Kyra

Corrik's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 677 posts (4,080 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters. 13 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 677 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Mixing the Mechanic and the Nanocyte does sound fun, but I don't know about having a single "good at technology" class. In the same vein of having a single "good at magic" class, it something that can cause design space issues. It's a lot to pack into a single chassis.


Teridax wrote:
Why would it? "Lol technology" is about as valid an answer to any problem as "lol magic". One of the key differences between 1e and 2e is that magic can't be used to handwave every possible limitation, and I see no reason why technology wouldn't also be balanced under that same assumption.

Well good thing I'm not opting for "lol technology" to solve any problem. Again with the lies. I'm do confess that I'm opting for technology to solve the problems its solved. Flight is available at level 1 is fine, but darkvision available at level 1 is some sort of nonsense. And as far as I can tell, it's only nonsense because you say so. Even though the Starfinder Meta has them as a lower level effect. The exact same meta that has flight as a lower level effect.

Teridax wrote:
The claims are proven correct by your own behavior, including your latest comment. It is you who are being blatantly dishonest in your argumentation, and projecting your poor conduct upon others.

You just saying something doesn't make it so. It just makes it more lies.

Terisax wrote:
Calling the designers "cowards" and talking past anyone who's tried to give you a reality check is not "actively engaging in dialogue".

Hahahaha well for your sake I sure hope you are a troll. Yeah I was actually calling the designers cowards if they didn't let us build Six Shooter the tiny killer puppet. Otherwise this is some sort of sad. Even if you don't know what Puppet Master is, it was a 6 armed cowboy with six 6 shooters.

breithauptclan wrote:

You probably won't like the answer.

Because what we are going to get is likely going to be closer to what you are calling a Starfinder Campaign setting book for Pathfinder2e than it is going to be a Starfinder1e adaptation that makes a few minor tweaks to things to make it somehow be compatible with PF2.

Starfinder2e is going to run on the Pathfinder2e core game engine. That was announced. That is already decided.

It is going to have the flavor, lore, and theme of Starfinder. There are going to be some minor tweaks to PF2 assumptions like what level flight becomes available.

But Starfinder2e is mechanically going to be a lot closer to Pathfinder2e than Starfinder1e.

Most of the things I'm suggesting are minor tweaks like flight. Already handled in the SF1 system and easily ported over. I already expect the majority of the rules to be the same or similar. Light and darkness are not the same level of effect in PF2 as in SF2 because technology basically makes them insignificant. In SF you can get darkvision with a lv 1 armor mod. And it's a level 3 cybernetic modification. I very much expect SF2 to have similar items at a similar level and price. And yet *gestures vaguely at the nonsense* here we are at suggesting it wouldn't be the same thing as in PF2. At suggesting that SF2 grenades wouldn't work exactly like PF2 grenades, like how SF2 guns don't work like PF2 guns or have the same assumptions.

I feel like I've been literally shouting that the problem is the explosives and every keeps coming back to the hands. There are other things that interact with the 3 missiles that cause a similar problem as the 4 hands. Not the least of which is players duck taping a bunch of explosives together!

If starting combat with 4 grenades in your hand is an issue, then 3 players using all of their money to put as much explosives as possible on a suicide drone is going to be a problem.


Teridax wrote:
Because both games operate under the same framework, and unless luminosity and detection work in radically different ways in Starfinder from Pathfinder, there is no reason why darkvision should be trivial in one system and not the other

Why wouldn't Starfinder operate under the assumption that light is easier to have and detect? It is with technology. Presumably even more so with magic technology.

Teridax wrote:
Because there is a very good reason to allow flight at level in SF2e and not PF2e, namely everyone having ranged attacks in Starfinder but not in Pathfinder. For darkvision, or multiple hands for that matter, there is no such special reason, the latter of which was confirmed by a Paizo designer.

And that very good reason is technology. The exact same reason to allow more light and darkvision. Honestly even extra hands, since I've listed numerous examples that replicate the benefits.

Teridax wrote:
But that's not what's going on here, is it? This isn't about what I like or dislike, this is about you deciding to value your feelings more than facts, and deliberately ignoring the differences in balance and mechanics between 1e and 2e that are preventing you from having your cake and eating it too. It's not like Pathfinder got special treatment in this respect either; look at how much change happened between its own 1st Edition and 2e.

