Search results

WotC's books are consistently ugly. Free League's books are consistently beautiful. Why is this given the former has far greater resources at their disposal?

I really like the Starfinder system and would love to play more. Unfortunately, I find the pre-written adventures don't hit the right tone for me. None of them really appeal. Too light and goofy for my tastes. Eagerly awaiting Grimmerspace to see if that can give me what I want.

I don't have time or talent to run straight homebrew. I find it much easier to modify an existing framework. Thus, I use PF 1e adventure paths and alter as required. Paizo, from 2007 - 2017, released a number of adventures that suit my tastes very well.

The wendigo in Rise of the Runelords is terrifying. Since then, I've always imagined them as more formidable than this fellow.

The iconic witch's face looks far too benevolent - almost doll-like. Something about the aesthetics of 2e is just very unappealing to me. Brown-ish colour schemes for the books and consistently awkward, garish art imo.

Is this actually being developed? I think it could be incredibly useful and would be keen to pick it up. I've been enjoying your Character Codex series.

Yeah, maybe. Hadn't really considered that. Always thought it was more of a wargame property. Thanks for the suggestion. Will look in to it.

I was quite excited for Starfinder when it first released. However, I'm finding, as with the latest iteration of Pathfinder, the pre-written adventures are not grabbing my attention and I do not have time/inclination to write my own. I'd like something a few shades darker than the official...

It happens every time WoTC release a new book, according to these review round-ups.

It must be somewhat exasperating for Paizo that the most online buzz they've managed to generate since the release of PF2 is from this change in terminology. Nobody ever wants to discuss their recent Adventure Paths in such depth. Or at all, it seems.

To be clear, I'm not upset by Paizo changing language in their game as they deem appropriate. I just find it unusual which aspects of the game require application of real world contemporary social mores and which are exempt from such expectation.

Well, perhaps I should have phrased it as "a central conceit" then. Apologies for careless use of the definite article. My point stands, though, that we seem oddly specific in which aspects of the game we deem inappropriate.

Then why is so much design space given over to combat and combat abilities?

The whole sensitivity to language and the offence it can cause sits very strangely with games where the central conceit is killing others.

Every one of these review round ups I've clicked on here for a new WotC book has the overall grade somewhere in the range of A. Whether reviewers are being disingenuous with this rating or not, it's not really helpful, making it difficult to identify the stand out releases. It does appear...

I used to love Paizo adventures too. However, I haven't been interested in running/playing one of their adventures since Ruins of Azlant in 2017. None of the recent Pathfinder releases appeal and, sadly, I do not feel compelled to purchase any of the Starfinder adventures either. Something about...

Awesome. Ever since I was a kid I've daydreamed of being a fairly effective wizard in a land of high adventure.

I'm almost the complete opposite. I find the 5e section of Art and Arcana to be by far the least riveting. The early - mid period stuff is fascinating.

I'm not sure either. As I mentioned, I haven't read any of the new material. However, I have seen the comment made semi regularly online and thought it could be relevant to the choice of tag.

I've seen a number of comments online that suggest the setting has a markedly different tone between the two editions. Personally, I haven't read any P2 setting material, so do not know if this is an accurate claim. However, it could explain the P1 tag. The OP is interested in the original...