Longdreamer

Cellion's page

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 301 posts (2,356 including aliases). 17 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 Organized Play characters. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 301 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

:o

That cover artwork! SMC are officially confirmed to be sci-fi Babymetal?


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I'm currently midway through running Book 1 with my players. I've made a few changes here and there, but nothing too drastic. Here are some of my comments about changes and our experience so far:

Entering the Caves:
Water breathing doesn't seem very necessary here, as anyone swimming can hold their breath for at least 10 rounds before having to start making saves. Plus, with how often my players entered and left the caves, sweating over the swim checks would have massively bogged down the game. The sickness effect was great flavor the first time they went in though!

Blindheim:
I really didn't like the idea of the hardest encounter in the caves being this random mutant frog pet thing. It feels a little unfair to fight and has high potential to make the rest of the caves anti-climactic.

I replaced it with an advanced giant frog, which had a good time trying to swallow one of the PCs but was otherwise dispatched without a huge ordeal.


Jinkins:
In a party with three melee players, the gremlins served very little threat as written. I added an ability to them such that they automatically flank creatures of +2 size if they share their square. This made them very slightly more threatening, but not critically so.

I managed to get two over-eager PCs to trigger tripwires while chasing gremlins, which I feel was a big success in terms of flavor :>


The desert:
I tweaked the ghelarn mechanics slightly, changing entrap save to Reflex, keeping the flavor as goopy sand (removing the ability to attack the goop to free yourself) and adding the ability to escape artist to free yourself. I also removed the possibility of becoming helpless, as I limit save-or-don't-play abilities to bosses as much as I can.

I gave the kasatha skeletons back their desert stride racial trait which proved to be a good choice for making the desert feel threatening.


Habitat Reboot:
Rather than just have PCs hit a button, I upgraded rebooting the habitat dome into a mini puzzle. I put it into my notes as follows.
The control room B12 has a functioning screen stating in androffan “Habitat Dome control system malfunction A83-G1192. Reboot required. Systems malfunction details dumped to disc L4.” The console includes an array of slots, many fused shut by damage, one disc is currently ejected. Pushing the disc back in causes the screen to display “Loading systems failure log 01:1102:399432H…” followed by a lot of technical jargon. Knowledge engineering DC20 (technologist needed or DC24) reveals that that power passes through some wires that were broken in a panel in another room (“Observation Room” B13). Fixing those wires is a DC20 Disable Device (technologist needed or DC24) with failures (missing by 5 or more) dealing 1d4 electricity damage. Returning to the control room shows “System malfunction restored, press any key to reboot control system.”
While my PCs were able to read the error (one has androffan) and understand what to do, they chose not to do anything in fear of something unpleasant happening. *shrug* Oh well.

Hetuath:
This fellow is no joke. Knocked one PC unconscious, and brought two others low before being destroyed. They brought the body back to the surface though... so they unknowingly set themselves up for an unpleasant surprise in 26 hours.

Vegepygmies:
After some of the desert threats, these things are very weak. I added a couple more, just for that horde experience, and they dispatched them all with ease. Its unclear to me where their spears came from though... if I ran it again I'd arm them all with light hammers.

An Androffan Love Story:
One of my additions was a environmental side-plot to explain some of the 'convenient' item placements in the area. Basically, the black access card was left with a message in androffan from one crew member to his or her paramour in another area of the ship, smuggling them the card to allow them to visit them on the science deck.
In the science deck I gave the weird dead-end corridor some purpose by putting a notice there from ship security that service corridors are not to be used for off-hours trysts.
And in the lab room I left a half-penned note to the paramour vaguely suggesting an incoming crisis for the ship, foreshadowing future events.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Digging this back up because I'm looking into using injectables in Organized Play. Has there been any further discussion or clarification on what exactly is valid to be used for the injection property?


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Pretty sure 8-9 actions might be reasonable:
- 1 action to drop your two-handed weapon so you have enough hands to use the potion
- 1 action to draw the potion out of a pack
- 1 action to swirl the potion to activate its magic
- 1 action to uncork the potion
- 1-2 actions to drink depending on your character's background
- 1 action to drop the potion bottle
- 1 action to pick up the weapon you dropped
- 1 action to put your second hand on the weapon you picked up (to wield in two hands).