But that is whats going on here. And you making a bunch of claims as to my knowledge and my motivations is just you lying.

Teridax wrote:
Because there is a meaningful difference between doing things differently and breaking the balance of a system that holds balance as one of its core design values. Beyond just Pathfinder, the system PF2e is built on runs on a framework for gameplay and general balance that differs fundamentally from 1e, and needs to be respected, even if there is still plenty of room for innovation. Paizo is not going to wildly imbalance a system they've carefully developed for years now to satisfy the capricious desires of a lone internet warrior who thinks they can get what they want through immature and inflammatory behavior. What I am trying to point out to you is that it is in your interest to actually engage with this new system and its values, and work to discuss potential alternatives to active hands as a limiter to multi-handed ancestries: you may not get everything you want, but you'll at least get to give constructive feedback that could potentially lead to something closer to what you'd want. Right now, you're not doing that, you're just making pointless, angry noise on this forum. The most constructive thing that can be gleaned from reading your comments is that you are not someone whose feedback would, at this stage at least, lead to the development of a better SF2e.

I'm actively engaging in dialogue and you've done nothing but make baseless claims and insults. Have gone out of your way to ignore context and conflate different topics. You're the one out here instigating things with a burner account.


breithauptclan wrote:
Arguing 'well it works in real life, or at least it could in the distant future. So therefore it should work in game mechanics the way I want too.' is also a non-argument.

Not for a sci-fi game and for things as stupidily insignificant as duct tape, flashlights, and phones. Is Starfinder 2 an actual game? Do we have Pathfinder 2 and Starfinder 2? Or, do we have Pathfinder 2 and a starfinder campaign setting book.

Oh should we not have guns or laser rifles then? They really change things up. Basically the only reason flight was changed. Why not just not have guns and leave flight as is? After all 'Real life' is a "non-argument". Any anecdotes about an image or idea of guns is a "non-argument" because the same is true about anything I'm presenting.

Also, if 'Real Life' isn't an argument, then just let two-armed humans wield 3 missile launchers. We can start breaking things down if that's the route you want to go.

Bretl wrote:
If they don’t want this to work, they either need to put some limits in Quick Draw or they need to make it a different action to fire a missile launcher. If they make it an action with the Flourish trait, they never need to worry about someone firing off more than one a turn.

This is more along the lines of what I'm thinking. You have to spend a 'readying' action to use strike with a missile launcher or similar weapons. Or you have to spend an action to recover after firing such a weapon. I brought up such weapons applying stacking conditions in one of the posts.

There are a number of ways to mechanically go about it. However, the idea is that the limiting factor is having to spend an action in the weapon's actual use. The limiting factor is not in the fact that an action needs to be spend to reload the weapon. Because if you avoid the reload you avoid the tax.

If the weapon itself has the tax, there is less of an issue with having 4 arms. There are other ways to hold more items than multiple arms, and there are typically multiple ways to get extra or free reloads. "Fixing arms" does nothing to resolve the problem with those examples, or provides undo constraint in limiting those items.

Let's take grenades again, and the problem with someone to balance starting combat with 4 grenades in their hands. Well if a grenade uses the same action economy as a bow and arrow, and it's damaged is balanced as such, there is literally no issue with starting the fight with 4 in your hands.

Teridax wrote:
Torches are also a thing in Pathfinder, as are Goggles of Night. I'm sure you will appreciate, however, the difference between holding an item and making yourself highly visible, or using one of the limited invested items you can have, and just being able to do the thing without any of these tradeoffs.

And the mechanics should have SF2 treating seeing in the dark as the same level effect as PF2 because? Having such abilities be more accessible in SF2 is different from flight being more accessible how?

You liking what you like doesn't mean you are engaging and you not liking what I'm bringing up doesn't mean I'm not engaging.

Teridax wrote:
When "thing 2" is "literally the entire system", what you have is, once again, a non-answer. Your "other mechanical options" have nothing to do with 2e or how it works, and you are only making this discussion an uphill battle for you by continuing to not educate yourself on its mechanics or design.

