we don't want to turn orcs and half-orcs into lawful good creatures across the board, we do want to present them as actual characters and not "kill them and take their stuff monsters."
All THAT said, there are ABSOLUTELY parts of the world where half-orcs (or any other ancestry) are not welcome, because racisim, fear, discrimination, etc. is a part of Golarion. It's not a part we encourage PCs to take part in, but a part that we present in the world because that's, unfortunately, how a not-insignificant part of society works.
A better way for us to have worded the bit you mention in your quote would have been "In some communities, half-orcs are not welcome as a result of discrimination or fear." The word "typically" is meant to imply that it's not the case in every community, but it also makes it seem like the norm.
Again: We're still working on making it better. It's not a case of one author or one content creator changing their habits, it's a case of dozens of them. And in the case of authors, those dozens constantly change so lessons learned by author #1 aren't learned by author #5. Standardizing that all and making it better is the job of our developers and editors, but even then things slip through, as you've seen.
On a different point, in the 1e CRB, I noticed that WBL for NPCs is overall less than WBL for NPCs in 3.5, sometimes by a not insignificant amount compared to the last.
Can you explain why this change was made? AFAIK no magic item prices were changed. This is mostly an outshoot of me wondering why all CRs for classed NPCs are lesser by 1.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a different point, in the 1e CRB, I noticed that WBL for NPCs is overall less than WBL for NPCs in 3.5, sometimes by a not insignificant amount compared to the last.
Can you explain why this change was made? AFAIK no magic item prices were changed. This is mostly an outshoot of me wondering why all CRs for classed NPCs are lesser by 1.
That change was made by the design team over ten years ago, so I don't really have any insights into why it was changed.
I do know that NPC gear was awful to do in 1st edition Pathfinder, because in order to make an NPC function as a monster of the CR they were at, the higher level the NPC got, the more you had to clog their wealth by level totals with stat boosting items, rings of protection, cloaks of resistance, and other "Christmas Tree" items just so that their attacks, saves, hit points, and AC would be even close to what a monster of their CR should have in order to actually do its job at challenging the PCs. And that meant, of course, that defeating NPCs got the PCs an increasing huge stack of these repetitive items. This problem is one of the main reasons 2nd edition made the change to how monsters/NPCs are built.
Also, how would you reconcile Starfinder futuristic weapon scaling item levels with Pathfinder 1e weapon mechanics? If this is not the place to ask, please direct me to the right area.
On a different point, in the 1e CRB, I noticed that WBL for NPCs is overall less than WBL for NPCs in 3.5, sometimes by a not insignificant amount compared to the last.
Can you explain why this change was made? AFAIK no magic item prices were changed. This is mostly an outshoot of me wondering why all CRs for classed NPCs are lesser by 1.
That change was made by the design team over ten years ago, so I don't really have any insights into why it was changed.
I do know that NPC gear was awful to do in 1st edition Pathfinder, because in order to make an NPC function as a monster of the CR they were at, the higher level the NPC got, the more you had to clog their wealth by level totals with stat boosting items, rings of protection, cloaks of resistance, and other "Christmas Tree" items just so that their attacks, saves, hit points, and AC would be even close to what a monster of their CR should have in order to actually do its job at challenging the PCs. And that meant, of course, that defeating NPCs got the PCs an increasing huge stack of these repetitive items. This problem is one of the main reasons 2nd edition made the change to how monsters/NPCs are built.
So how would you "fix" this in 1e or SF? I know for a fact that this problem has not been "fixed" in either edition, SF even incentivizes this kind of hoarding because you can't really sell anything anymore.
|
Creative Director
|
Also, how would you reconcile Starfinder futuristic weapon scaling item levels with Pathfinder 1e weapon mechanics? If this is not the place to ask, please direct me to the right area.
They are different games, so in order to move one to the other, you have to re-design the item to fit the new game's rules.
See the Technology Guide for how I statted up technological items for Pathfinder; note that this book and these items served as the baseline for Starfinder's gear (and indeed it's popularity helped us to make the decision to go forward with Starfinder in the first place).
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how would you "fix" this in 1e or SF? I know for a fact that this problem has not been "fixed" in either edition, SF even incentivizes this kind of hoarding because you can't really sell anything anymore.