;)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Poison has always been a better tool for Paladins than anyone else. Think of it this way, if a Paladin is trying to apprehend the evil cultist leader, he can:

  • Approach the leader, offer an ultimatum, and then when the leader predictably fights for his life (see: every stat block with morale listing of 'fights to the death'), the paladin takes his sword and cuts gashes into the fellow's flesh until he falls unconscious, almost dead.
  • Fire a blowgun dart at the leader with sleep poison, knocking him unconscious almost painlessly. The paladin then ties the leader up and takes him to a jail where he can be interrogated.

    Which of these two options sounds like its more evil? Because the first one involves a whole lot more bloodshed and pain than the second. Yes, the second is less honorable, but its a hell of a lot more peaceful and significantly less cruel. And in my mind its way more humane than dealing non-lethal damage to knock someone unconscious (mental image: paladin hitting someone with a stick until they pass out, covered in non-life-threatening welts), something that I've seen many paladins do in hopes of not killing their targets.


  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    A few questions:

  • Due to the risk of ongoing damage from the storm, is the intention that players are not able to regain their stamina by spending RP until they reach the outpost?
  • If the GM rolls a high gravity world, is the intention that each PCs max bulk and encumbrance threshold are both halved due to the increased gravity? I can imagine many characters would struggle with the bridge section under high gravity: They all move at half speed, plus might be encumbered reducing speed by another 10ft and taking a -5 penalty on the acrobatics check. Plus if they fall they take double damage (2d6 x2).
  • If the exile has the "exile strain", how does the party get exposed to the disease? Is it intended that being in proximity to the exile with armor seals deactivated is enough to be exposed? How close?


  • Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Yeah, its way undertuned on low-tier. Nils nailed it on the space combat, though I will also add that the whelp's dependence on melee attacks means that it is guaranteed to be ineffective on rounds where it loses initiative (unless it does flyby maneuvers each round).

    Of all SFS scenarios I've played and/or run so far (I think I've seen about 60% of them) the encounters here are by far the least threatening. Especially in low tier where the security forces are tiny sized and usually have to enter enemy squares to attack (not to mention their puny 6 HP). Two CR1/3 enemies in an empty room does not a respectable fight make.

    Looking just from a "total HP of enemies you have to fight" perspective, the sum of encounters in 1-12 is less total HP than any of the individual encounters in 1-02 for example (which has 3 combats).


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Ignore the radii given, this revelation is fully defined by "fills your square and all squares within 5ft of it".

    It assumes that rather than the sphere being centered on a grid intersection it is centered on your square and radiates out 5 or 10ft in all directions.

    See below for scenario #4 described in your post (U is person, x is affected squares):

    o x x x o
    x x x x x
    x x U x x
    x x x x x
    o x x x o

    Before level 17, it instead fills:

    x x x
    x U x
    x x x


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    The line about murder seems to make this Paladin code far stricter than the one in 1E. I mean, now a Paladin can't plan a raid on a base of Evil Cultists inside a major city, with the intention of putting an end to them, and then carry that plan out. Because then they've killed a cultist and it was premeditated.

    And that's no contrived situation, that's Pathfinder 101. I think every AP has you going into some cultist base in an otherwise normal city where the law is well defined enough that vigilante killings are illegal.

    So unlike Pathfinder 1E where the code was vague enough that you could make the first attack against a known evil foe without sweating too much, here you have to walk on eggshells just to follow the explicit tenet. But since your allies are not beholden to such stringent rules, the degree of contention between your Paladin and his allies is only going to be stronger in 2E.


    20 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    The paladin tenets would be greatly improved by numbering them from 1 through 4 to indicate their priority, and then adding rule 0: "Thou shallst not game the tenet system for your benefit".


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    SROs seem very powerful for the reasons stated upthread.

    The other race that seems exceptionally strong is the Ferran race. They get the following racial trait:

    Ferran, Dead Suns 2 wrote:

    Momentum:

    A ferran deals an additional amount of damage equal to its character level with its first melee attack after it moves at least 10 feet in the same round.

    This allows melee operatives to get ahead of the damage curve set by melee soldiers and solarians (but only by a little bit and only at mid levels). It also makes unwieldy weapon soldiers / solarians significantly less far behind their full attacking brethren.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Nope, you select your missile distribution and they all fire at the same time. No redirections if one of the enemies is killed. The rest of your missiles simply pummel the creature's corpse.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Yes, a 1/day roll-twice-take-better is worth very very little, especially because you have to choose to use it before making a roll, and double especially because its on a relatively small dice roll (d6 or d8).