Okay so "one class of item" is literally the entire system. Okay buddy, whatever b&$$**$* makes you feel better.

Teridax wrote:
I do believe I read it in full; your only answer was to find excuses to blame a system you visibly know nothing about to avoid making any sort of concession that multi-armed characters would need some sort of limitation or tradeoff at level 1. As now multiple people have pointed out, that is not a valid answer, and for all your accusations that others are discussing the matter in bad faith, that too is coming off as projection.

Yeah keep talking about bad faith and projection.

Teridax wrote:
The very fact that we are discussing ancestries with more than two hands is proof positive that we are doing things differently from Pathfinder.

So what is the exact problem with things being done differently? Because you are the one insisting things be done like PF2. Give me a valid answer because you've yet to provide one.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Yeah, just from experience from the PF2 playtest arguments along the lines of "well, I'll no longer be able to do this thing I did in the previous edition" go nowhere, since there are likely all sorts of other new things that you can do now that you couldn't do before to balance those out.

The goal is not, and will never be "reproduce all characters and concepts from a previous edition" and specifically when it comes down to it thematics matter much more here than mechanics.

SF2 will have grenade launchers with 6 round magazines. You don't need to balance grenades the same way you would as if they are a glass vial of volatile liquids that only a small handful of people know how to make and use effectively.

The claim that "basic technologies that are literally nothing right now in 2023 should maybe be a consideration of the mechanics" is trying to reproduce all characters and concepts from a previous edition is a bit hyperbolic. And bending over backwards to make things like bayonets, phones, and duck tape not be available or be high level is

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The different meta considerations sort of fall flat when we have the lead developer in this thread saying: "we don't want say, a soldier, to be able to wield 3 [missile launchers] when playing a skittermander."

Which is a problem with missile launchers and not skittermanders. If firing 3 missiles is the most efficient means of doing damage, players are going to find a way to exploit that.

Teridax wrote:
Some ancestries have darkvision, which when always on is about the equivalent of a 4th-rank spell. The problem is that you are still reasoning in 1e terms, where the balance and mechanics are fundamentally different, while actively refusing to engage with 2e and the way it works.

And in Starfinder flashlights are thing. I can buy a thermal imaging camera for my iphone for $200.00. Trying to force seeing in the dark as something equivalent to a 4th rank spell is refusing to engage with Starfinder as either a system or a setting. And it is completely ignoring the design choice of flight being a lower level ability in SF.

Teridax wrote:
"It's not the extra arms, it's the entire rest of the game that is the problem" is a non-answer. All this says in the end is that being able to use four arms at the same time is fundamentally very strong in 2e, which brings us back to the same question, which you've conspicuously failed to answer

I did answer the question, you conspicuously failed to read it. And "Thing 1 isn't broken, thing 2 is broken" is 100% an answer. Go back and read any of the posts where I discuss other mechanical options.

There seems to be this really confusing double think where the meta of Starfinder is allowed to change things but somehow we also have to 100% replicate how everything is mechanically handled in PF2.


Because SF2 has very different meta and balance considerations. In exactly the same way that flight is a level 13 ability in Pathfinder and a level 1 ability in Starfinder.

I'm not bring up the mechanics of SF1, I'm bringing up the meta of SF1. SF1 has a bunch of level one options that makes having multiple arms barely anything. That same reality is true in PF2. For instance, in PF2, I'm not lighting the fuse on a bowling ball bomb. In Starfinder, I'm grabbing a thermal detonator from the mag clip on my belt, pressing the button with my thumb, and throwing with the same motion of my arm.

Again, I can break using a bow down into a lot of actions that more closely fits the PF2 rules that changing your grip is an action. But bows are not balanced around being one big shot that uses 3 actions. They are balanced that you can use them to make 3 attacks with them if you want. Use the same logic to balance grenades.

If grabbing a grenade from my belt is an action, then grabbing an arrow from my quiver is an action. If grabbing a quiver from my arrow without a feat isn't an action, then neither should grabbing a grenade from my belt without an action. Where is the disconnect for you?

Even if you don't have a disconnect with that logic; Flight is a level 1 ability in SF2 and a level 13 ability in PF2. Why should SF2 grenades follow the meta of PF2 grenades? How is that actually more relevant than the meta of SF1?