By making a 2nd edition to the game that creates an entirely different mechanic for how NPCs are built and how the game's economy works and how magic items are created.
Also, how would you reconcile Starfinder futuristic weapon scaling item levels with Pathfinder 1e weapon mechanics? If this is not the place to ask, please direct me to the right area.They are different games, so in order to move one to the other, you have to re-design the item to fit the new game's rules.
See the Technology Guide for how I statted up technological items for Pathfinder; note that this book and these items served as the baseline for Starfinder's gear (and indeed it's popularity helped us to make the decision to go forward with Starfinder in the first place).
The problem is with the 5-6 different weapon variations for each weapon that are identical except for damage and that scale to 10d12/20d6. Or the armors that give +50 to AC because character to hit scales with level for everyone. Or how crafting and DCs are based directly on item level.
Essentially, how can I reconcile these disparate damages/statistics with P1E's hp/damage economy? Once again, if you are not involved enough to answer, could you please direct me to a place where these questions would better be answered?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, how would you reconcile Starfinder futuristic weapon scaling item levels with Pathfinder 1e weapon mechanics? If this is not the place to ask, please direct me to the right area.They are different games, so in order to move one to the other, you have to re-design the item to fit the new game's rules.
See the Technology Guide for how I statted up technological items for Pathfinder; note that this book and these items served as the baseline for Starfinder's gear (and indeed it's popularity helped us to make the decision to go forward with Starfinder in the first place).
The problem is with the 5-6 different weapon variations for each weapon that are identical except for damage and that scale to 10d12/20d6. Or the armors that give +50 to AC because character to hit scales with level for everyone. Or how crafting and DCs are based directly on item level.
Essentially, how can I reconcile these disparate damages/statistics with P1E's hp/damage economy? Once again, if you are not involved enough to answer, could you please direct me to a place where these questions would better be answered?
Again, they are different games. They have different rules. You have to re-design the weapon if you move it from one game to the other. You can't just swap things between the games, because the underlying rules are simply different. If they had the same rules, then Starfinder wouldn't be it's own game. It'd be a campaign setting for Pathfinder.
Again, they are different games. They have different rules. You have to re-design the weapon if you move it from one game to the other. You can't just swap things between the games, because the underlying rules are simply different. If they had the same rules, then Starfinder wouldn't be it's own game. It'd be a campaign setting for Pathfinder.Also, how would you reconcile Starfinder futuristic weapon scaling item levels with Pathfinder 1e weapon mechanics? If this is not the place to ask, please direct me to the right area.They are different games, so in order to move one to the other, you have to re-design the item to fit the new game's rules.
See the Technology Guide for how I statted up technological items for Pathfinder; note that this book and these items served as the baseline for Starfinder's gear (and indeed it's popularity helped us to make the decision to go forward with Starfinder in the first place).
The problem is with the 5-6 different weapon variations for each weapon that are identical except for damage and that scale to 10d12/20d6. Or the armors that give +50 to AC because character to hit scales with level for everyone. Or how crafting and DCs are based directly on item level.
Essentially, how can I reconcile these disparate damages/statistics with P1E's hp/damage economy? Once again, if you are not involved enough to answer, could you please direct me to a place where these questions would better be answered?
Ok. How about a more concrete question: what equivalent would a zenith laser rifle have in Pathfinder? How could I "fix" it to both keep the flavor yet reconcile its mechanics with Pathfinder?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. How about a more concrete question: what equivalent would a zenith laser rifle have in Pathfinder? How could I "fix" it to both keep the flavor yet reconcile its mechanics with Pathfinder?
By giving a regular laser rifle to a 20th level character whose class and feats bolster that laser rifle, and by making that laser rifle a +5 weapon with a few additional things added on. Maybe flaming or the like.
In Starfinder, the 20th level version of a laser rifle is the zenith laser rifle. That's what a 20th level laser rifle using character would want.
In Pathfinder, a 20th level character would just have a laser rifle, but it would be one that's been increased in power to be the equivalent to something a 20th level character would want to use or have access to. A glance at the 1st edition guidelines for PC wealth by level (page 399 of the Core Rulebook) indicates that a 20th level PC should have 880,000 gp in gear. Looking over to the costs for magic weapons, a weapon with a +10 bonus is worth 200,000 gp. The baseline laser rifle in the technology guide with no additional magic item improvements is worth 20,000 gp, so a +10 equivalent one would be a mere 220,000 gp—about 1/4 of a 20th level character's gear, so well within their pricing. Therefore, I'd build up that powerful laser rifle as apprpriate, keeping in mind that +5 is the highest weapon bonus you can do. I'd likely go with it being a +5 flaming burst speed laser rifle but simply change its name to "zenith laser rifle."