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Multi-attack in starfinder means that the creature can make a special full attack action that makes every single attack on the multi attack line. So for a young blue dragon:

    Multiattack bite +18 (4d6+19 P), 2 claws +18 (2d8+19 S), tail slap +18 (2d6+19 B)

    That's four attacks, each with a +18 on the attack roll, dealing the listed damage on a hit.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Supercharge weapon has no restrictions on which types of weapons it can target (The target line is just Targets One weapon). You can use it on analog weapons.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    On page 242 of the Starfinder Core Rulebook, we have this statement about multiplying more than once:

    Starfinder CRB wrote:
    When you are asked to multiply a value or roll more than once, the multipliers (×2, ×3, and so on) are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result is equivalent to multiplying the value by 3 (or rolling the damage three times), not multiplying it by 4.

    So with both those operative exploits, they give you a x3 multiplier on the operative's edge bonus (+6 at 4th level, for example).


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Flagged this to be moved to the Starfinder Rules discussion.

    The operative's edge bonus (insight) does not stack with the skill focus bonus (insight). This was confirmed by the devs as intentional.

    Even though they don't stack, there are two key benefits to skill focus:
    - It gives a larger bonus to the two specialization skills early, helping the operative be especially good at their specialization
    - At 7th level when operative's edge would 'catch up' to the bonus from skill focus, they gain a feature that allows them to take 10 on skills they have skill focus in, even in combat!

    Here'a a link to the dev's response about this design


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    If there's an envoy providing flat footed, the operative can instead choose to provide off-target with their debilitating trick. Alternatively, high level operatives might try to apply bleed, staggered or stunned instead.

    While there is overlap in class design, that doesn't mean there has to be overlap in combat. An envoy/operative 2-man team can set up for their allies with:
    - Envoy uses Improved Get 'Em, Clever Attack: Allies get +2 to hit, Enemy takes -2 AC.
    - Operative uses trick attack and applies off-target.

    Total buff/debuff: Enemy has -2 to hit, equivalent of -4 to AC.
    Soldier/Solarian go to town on it.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Junk Armor is quite good for technomancers that aren't able to (or inclined to) max dex at the same time as int. By accepting the fact that you'll be behind on AC by 1-3 at all levels, you can spend literally no credits on armor after 1st level (particularly relevant in SFS, since there's no chance of picking up outdated armor from enemies you defeat: you have to buy all armor directly). Considering that some technomancer builds can also skip out on buying weapons, you can funnel every last credit into spell gems, stat boosters, and utility items.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Things I'm really liking:

  • New action economy looks like it intrinsically solves some of the tricky problems with the old system (full attack vs. move and attack gulf being bridged well by the new system).
  • Degrees of success, especially for save or die and save or be completely debilitated type effects.
  • Increased focus on skills being relevant at higher levels (fancy skill feats for high proficiency!)
  • Alchemists in Core. Yes please.


  • Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Starfinder made grappling 1000x simpler but more abstract/less realistic. You can only pin someone by exceeding the grapple roll target by 5+, for example, and grappling someone doesn't give you a unique list of combat options. There are no flowcharts, it takes up about a quarter of a page in the CRB.

    I think chances are pretty good they'll just copy the basic Starfinder grappling rules (substituting an athletics check for the attack roll vs. KAC+8).


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    Artificial 20 wrote:
    In P2E, the new action economy removes full-attack dependency, but your ranged output is still more potent by default. Attack > attack > attack beats move > attack > attack if "attack" on each side is of equal value.

    It helps that in PF2E, "attack" on each side of your equation is likely not of equal value and the 3rd attack made each round is generally of low value.

    Say the 1st attack for both a melee and ranged character has 75% chance to hit. That means the Attack,Attack,Move character has a total damage output of (0.75*X+0.5*X) or 1.25 x their base damage per hit. The Attack,Attack,Attack character has a total damage output of (0.75*X+0.5*X+0.25*X) or 1.5 x their base damage per hit. This relationship stays true from 1st level all the way through 20th, unlike PF1E where the effective damage differential grew more and more as you gained levels.