"It's for balance" keeps getting thrown around as if this is a difficult concept to grasp that some people just aren't getting. It isn't. I just don't find "This is how it's down in PF2" to be much of an argument against a differing of mechanics or meta. We aren't playing SF2. Even by the dev's "100% compatibility" measure its not much of an argument. We know the meta and balance of SF2 is different than PF2.


Teridax wrote:
thistledown wrote:
Opportunity cost: if you're picking an ancestry for this, you're not taking some other cool ancestry.
In a vacuum, sure, but as Thurston Hillman pointed out, opportunity cost is not enough, and having four or more hands usable without restriction is significantly more powerful than what is allowed at level 1 for an ancestry. While my own comment doesn't necessarily reflect developer opinion on the matter, it should hopefully give at least some idea of the kind of stuff that can be done with two or more pairs of arms in 2e. Thus, opportunity cost alone would not balance a multi-armed ancestry even if that ancestry had nothing but four arms as a trait. We therefore come back to the same question: what would you do, personally, to balance having two, four, perhaps even more extra arms at level 1?

The problem seems to be the mechanics of other things, not the extra arms. Big one shot weapons are balanced around having to spend an action to reload them. So if you can hold multiples of them, you can use a big shot weapon multiple times without reloading, which skews the math. But if the big one shot weapons are balanced around you having to spend an action to use them, then the fact that you are holding 10 of them doesn't matter. The actual use of the weapon itself is what has the action cost. The 2-handed tag has a rule about only being able to have one "readied" at a time.

Being able to wield a two handed gun and a two handed melee weapon is solved by a 300cr heavy bayonet bracket. A light bracket lets you hold a gun, a melee weapon, and a shield. Getting 4 arms was a level 1 spell that granted you an extra non-attack action. There are numerous ways to achieve "holding more than two things" and there will only ever be more options as new releases for a sci-fi fantasy game come out. Fix the thing that breaks when you have more than one, not that it is at all possible to have more than one.

If literally no other ancestry has abilities that compare to having 4 arms, that feels like an awfully low floor for fantasical sci-fi species. What about sharks with laser eyes? Do ancestries not even have abilities that compare to a level 1 spell?

Also, the benefit from using multiple weapons is often balanced by their cost. A lot of times the cost even outweighs the benefit. Those 4 rocket launchers are nice and all, but the soldiers 1 big chain gun should compare up to all 4 of them and outweigh any one of them. Because up to 4 times the resources could be spent on one item. Having 4 arms seems less of a problem then how cheap and good the one shot weapons are.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
There still needs to be a cost for "starting the fight holding 4 grenades" though that could just be a low one since quick-draw and quick-bomber are low level feats.

If drawing, notching, aiming, and loosing an arrow are all one action, then grabbing the grenade from your belt, pulling the pin(or pressing a button), and throwing it are all one action. Balance grenades accordingly.


Rysky wrote:
Aesthetic is not a trade off for power and vice versa.

This is not a good faith reading of opportunity cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having the action cost associated with the big one shot weapons instead of the arms feels like the better solution. Off hand, an automated computer with a helping hands spell chip creates the same problem as having multiple arms. Obviously I can't speak to SF2 but that's a cheap and easy combo by SF1 standards.

Spitballing:
Instead of 1 shot per reload being the limiter, there is actually an action cost associated with using the weapon itself. An action has to be spent to brace the weapon before it can be fired, or the kick is so powerful an action has to be spent the next turn to recover. Or maybe the powerful kick causes some sort of status condition that can be removed with an action. So firing the weapon once gives you 'kickback 1', a second time 'kickback 2', etc. Or maybe firing the weapon gives you the kickback condition, but you can spend an action to brace yourself to avoid it. A character with the kickback condition can't firing a big shot weapon. Then abilities, feats, gear, and spells could interact with more directly with the weapon than whether or not you have multiple limbs. Helping hands could keep it's full SF1 utility and not interact with big one shot weapons, but a higher level spell could.

And all that makes me think of using heat as a reverse ammo system. Certain weapons building more heat as a balancing point, which gives room for abilities/feats to make those weapons better. But that's a bit too far off topic.