Yes, the Pathfinder one does less damage on a hit and does other things than does the Starfinder version, but that's a result of different rules and different assumptions to the baseline.
(NOTE While I built this Pathfinder version of a zenith rifle by giving it magic item abilities and enhancements, you can just say they are technological additions and be done with it, since the technological items in the Technology Guide were themselves priced out as if they were magic items.)
Is the Abomination Vaults AP a throwback to classic "1st Edition AD&D"?
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the Abomination Vaults AP a throwback to classic "1st Edition AD&D"?
Nope.
It's certainly a dungeon-heavy adventure, and the bulk of it is spent in those dungeon rooms, but unlike the classic 1st-edition AD&D dungeons, I and my fellow authors took a lot of pains to ensure that every encounter area has something interesting (no "this room is empty") and that there's a lot of story and NPCs to interact with.
Instead of calling it a "throwback" I'd maybe call it an "evolution."
|
So I recently learned that all asuras besides cr 2 and 20 ones have legend associated with their origin. And I just read this one
"Nikaramsa: Divine mistakes can kill not just the faithful but also their critics. One such heretical cult transformed into the first nikaramsa (Pathfinder RPG Book of the Damned 242) when the wrath of its patron deity destroyed both a holy city and the cult itself. Nikaramsas thrive on the self-righteousness and divine gullibility of priests, perverting their faiths and subverting their divine powers. However, of the asuras who seek redemption, nikaramsas are among the most common, perhaps as a result of their ability to see the many sides of any situation and exploit the hypocrisy of any dogma—even that of the asuras themselves."
...Is implication there that nikaramsa were created accidentally by Sarenrae?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I recently learned that all asuras besides cr 2 and 20 ones have legend associated with their origin. And I just read this one
"Nikaramsa: Divine mistakes can kill not just the faithful but also their critics. One such heretical cult transformed into the first nikaramsa (Pathfinder RPG Book of the Damned 242) when the wrath of its patron deity destroyed both a holy city and the cult itself. Nikaramsas thrive on the self-righteousness and divine gullibility of priests, perverting their faiths and subverting their divine powers. However, of the asuras who seek redemption, nikaramsas are among the most common, perhaps as a result of their ability to see the many sides of any situation and exploit the hypocrisy of any dogma—even that of the asuras themselves."
...Is implication there that nikaramsa were created accidentally by Sarenrae?
Probably. Especially due to the fact that redemption is more common among them. I wasn't involved in the creation of that flavor text, but it certainly would match, and it's a reason why I like that in 2nd edition we don't have to be all coy with Golarion proper nouns in rulebooks, so we don't have to be all vague like that.
|
|
Probably. Especially due to the fact that redemption is more common among them. I wasn't involved in the creation of that flavor text, but it certainly would match, and it's a reason why I like that in 2nd edition we don't have to be all coy with Golarion proper nouns in rulebooks, so we don't have to be all vague like that.So I recently learned that all asuras besides cr 2 and 20 ones have legend associated with their origin. And I just read this one
"Nikaramsa: Divine mistakes can kill not just the faithful but also their critics. One such heretical cult transformed into the first nikaramsa (Pathfinder RPG Book of the Damned 242) when the wrath of its patron deity destroyed both a holy city and the cult itself. Nikaramsas thrive on the self-righteousness and divine gullibility of priests, perverting their faiths and subverting their divine powers. However, of the asuras who seek redemption, nikaramsas are among the most common, perhaps as a result of their ability to see the many sides of any situation and exploit the hypocrisy of any dogma—even that of the asuras themselves."
...Is implication there that nikaramsa were created accidentally by Sarenrae?
That was from Ecology of the Asura article from Temple of Peacock Spirit(since book of damned didn't give those asura backstory), but it clearly follows format of asura origin legends from Bestiary 3 asura entries... Which obviously were setting generic. It does work as stylistic choice to keep them vague though, but yeah I assume main reason why asura legends(for the two new ones in same ap book's bestiary as well) are vague is because they are trying to be consistent with bestiary 3's entries because of how familiar this one sounded and I don't see reason to be coy with it.