    At 11th level in Pathfinder 1E for example, the damage differential between moving and not moving was something like: 0.9 x base damage when moving vs. 1.95 x base damage when not moving (0.9+0.65+0.4). That's a way bigger drop off in damage for classes that have to move.

    So just the change in action economy rules makes ranged combat less starkly advantageous.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    Misroi wrote:
    OK...so, how often should parties make it through this mod cleanly? 10% of the time? 20%? Keep in mind - failure does not create an insta-fail scenario. The module expects that the PCs will not fool the guards the entire time they're on the station. The starship combat is the intended path through the mod, and being able to skip it is not the expected outcome.

    I would argue that based on the mission briefing to avoid being detected, the starship combat should NOT be the intended path through the scenario. After all, the scenario is presented as an infiltration and social engineering attempt. While I agree that the scenario as written doesn't trigger a 'failure' state upon tripping security, it sure feels like you've screwed up. Real success should be getting out with your victims none the wiser.

    To that end, I would want the chances for the PCs to be detected to be mostly in the players hands. The two mandatory security checks should have a small chance to bust your party for a typical group (10-30% chance total, depending on skills and previous boons). A larger chance of getting busted should come from any of: instigating a fight against Razor, tripping the door alarm, stealing Ilia's USB drive rather than hacking the computer. Meanwhile a group optimized for deception (Disguise+Computers maxed out) should have a 0% chance of being busted by security checks and have some leeway on the other three avenues of being caught.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Honestly, the hack has been written in a way that almost completely denies shenanigans.

    Thanshin wrote:

    Improvised weaponry:

    The magic hack can't create weapons, but it can create a fire extinguisher, for example, which could easily be used as an improvised weapon.

    Yes, but an improvised weapon both takes attack roll penalties for being improvised and damage penalties for being archaic (in most cases). Its hardly a very effective weapon.

    Thanshin wrote:

    Springs:

    There's no limit to creating traps that require an external force to be loaded. So one could create a bear trap and set it up, as long as it's used within the time limit.

    Technological items is a category defined by the CRB in a table that lists all the available tech items. Other books have explicitly added other tech items. Springs are not one of those, nor are traps of any kind. You could house rule it, but its not part of this hack's base functionality to create these things. More importantly, since there are no rules for simple mechanical bear traps traps in Starfinder (AFAIK), you're at the mercy of your GM as to how effective/ineffective this might be.

    Thanshin wrote:

    Potential energy:

    The technomancer can create a 100 pound item and drop it from some height. It's hard to imagine the damage that would be done by 2000ft of Adamantine alloy cable line dropped from a starship hovering a few miles above ground.

    OTOH, this creates 10 bulk of mundane material. Since damage from falling objects entirely depends on size (for medium objects this is 3d6 max per the CRB) it doesn't matter whether you create a tungsten rod or just buy a 10 bulk block of iron. Yeah, it sucks you can't deliver tungsten rod-based annihilation, but those are the rules we have.

    None of these seem like particularly powerful or exploitative options.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Had a chance to watch this one. It managed to be pretty silly and funny at times but was otherwise a mediocre children's movie with all the trappings that implies.

    Villain was literally every meanie-pants kids movie villain ever, complete with ridiculous buffoonery. Main character was bland, female lead was one step away from manic pixie dream girl, supporting cast was tolerable but barely fleshed out. The romance is hilariously underdeveloped. Probably the biggest problem is that the threat is portrayed so childishly that it feels like there's no weight to the story. It's laughably easy to foil the villain's goals over and over, and the challenges themselves seem simple even to someone not steeped in 80s gaming trivia.

    Endless references and visual call outs. I was surprised how many were from recent stuff like Overwatch and Minecraft, rather than the 80s stuff that I had expected.

    For all my gripes, the Shining scene/recreation was fantastic.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    Misroi wrote:
    Cellion wrote:
    -stuff about disguise-
    Yeah, I almost never roll for NPCs for skill checks, simply because I dislike that the dice can make your rolls irrelevant. I just assume they're always taking 10, unless they have reason to not.

    I think I also like having the NPCs take 10 on their perceptions. It definitely evens things far more in the PCs favor when there are many perception checks being made.

    I guess if we assume the security personnel are taking 10 on their perception checks, optimal group A in my example (with +16 to each PC's disguise roll) automatically succeeds. Great! The problem is that anything lower than +15 still invites a high overall likelihood of being busted.