Joke time

I mean, the computers on the Enterprise are magic boxes that do impossible things at impossible speeds with basically no input from the crew. And the thing they need to figure out is usually not really much of a thing. All of this being completely controlled by a dramatic narrative.

Here is how I would stat out a Star Trek computer:

This box can do theoretically anything. The first time you use it, it doesn't quite work or gives slightly incorrect information. Make a skill check, it doesn't matter what. Now say something like "But you forgot about the protein shells" or "All we needed to do was reverse the polarity" or maybe even throw in a "We thought of it as constant law, but that is only true for 4th dimensions and lower". Whatever you do, you figure out the thing or solve the problem. If the math/science/technology to solve the problem doesn't exist, it does now. Decide how many nameless people are killed/saved based on your roll.

And I'm only kinda being snarky here. Make the role a 2d6 and have 2-3 lines about 7-9 and 10+ effects and you have a solid PBtA custom move.
Joke time over

But to be serious. The problem is "flying over the bears" invalidates the challenge of the bears. As I said, I don't like the solution that you can only fly at level 13+. I prefer the solution that there is a bunch of flying bears.

Now in Starfinder this isn't a problem, so players can have flight. The reason why this isn't a problem is that technology gave everyone guns. Technology solved it in a similar fashion as there being a bunch of flying bears.

The problem is "I need to know something about a creature that is commonly to uncommonly known". Now in Pathfinder, people have to remember things, so it's an action.

Now in Starfinder this isn't a problem, so players don't have to spend an action. The reason why this isn't a problem is that technology gave everyone a scouter.

And this can still involve plenty of dramatic tension. Something being hidden/removed from the scouters/networks could be a major plot point or even the basis for an entire campaign. Class abilities or gear that hide you from scanners could be a whole thing.

Joke time
Somewhere our wires are getting crossed. You're saying technology can invalidate problems and make things a common option. I'm saying technology can invalidate remembering things and so you don't need to spend actions to get data and you're getting mad! Do you see where I'm like...!?
Joke time over


You can only have one/two 2-handed weapons readied/active unless you spend actions/feats, or something along those lines, is a much more palatable rule than "The creature with 100 tentacles can only use two of them at a time and has to think hard to pick which two".

I do however think there is a ton of design space for abilities/feats to allow nonsense like using all 6 limbs to attack. If the rules don't allow for this by level nine, then the designers are cowards. However, that probably wouldn't be by providing 6 actual attacks. More like grant new weapon qualities like the Fusillade feat. With more feats providing more options or bonuses. Having different effects depending on different combinations of elemental weapons would be a lot of fun.

*Edited for nonsense*
Feat: That's a lot of guns!
Prerequisite: other feats
For 3 actions, you can make an attack with 6 different weapons. This allows you to make 4 attacks, with the second attack taking no penalty, and the third and 4 attacks take multi-attack penalties as normal. This expends 3 times the normal amount of ammunition from each weapon and each attack must be made against the same target. Because you are absolutely unloading gansta-style, you may not take any movement this round, even if another ability would otherwise allow you to. If you can not make an attack with 6 different weapons, you may not use this ability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But we aren't talking about making 6 attacks with 6 limbs. We are talking about making an attack with hand 1 and an attack with hand 3 without having to spend an action to think about. 2 attacks, 2 actions, 2 hands. The fact that you used the ice pistol instead of the fire pistol is the benefit of having multiple limbs. Saying you have to spend an action first but you can buy a feat to not spend an action is creating a problem and selling a solution.

Again, if firing hand 1 and hand 3 without spending an action breaks something, it's hard to imagine the scenario where the actual problem isn't something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
xaviorbat wrote:

Wishlist: A starship economy. I know people kept saying "They could retire by selling their ship" but thats not true. If spaceflight is as common as it would need to be, selling it would be like selling at most a nice RV. Plus the fact that saying that is kind of a cop out, considering so can getting any hoard or magic item. Remember, the average person lives a year on a single gold. Getting a decent magic item could bank roll you for the rest of your life.

Forced Item Progression: Don't assume I want to upgrade my gear, maybe I want to stick with the lower gear for roleplay purposes. Maybe it has a sentimental value. Honestly these reasons are the only reason I don't run Starfinder, no one wants to play it with me because they can't choose to upgrade things.