But yeah, I have actually second asura I have suspect for(rest of them are much hard to tell if they refer to any known deity) I'd like to ask about:
"Upasundas, also called beatific ones, are asuras who devote themselves to martial meditations and physical perfection. Upasundas seek monklike poise and skill, and through it, the ability to deal flawless destruction wherever they go. Their nickname suggests purity, and indeed, each beatific one is an expression of asura purity through devotion to the ideal of annihilation. It is believed that the first upasundas were created from the jealous followers of a man who achieved divinity through his own force of will. Those of his followers who felt abandoned when this new deity ascended to the Great Beyond sought other ways to achieve immortality, and fell pray to one of the asura ranas, who granted them their desire by transforming them into beatific ones."
So upsasunda's focus on self perfection and "man who achieved divinity through is own force of will" sounds like Irori. Though I actually wonder if mistake was "not teaching his students better" or was the mistake "by" the students?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably. Especially due to the fact that redemption is more common among them. I wasn't involved in the creation of that flavor text, but it certainly would match, and it's a reason why I like that in 2nd edition we don't have to be all coy with Golarion proper nouns in rulebooks, so we don't have to be all vague like that.So I recently learned that all asuras besides cr 2 and 20 ones have legend associated with their origin. And I just read this one
"Nikaramsa: Divine mistakes can kill not just the faithful but also their critics. One such heretical cult transformed into the first nikaramsa (Pathfinder RPG Book of the Damned 242) when the wrath of its patron deity destroyed both a holy city and the cult itself. Nikaramsas thrive on the self-righteousness and divine gullibility of priests, perverting their faiths and subverting their divine powers. However, of the asuras who seek redemption, nikaramsas are among the most common, perhaps as a result of their ability to see the many sides of any situation and exploit the hypocrisy of any dogma—even that of the asuras themselves."
...Is implication there that nikaramsa were created accidentally by Sarenrae?
That was from Ecology of the Asura article from Temple of Peacock Spirit(since book of damned didn't give those asura backstory), but it clearly follows format of asura origin legends from Bestiary 3 asura entries... Which obviously were setting generic. It does work as stylistic choice to keep them vague though, but yeah I assume main reason why asura legends(for the two new ones in same ap book's bestiary as well) are vague is because they are trying to be consistent with bestiary 3's entries because of how familiar this one sounded and I don't see reason to be coy with it.
But yeah, I have actually second asura I have suspect for(rest of them are much hard to tell if they refer to any known deity) I'd like to ask about:
"Upasundas, also called beatific ones, are asuras who...
Ah; since it was in an Adventure Path volume, then we should have been more specific. I didn't develop that part of the volume, though, so I don't have much more to say about that topic. It looks like the author and developer chose to be deliberately coy/subtle in a lot of those areas to allow the GM to make decisions for their own game, so I'm not going to step in and give answers for them here.
EDIT: I'm keeping the quote truncated so folks can see what happens when a reply gets too long. Please try to keep your questions short and to the point. If you find that you need to quote sections of text in a book, just cite a page number. I've got access to all our PDFs after all! :)
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, let me try it again: Bestiary 3 page 27
So as I said, setting generic background seems to be pretty clearly referring to Irori, but what I'm actually curious about is whether you would say that mistake that created this asura was made by the deity or by his followers?
New types of asuras tend to rise from divine mistakes, not mortal mistakes. If they rose from mortal mistakes, they'd be a LOT more common and widespread.
Once an asura type is "created" by a mistake, then that type of asura is further created in the same way as other outsiders; through petitioners.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed a strange thing about an old artifact: The Scepter of Ages.
According to the time table, it takes 10000 years for Golarion to develop circa 1920s-1930s tech. It takes 5000 years for them just to develop out of the current political map.
For context 10000 years is the difference, for us, from "me put plant in ground, me wait, me eat plant later!" to the technological innovations necessary to establish an SF style infosphere and a possible moon base.
This seems absurd to me, and is a clear indication of how medieval stasis is alive and well on this world. Am I incorrect, or can you explain this?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed a strange thing about an old artifact: The Scepter of Ages.