    If six PCs each have +14 to their check, only a nat 1 will stop them from attaining the minimum 16 result computers/disguise that bypasses both mandatory NPC perception checks. But the chance for one person to roll a natural 1 out of 6 people is... 26.5% (1-0.95^6).

    If the aforementioned run of the mill party, with checks of (+6, +10, +5, +10-2, +10-4, +10-6) went up against the NPCs taking 10, their chances are still pretty bad. Their chance of rolling low enough to be caught by the NPCs with a 15 on their perception check is 96.7%. That's a big improvement over 99.85%, even if it is kinda terrible.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Since I recently finished my run through this scenario as a player I finally took a look through the PDF. I dumped a whole bunch of thoughts about the scenario into a review on the scenario's store page, but there's one thing that I figured I'd bring up here as well: It seems extraordinarily unlikely that the PCs will avoid triggering the security response and additional encounter.

    Even if we disregard the PCs being blindsided by the alarm on the door or another of the 'gotcha' elements that triggers the security response, just the basic perception checks made against the PCs are incredibly likely to pierce any possible disguise. The problem is that for a party of 6 PCs, there are a minimum of 12 perception checks made against them and even a single failure is enough to catch them.

    At Tier 1-2, the absolute best case scenario for the PCs is that every single one of them has a computers bonus of +12, with an additional +4 from the Abadarcorp annoyance boon for a total of +16. This is of course incredibly unlikely, as it requires a group of 2nd level PCs all with 18 INT and computers as a class skill and Skill Focus in computers.

    The two batteries of perception checks they have to pass are at a +3 bonus for one set and a +5 bonus for the second set. Using Anydice to calculate probability for the opposed rolls, that gives the chance for the enemy to pierce any individual person's disguise at 7% for the first set and 11.25% for the second set. Considering 12 total opposed rolls, the total probability that at least one disguise is pierced is 68.4%!. And this is with giving the PCs absolutely every single advantage.

    Say we have a significantly less competent party with no Abadarcorp Annoyance boon. Lets say the disguise computers bonus available to them looks something like (+6, +10, +5, +10-2, +10-4, +10-6) where the computers expert with the +10 is helping the three party members without computers or disguise. Considering 12 total opposed rolls, the probability that at least one disguise is pierced is 99.85%!!! And this party is not even totally incompetent at disguise/computers.

    With this considered, I don't see what the point of the disguise even is in this scenario. Its all but guaranteed that most parties will trigger security. The GM might as well not track or roll at all.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    I'd like to see crossbows implemented with much higher base damage to account for the increased actions they take to use. They could be balanced against bows by being better vs. DR and less prone to fumbles, while being less flexible to use and more prone to overkill. Furthermore, it seems bows will have access to special tricks like Rapid Shot that would be incompatible with these crossbows.

    I would balance them as follows:

    Hand Crossbow | 1d8 damage | reload as part of firing, fires one-handed, agile property
    Light Crossbow | 2d6+STR damage | reload costs 1 action
    Heavy Crossbow | 3d6+STR*1.5 damage | reload costs 2 actions

    Commentary on the math:
    Hand Crossbow base damage is then on par with a non-composite longbow, so it falls behind a little on damage compared to composite bows (though not too much when you consider how weapon enhancement bonuses work in PF2E) but has flexibility since it can be fired one-handed.

    Light crossbow has ~1.5x the damage output of a composite longbow (1d8+STR being something like 6.5 vs. the 9 from 2d6+STR) but takes two actions per attack. This leaves it a little behind the composite longbow on damage per action spent for all but the lowest STR scores.

    Heavy crossbow has ~2X the damage output of the composite longbow (6.5 vs 12.5) but takes 3 actions to fire. This leaves it a little ahead of the composite longbow on damage per action in most cases (due to not having to deal with the attack roll penalties for multiple attacks per turn). It has advantages in being better vs. DR and minimizing the # of critical failures. Its disadvantages are that its prone to overkill (and wasting damage) and the slow firing means you can't move or take other actions without losing all your damage for the turn.

    I did some quick math to check these assumptions here for anyone interested.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Yeah, this is bizarre to me. What happened to conjuration (creation) as a spell type and subtype?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Agreed that the class teaser blogs are pretty bad from a hype standpoint.