Counter argument, keep BP for ships and also use it for standard gear. Let credits and a figity item economy be left for lore and RP. You get a certain amount of BP per level which you can spend on gear/upgrades/etc as you like. When you level you can completely respend BP or just use the new points for new stuff as you like. Whether you are upgrading the same trusty weapon the entire time or always buying the latest toy is also left to 'lore'.

Or maybe just fold all of that under "experience points" that you can spend on skills, physical/magical upgrades, gear, class abilities, etc? Yeah I know, but what if we just had some fun huh?

Rysky wrote:

“Remember, the average person lives a year on a single gold.”

Which has nothing to do with Starfinder.

To your point though, the majority of players aren’t gonna take the first chance they can get to screw over the GM/other players and quit the game by retiring, unless they don’t like the GM/campaign, which is a player/GM issue, not a mechanics issue.

Look at Rysky and I agreeing on things. Yeah, if your players get an awesome new space ship and their first reaction is "Cool, now we don't have to play anymore" then I think they just didn't want to play the game. In the very least they don't want to play those characters anymore. In literally every game I've ever played or run, a bigger and badder ship just meant they could do bigger and badder things in space.

And even if you do somehow break the economy with the space ship, there are few gold sinks as good as a space ship the players own. Repairs, system issues, replacement parts, license updates, I mean you can just come up with a never ending list of excuses for them to have to pour money down the drain.

And if they have an emotional connection with that space ship phhh forget about it! They've put a loaded gun in your hand. Anytime you improve your way into a wall, just put that gun to the space ship's head and watch grown adults cry.


More ranged tactical options are for sure needed. And preferably not all locked behind class abilities/fears. That will just see them not be used. Base options that are useful to use so that everyone will. Then class/feat stuff to make good options great and a character's focus.

Even a wizard with a pistol should be able to set up flanking or some other maneuver in the above example. Probably not the best action for them, but saves spell and has tactical advantages in certain situations. The maneuver soldier though, only bothers to use their weapon for pure damage after the fight is already won.


Your ship role should be a whole class separate from your character class.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
It just doesn't seem like "googling the monster to learn about it" should be an effective tactic *in combat*.

Why? Because someone with a normal ganic brain needs to manually parse through a bunch of data? Why are we building things under that baseline assumption? Because that's how it was 2,000 years ago?

You say google, I say a VI near instantaneously puts relevant combat data in my HUD. I say such a thing is next to nothing in a far flung future with magic. AR combat goggles are not some far flung science fiction thing.

You say using the infosphere to identify things seems like a specific ability. I say such a task hasn't been left to people since well before the gap.

You say "yeah sure you have sci-fi computers". I say the datapad in my character's pocket can perform quantum calculations and it's considered slow.


WatersLethe wrote:
I'm gonna come out and say it: I don't care about organized play at all and using it as a cudgel to limit game design is dumb. Also, Battlezoo content is written by Mark Seifter, one of the design leads of PF2, making it some of the best 3rd party content available, and even if it wasn't maligning 3rd party content is a trash stance to take. A vibrant 3rd party content scene is fantastic for a game to have, and PF2's engine is much easier to consistently design for.

Any game can have 3rd party content. Lots of games have had amazing 3rd party content. It is not much of an argument in support of a system. And if it is, then stop playing PF/SF and go play a PBtA hack. If adding dragons to a fantasy game wows you, you've not gonna believe what they get up to in that system.

Thistledown wrote:
And several of us liked the middle ground that starfinder took or even (gasp) liked the high ground of pf1. And now we're having the low ground of pf2 shoved down our throats and being told to like it.

But no one is setting SF1 on fire!

/s


I guess that makes sense from a narrative perspective, but that's pretty dumb from a political perspective. Sounds like a good way to make the Veskskarium cut their losses and start glassing things. Are we of the assumption that the Veskskarium won't just start glassing things? It's not exactly hard to send big rocks at planets to kill them. And we are loosing a pact world.


Eox blowing up makes the most sense for all the reasons listed. I hope they don't though, making the undead planet the baddies just isn't all that interesting.

I'll second that Aucturn hatching is probably the most interesting.