According to the time table, it takes 10000 years for Golarion to develop circa 1920s-1930s tech. It takes 5000 years for them just to develop out of the current political map.
For context 10000 years is the difference, for us, from "me put plant in ground, me wait, me eat plant later!" to the technological innovations necessary to establish an SF style infosphere and a possible moon base.
This seems absurd to me, and is a clear indication of how medieval stasis is alive and well on this world. Am I incorrect, or can you explain this?
My guess (having not been the one to write or develop that book) was that the writer and developer were more interested in presenting an over-the-top time-travel thing for the game and didn't intend to imply a hard-coded schedule to Golarion's technology development. That table's not meant to be taken as a secret peek into what we've got scheduled for Golarion's technological development.
Personally, I'm not a fan at all of hardcoding future events into the setting, because I would rather organically explore that as we move forward and continue creating content for the game AND am not super interested in implying that the future is set in stone and that events must happen.
You're reading too much into the table, in other words. That said, fine. Golarion is in "medieval stasis". Because if we want to tell stories about technology, we have Starfinder. And if we want to tell stories about modern day tech we'll make a new setting and a new game for it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On sidenote since I got inspired by that question. I'm fairly convinced we will never see "modern pathfinder" but still fun to imagine:
Would it'd be safe to assume that hypothetical "Modern Pathfinder" would take place in new setting rather than "On Golarion, but their modern day version?" Since while Pathfinder and starfinder ARE alternate universes, the starfinder has gap to so you can easily presume they "could" happen in same timeline and so that you don't need to spoil pathfinder's history or show case outright contradictions that would inevitably happen when devs come up with new stuff.
...(okay, I guess it could also take place on "Golarion" with completely alternate history, like what if earthfall never happened or "same as Pathfinder, but everything is modern instead", but that would be its own can of worms xD)
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On sidenote since I got inspired by that question. I'm fairly convinced we will never see "modern pathfinder" but still fun to imagine:
Would it'd be safe to assume that hypothetical "Modern Pathfinder" would take place in new setting rather than "On Golarion, but their modern day version?" Since while Pathfinder and starfinder ARE alternate universes, the starfinder has gap to so you can easily presume they "could" happen in same timeline and so that you don't need to spoil pathfinder's history or show case outright contradictions that would inevitably happen when devs come up with new stuff.
...(okay, I guess it could also take place on "Golarion" with completely alternate history, like what if earthfall never happened or "same as Pathfinder, but everything is modern instead", but that would be its own can of worms xD)
I'm really not interested in a "Modern Pathfinder" at all, to be honest. If it did happen, I'd prefer it to be in its own setting, and to be something that still had fantasy elements to it. The one way I could see me getting into a "Modern Pathfinder" type game would be if it was a super gritty dark fantasy/horror setting... but even then, I'd just rather play Call of Cthulhu probably.
|
Creative Director
|
Would Enlarging myself double my reach or just add 5 feet to my reach?
Once you're enlarged, you're enlarged to the same extent, no matter how many times you cast that spell on yourself. It's like haste or polymorph or most other spell effects you cast on yourself—you'll restart the duration, but the effects don't stack.
Does a story in which aliens invade earth, kill off more than half the population, then set out to occupy the planet, and then just as they decide trying to "tame" humanity is a waste of time and plan to kill off the rest of us, a new (native to earth, but hidden) ally shows up, and we get rid of the invading force and capture their ships and their tech sound interesting to you? If so, I recommend you read David "The Mad Wizard" Weber's Out of the Dark and its sequel Into The Light. :-)
|
Creative Director
|
Does a story in which aliens invade earth, kill off more than half the population, then set out to occupy the planet, and then just as they decide trying to "tame" humanity is a waste of time and plan to kill off the rest of us, a new (native to earth, but hidden) ally shows up, and we get rid of the invading force and capture their ships and their tech sound interesting to you? If so, I recommend you read David "The Mad Wizard" Weber's Out of the Dark and its sequel Into The Light. :-)
I've always enjoyed alien invasion stories, but my book reading schedule is pretty full right now. Thanks for the suggestion though!
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we know which type of Parthenogenesis Lizardfolk undergo? In the feat for Pathfinder 2e (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1052), it both mentions an unfertilized egg and being a "biological copy" of your mother. However, I'm not sure what they mean by "biological copy".