    Most of them seem to be focused on explaining how the class gets to do the same thing it was doing in PF1E, but using the new action economy/skill rules. Its very hard to get excited about things like "you deal bleed damage on your sneak attacks" when that was a rogue talent I skipped most of the time in PF1E.

    Plus, half the class abilities they chose to reveal seem to be "it gives a small numerical bonus if you use it" or "it does something that everyone used to do on a regular basis in PF1E". These abilities may be super great in PF2E, super satisfying to play with, but from our PF1E perspective they look dreadfully humdrum.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    BigDTBone wrote:
    You gave all 3 eagles a flanking bonus. Only 2 should get it. DPR for the eagles should be 22 (21.97)

    In my example none of them are benefiting from flanking. Check the included link to the augmented celestial eagle stat block.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    "Oh, but that's only if they can full attack! Unfair comparison!" you say? (Yes, I know you didn't say it yet, but I'm sure someone will think it eventually)

    How about:

    Fighter @5 with +1 greatsword, STR +2 belt, weapon focus, weapon specialization, furious focus, power attack, weapon training (+1)
    +1greatsword +13 (2d6+17)
    Against a CR5 foe with AC18
    DPR = 21.12

    Wizard @5 with Augment Summoning, Superior Summoning. Summoning 1d3+1 augmented small earth elementals (on average 3)
    Three small earth elementals each with earth mastery:
    slam +8 (1d6+11)
    Against a CR5 foe with AC18
    DPR = 25.11 (or 28.59 if they use their smite evil)

    Plus they have a burrow speed. And darkvision, and tremorsense, and elemental defensive traits...


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    For kicks and giggles, here's some... Summons vs. Fighters.

    Fighter @3 with +1 greatsword, weapon focus, furious focus, power attack
    +1greatsword +9 (2d6+10)
    Against a CR3 foe with AC15.
    DPR = 14.03

    What about Fighter @4 with +1 greatsword, weapon focus, weapon specialization, furious focus, power attack
    +1greatsword +10 (2d6+15)
    Against a CR3 foe with AC15.
    DPR = 19.36

    Wizard @3 with Augment Summoning, Superior Summoning. Summoning 1d3+1 augmented celestial eagles (on average 3)
    3 eagles, each with the following:
    2 talons +3 (1d4+2), bite +3 (1d4+2)
    Total of 9 attacks in full attack vs. CR3 foe with AC15.
    DPR = 23.40

    Also the eagles can fly at 80ft speed. And they last for 3 rounds (so for two rounds the wizard is getting to cast more spells while doing more damage than the fighter).


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    Eisenfuchs wrote:
    bumping this up. also curious if harmful spells on technomancer hacks has an effect on energy ray, it should have one, right?

    Yep, harmful spells works with Energy Ray


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    With the new rules for NPC stats in Starfinder, there's no longer a direct connection between NPC KAC/EAC and their other stats. Normally, this isn't too much of an issue, but it adds a weird problem when considering what happens when an NPC gains the encumbered condition.

    Encumbered wrote:
    While encumbered, you reduce each of your movement speeds by 10 feet, reduce your maximum Dexterity bonus to AC to +2, and take a –5 penalty to Strength- and Dexterity-based checks.

    How exactly does reducing an NPC's max DEX bonus to AC to +2 affect their KAC/EAC under this system, or does it even have any effect at all?

    Keep in mind that there are creatures that have in their stat line:
    +3 dex mod
    Armor with +0 EAC, +1 KAC, +6 max dex bonus
    EAC 10 / KAC 12


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Alright, top 5?

  • Archaeologist Bard: Much like apparently everyone else, I think this archetype is rad. Partially because a self-contained non-performing bard is a niche that I 100% need to have filled. Partially because archeologist plays this great all purpose role: decent and flexible at combat (though the math shows that its a downgrade vs. a normal bard in most typical cases), plenty of skills for skill challenges, and some limited but effective spellcasting for everything your skills can't cover.

  • Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue: Manually multiclassing rogue and wizard is cumbersome at best, while this archetype hits that spellcasting-trickster sweet spot. Particularly good in PF1E because spells let you do all those classic rogue things but SOOO much more consistently. Flavor feels great too.