Accidental Parthenogenesis typically involves an eggs basically self-fertilizing, and it sounds like this is that.
Additionally, this should allow for male Lizardfolk to be Parthenogentic hatchlings, yes?
"Biological copy" means that its descended from the mother, not that it's a clone of the mother. It's a poor word choice, I guess.
Generally this occurs in times of ecological need, so not really an "accident," but it could happen by chance as well. it could also be induced. The exact mechanisms by which this occurs, as with pretty much all thigns involved with sex and copulation and childbirth and the like, is deliberately left vague by us so you can adjust things for your table to match your group's comfort and interest.
|
Creative Director
|
Thank you, very helpful. The three general types of Parthenogenesis I know of for reptiles is Obligate, Facultative, and Accidental, so I based my question off that. But it's good to know it can be different depending on the table... perhaps different Lizardfolk heritages use different ones.
Cool, but remember to try to keep posts to this thread to questions. I try not to encourage long back-and-forths since that makes it tougher for me to keep things going in this thread.
Ok. How about a more concrete question: what equivalent would a zenith laser rifle have in Pathfinder? How could I "fix" it to both keep the flavor yet reconcile its mechanics with Pathfinder?By giving a regular laser rifle to a 20th level character whose class and feats bolster that laser rifle, and by making that laser rifle a +5 weapon with a few additional things added on. Maybe flaming or the like.
In Starfinder, the 20th level version of a laser rifle is the zenith laser rifle. That's what a 20th level laser rifle using character would want.
In Pathfinder, a 20th level character would just have a laser rifle, but it would be one that's been increased in power to be the equivalent to something a 20th level character would want to use or have access to. A glance at the 1st edition guidelines for PC wealth by level (page 399 of the Core Rulebook) indicates that a 20th level PC should have 880,000 gp in gear. Looking over to the costs for magic weapons, a weapon with a +10 bonus is worth 200,000 gp. The baseline laser rifle in the technology guide with no additional magic item improvements is worth 20,000 gp, so a +10 equivalent one would be a mere 220,000 gp—about 1/4 of a 20th level character's gear, so well within their pricing. Therefore, I'd build up that powerful laser rifle as apprpriate, keeping in mind that +5 is the highest weapon bonus you can do. I'd likely go with it being a +5 flaming burst speed laser rifle but simply change its name to "zenith laser rifle."
Yes, the Pathfinder one does less damage on a hit and does other things than does the Starfinder version, but that's a result of different rules and different assumptions to the baseline.
(NOTE While I built this Pathfinder version of a zenith rifle by giving it magic item abilities and enhancements, you can just say they are technological additions and be done with it, since the technological items in the Technology Guide were themselves priced out as if they were magic items.)
OK, now how would you reconcile "one-use" items like medicinals and grenades to 1e format? (Note: This includes 2e's mechanics as well, since they are based off of the same thing.)
|
Creative Director
|
OK, now how would you reconcile "one-use" items like medicinals and grenades to 1e format? (Note: This includes 2e's mechanics as well, since they are based off of the same thing.)
The same way. By looking at their flavor and rebuilding them in the other system. I built things like the nanite hypogun and the cortex gun based on things like wands and staffs and stat-boosting items, so in a way, that work's already been done.
As for grenades... build them as one-charge items of the level of damage you want to do. A 5d6 inferno grenade would be built as a single-use use-activated 5th-level fireball, for example.
If there was a temple to Atreia (the good elemental lord of fire) on Golarion, where would it be?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any plans on porting over the Primitive Humans charity race as Racial Feats for 2E?
My druid player had fun as one in 1e, I was wondering how Paizo would handle racial drawbacks like the "Frightened by Magic" racial trait for 2e.
No plans at this point, no. Not everything we did in 1st edition will be covered as an option in 2nd, because we don't want to spend the next 8 years fully in "re-run" mode. I'm eager to do new things.
"Racial drawbacks" aren't something I'm interested in exploring, in any event. For the same reason we removed "race" from the game entirely as a rules term; I'd rather focus on an ancestry's strengths rather than arbitrarily decide what is regarded as a weakness or failure. No thanks.
|
Can you reveal what coastal town Malevolence takes place in/near?The town is a brand new one that hasn't yet been mentioned in print. It's called Crooked Cove, but it's also abandoned and empty at the time Malevolence takes place. The adventure doesn't spend any time there at all–it's 100% focused on the mansion and its grounds. This should help the GM place the haunted house anywhere (although if they do so, they'll have to adjust some of the mansion's history, as its location on the southwestern border of Ravounel is pretty important to some of that).