  • Ustalavic Duelist Fighter: Love the idea of a one-handed weapon fighter, and of the archetypes in PF1E that try to do this, this is the one that I feel gets closest to making it feel good. I really hope there are good empty-offhand options for fighters in PF2E.

  • Sensei Monk: The idea of being a support monk is so evocative, dispensing advice and sharing your insights while also often using combat maneuvers to set up attacks for your allies. The flavor and experience of playing one is great.

  • Metamorph Alchemist: This is what I point to for anyone at all wanting to 'hulk out' without the baggage of being a barbarian. Way more evocative than just mutagen alone, and the steep tradeoffs give it focus in a very unfocused class. Super fun RP and gameplay.

    Honorable Mention: Guide Ranger: For secretly being the nature themed paladin archetype we always wanted. Seriously, just RP Ranger's Focus as Smite Evil and you're in business.


  • Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    The All-Seeing Orb wrote:
    ** spoiler omitted **

    Spoiler:
    That's just vague enough that I'm even more curious.

    What would be particularly effective both vs. a mob and a pack rat? Hmmmm...


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    The All-Seeing Orb wrote:
    Now that the prophesied document is within view, are there any questions about this book left unanswered?

    I was trying to hold back, but I'm too curious. Could you give a hint as to how the DDoS Attack spell functions?

    Since its "directed" and "denial of strength", I'm a little worried its something as simple as a Ray of Fatigue.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Its going to be a bit frustrating when the GM has to say "you can't even attempt what Jeff is going because you have Trained rather than Expert in that skill", but otherwise I think I'm OK with this system.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    That first cityscape wide shot. Wow. Apostae is looking a lot slicker than I would have thought.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    Zaister wrote:
    ** Spells spoiler **

    Whoever wrote that DDoS spell should be given a medal. Both hilarious and thematically on point for Technomancers. Here's to hoping it actually works well too.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    Staffan Johansson wrote:
    Starfinder also doesn't have extra attacks as a high-level thing - anyone can either make one regular attack as a standard action, or two attacks at -4 as a full-round action. It deals with this by making more damaging weapons available at higher levels - the azimuth laser pistol you're wielding at 1st level only deals 1d4 damage, but at 9th level you can get an aphelion laser pistol dealing 3d4 (or 4d4 if Boosted by using a move action).

    FWIW Starfinder does grant extra attacks as a high level thing. Both of the full BAB classes can make a third attack as part of a full attack, and that feature is a core part of how their damage ends up much higher than all the other classes.

    For PF2E, I think you're right that we'll have less scaling accomplished by adding more attacks. Instead, I can imagine the full BAB classes each having better scaling on the attacks they do get. Higher accuracy (where accuracy will outpace enemy AC, giving a greater chance for crits), higher damage per hit (via things like rage or weapon specialization, maybe?), and maybe even the ability to get extra attacks via their class features in some situations.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Oh wow, yeah, the entire confused condition could use a lot of clarification! Totally agree.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    Lord Fyre wrote:
    Their complain usually centers around the extreme bonuses that NPCs get to attacks and skills. (I mean, +8 for a 1st level character is a bit extreme.) While I am sure that many on this board will not agree, my feeling is that they are right about this.

    As people have said above, enemies have large bonuses on attack rolls and skills to stay relevant against the speed at which player defenses scale. The disparity of players having high AC/low attack rolls and NPCs having low AC/high attack rolls serves an important game balance roll.

    The problem of course is that it has poor "feel" in game, for lack of a better word. Your enemies hit you about as often as you hit them, and it can feel like all your investment into AC was for naught. It feels as though they can full attack with impunity, while your full attack is rolling with really low bonuses. In reality, the players and equal level NPCs are about balanced with each other (assuming martial PC vs. combatant NPC; skill vs. skill; and caster vs. caster).

    On top of that, the balance in Pathfinder was skewed in favor of the PCs most of the time (and I think people are really used to this). If I go to a random CR1 creature from a Pathfinder bestiary, skipping those that aren't focused on dealing damage, I generally find that CR1 enemies stand no chance vs. a Level 1 martial PC. Just now I flipped through a bestiary and stopped on the first CR1 enemy, I got a Skulk:

    Bestiary 2, Skulk stats wrote:

    AC 12, touch 12, flat-footed 10 (+2 Dex)

    hp 16 (3d8+3)

    Melee short sword +2 (1d6/19–20)
    Ranged dagger +4 (1d4/19–20)
    Special Attacks sneak attack +1d6

    Here's a simple 1st level fighter"

    Example CRB fighter wrote:

    AC 17, touch 12, flat-footed 15 (+2 Dex, +5 armor)

    hp 12 (1d10+2)

    Melee greatsword +5 (2d6+6/19–20)

    The fighter's got a better AC, better attack roll, better damage even if the skulk is getting a sneak attack. He's got worse HP, but when he's hitting twice as often for more damage, that's not too important.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Grappling was vastly simplified in Starfinder, and while I feel that in the process it was a bit excessively depowered, its certainly a lot easier to run. Its completely done away with the flowcharts, the situational modifiers, and the unclear restrictions.

    In Starfinder:

  • Grapple always takes a standard action
  • Gives target the grappled condition, but not you. This also makes it so they can't move from their space. (If you move away it ends)
  • Lasts for 1 round. The following round on your turn you have to attempt it again if you want to 'renew' it.
  • Applies pinned instead of grappled if you exceed the grapple attack roll target by 5 (doesn't require enemy to be already grappled)
  • Grappled and pinned conditions very clearly explain what you can and can't do while under these conditions.
  • You can only grapple/pin one thing at a time.

    I'll bet you that PF2E is going to either use the same rules or very similar ones.


  • Donovan Borde wrote:
    Hello everybody. I am new to Starfinder and PbP but I saw that you might have space for another character. If that is the case it would be great if I could join you. ;-) Thanks and have a great weekend!

    Donovan, we are full up. I'd suggest keeping an eye out on the recruitment forum for games that still need people!


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
    Obviously, but I'm aware of several developers and Paizo employees who are of the belief that the Caster/Martial Disparity doesn't exist, and as such the odds that those problem spells are nerfed, removed, changed, whatever, is unlikely to occur, and we'll just get more of the same.

    This is the team that made Starfinder, where basically all of the problem spells were removed, caster scaling was driven into the dust, magical buff-stacking was massively curtailed, and relatively inexpensive tech items gave everyone abilities that used to be exclusive to magic.

    I'd say that despite some previous statements, they know how to make a game where the C/MD is much less severe than Pathfinder 1E. It remains to be seen how much of this design they apply to 2E.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    Flying becomes so ubiquitous at mid to high levels that I'd actually prefer to have the flying rules stripped down to some bare essentials. Making a fly check every single round just to be able to act is a lot of dice being thrown for not a lot of fun in game. Fly checks to do things like turn 90degrees, hover, or anything similar, are all frustrating to deal with round after round. Facing doesn't exist in the rest of the game, and it probably shouldn't exist in flying either.

    So: way fewer fly checks, fewer restrictions on flying movement, fewer wing vs. magical flying special cases, and maybe even removing the fly skill entirely (acrobatics can sub in if needed).

    I know this eats into the simulationist aspects of the game, but 3d combat is complicated enough already, and this is an easy place to simplify things.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

    The current shield rules from the Glass Cannon preview look great to me. You have an active tradeoff that looks really meaningful. Do you make an attack that's unlikely to hit at BAB-10, or do you end your turn by hunkering down with your shield? Do you charge into the fray by hoping to take out an enemy immediately or do you bring your shield out to protect against the possible focus-fire? It might require an action on your turn, but if the bonus AC and "DR" are worth it, its going to be a real and valuable consideration.

    From some of the discussion by the devs and from players who've used the Unchained Action Economy, this looks like it'll expand combat tactics a lot.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
    DM Alistair wrote:

    I think I read somewhere that you can attack 3 times at 0/-5/-10 but if you have a special weapon property (agile I think? Don't quote me on that) it drops it to 0/-2/-4.

    My question is why not make it just 0/-2/-4 core?

    Math (or more specifically both gameplay balance and game-feel)

    Assuming they take the lessons they learned making Starfinder and apply them to 2E, agile weapons will have more accurate iteratives but deal less damage in some way, probably by having both worse damage dice and scaling worse with your stats.

    This gives distinct playstyles:
    Big attacks that rapidly drop off in accuracy if you try to jam too many of them in quick succession.
    Small accurate attacks that land reliably and rapidly.

    1 to 50 of 301 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>