In my home game that I'm currently running for several folks, Crooked Cove is still active though—it's called Crookcove now (after a storm took down part of the sign outside of town), and the campaign is a sandbox in which the players are free to explore all over the place. The haunted mansion has been the focus of most of that attention, but not all of it.
Just found out about this post and the name reminded me of Scooby Doo's Crystal Cove (aka the most hauntedest place on earth). Mere coincidence?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just found out about this post and the name reminded me of Scooby Doo's Crystal Cove (aka the most hauntedest place on earth). Mere coincidence?Can you reveal what coastal town Malevolence takes place in/near?The town is a brand new one that hasn't yet been mentioned in print. It's called Crooked Cove, but it's also abandoned and empty at the time Malevolence takes place. The adventure doesn't spend any time there at all–it's 100% focused on the mansion and its grounds. This should help the GM place the haunted house anywhere (although if they do so, they'll have to adjust some of the mansion's history, as its location on the southwestern border of Ravounel is pretty important to some of that).
In my home game that I'm currently running for several folks, Crooked Cove is still active though—it's called Crookcove now (after a storm took down part of the sign outside of town), and the campaign is a sandbox in which the players are free to explore all over the place. The haunted mansion has been the focus of most of that attention, but not all of it.
Coincidence. I've never been a Scooby Doo fan and have only been inspried by the show one to make something for an RPG—the willawaw, back in an adventure I wrote for my home game back in like 6th grade. Didn't take me much longer than that to realize that Scooby Doo was a constant string of bait-and-switch fake-outs. I much prefer my supernatural to be actual supernatural, not Don Knotts in a mask or whatever.
Crooked Cove is somewhat inspired by the numerous small towns along the northern California coast, in the same way that my hometown inspired Sandpoint and Otari. In the case of Crooked Cove, it's more inspiration from even more remote locations along the northern stretch of the real-world Lost Coast—not any one town in particular, but the idea of there being a town located right at the very edge of the wilderness along a coastline.
The name itself is a pun, since the town is located along a jagged, crooked stretch of shoreline, but also because the town is pretty overrun by crooked merchants, politicians, priests, and aristocrats.
|
|
Do all level 20 fiends(and monitors/celestials I guess) in 2e still have their "level 21-25" variations or does that only apply to pit fiend infernal dukes and balor lords now?
(wondering if lack of mention on Eremite Ovelords, Olethrodaemon Paragons and Heralds of the Speakers is change on purpose or just to save space from saying "and you can level them up to 21-25 if you want to")
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do all level 20 fiends(and monitors/celestials I guess) in 2e still have their "level 21-25" variations or does that only apply to pit fiend infernal dukes and balor lords now?
(wondering if lack of mention on Eremite Ovelords, Olethrodaemon Paragons and Heralds of the Speakers is change on purpose or just to save space from saying "and you can level them up to 21-25 if you want to")
They all do.
|
James, you may not recall the intent of this, but I thought I'd ask.
Do you remember if the dragonstorm hazard is intended to run 3 times, at the start of each wave, or 10 times, once for each event.
I'm guessing it's the former, since I would think the hazard would bump each event up a category from what's listed in the AP. But I am admittedly unclear on how a simple one-time hazard factors into the encounter budget rules.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James, you may not recall the intent of this, but I thought I'd ask.
** spoiler omitted **
I don't recall off the top of my head, but the best solution is to try to stay flexible in game; if the players are getting bored with a repeating hazard, it's time to stop using the hazard. Alternately, if the PCs are having an easy time of it in the encounters themselves, complicating things with a hazard can help make things more challenging. And lastly, if the PCs have a way that they can automatically (or even almost automatically) defeat a hazard, there's no real need to play out every roll after the first time; just say "you handle this wave the same way" and move on, turning a repetitive set of rolling into some short fun narration.
Often we have to get super tight/sparse with stat block text in order to make things fit pretty on a page or in the adventure as a whole. We try to do so without confusing the rules, but sometimes things get missed.