If Aballon blows up I'll riot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also a Starfinder character can drop 300 credits for a bayonet bracket and not even need to switch weapons. Like half of the two handed advanced melee weapons can be used with that. Or like put a tether on their pistol.

And honestly, gear only gets you 10% of your credits back anyway. I'll take a better racial ability and just eat the minor loss if I drop the weapon and can't get it back. It's a pretty niche situation really. And if automatic gear progression is in place I just get that item back when I level.


breithauptclan wrote:

There is a difference between constructive criticism and ultimatums.

I'm aware that there are other potential options for balancing multi-limbed ancestries (I proposed one earlier in this thread). So are the game developers. But all of them are going to come with balance considerations.

What is your actual point here? It honestly feels like you are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think we are getting ahead of ourselves with assumptions about multi-armed characters without seeing the actual rules for the relevant ancestries.

Based on the 2e playtest, I think we should push for the most change early. It's not like the devs are going to be more amiable to bigger changes later down the line.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I guarantee there will be a low level feat for multi-armed folks that let you do things like "open doors" with your other set of arms. You can use the Ganzi "Skillful Tail" feat as a model- it allows you to use your tail to perform any interact action that doesn't require a check (such as opening a door or taking something out of your pack). It does not allow you to count as "wielding" or "holding" whatever it is. There are later feats to upgrade your tail which represent "what Ganzi are like" (i.e. sort of inherently chaotic). There will likewise be feats that Kasatha can take that will let them do more things with their secondary set of arms that reflect what Kasatha are like.

Ganzi are a good example to show how a species with different kinds of limbs could operate. Species with a set of "attack" limbs that are stronger and function as "normal", and a smaller set of 'utility' limbs that are limited without feats.

However, the Kasatha do not have two sets of limbs like that. They simply have 4 arms. And I want them to still have 4 arms. Them not being naturally able to use 4 arms without feat investment is like not letting humans jog and run without feat investment and leveling up. Like not letting them open a door with their off hand unless they spend a feat or an extra action. It's wild. Spending feats to do extra stuff or things a bit outside the norm is one matter. Not all humans are ambidextrous, that would be a feat. However, spending feats just to actually use them like they would be used is another entirely.

In Pathfinder, basically everything is a humanoid biped that can perform essentially all the same functions and requires the same living conditions. For intents and purposes, everything is a single species from a single planet. A very baseline "normal" can be established. So having feats that represent minor differences of biology, culture, and magic works better.

It gets wonky with how high of a level some things are. But if we deal away with the assumption that 95% of the planet is level 1 and can't get beyond level 3, some of that wonkiness goes away. Maybe some of the core Dwarf package can't be found at level one, but if the average dwarf is lv 5-8 that's okay. Especially if we tie level to age a bit. "Oh, a dwarf with stonesense at the tender age of 23? Quite a precocious young one aren't we?"

In Starfinder, while the majority of species are bipedal humanoids, there is still a wider variety. What is "normal" is harder to define. You can be a large sized dragon or a sentient colony of oozes. I would prefer for "normal" to be harder to define still in SF2. Give us a bunch of tags that define the baseline actions species can take: A 'Bipedal' 'Humanoid' can do different baseline things than a 'Multi-limbed' 'Insectoid', which has a different baseline still of 'Polymorphic', 'Psychic Communication', 'Natural Telekinesis'. Then feats change things up and add things from there.

So the psychic jellyfish monster uses it's telekinesis to manipulate objects, and it's tentacles are largely vestigial. It has no mouth and can't make much in the way of physical sounds, but can naturally communicate with all(most) lifeforms. It can manipulate objects from a distance, but only one at a time. However, they can spend feats so they can also use their tentacles to manipulate things, letting them spread their actions around. They don't have to do somantic components for spells but they can spend a feat to do some bonus something if they do do them. What I don't want to see, is the psychic jellyfish monster to mechanically behave as a bipedal humanoid until they get to level 8 and have spent enough feats.

Trying to condense my point: A naturally 4 armed creature mechanically behaving like a naturally 2 armed creature until they spend feats is not a fun or interesting game design to me. Further, it doesn't seem to lend itself to having radically different baselines for different species. Which is a design space I'd like to see expanded. I want to play an amorphous blob and have it behave very mechanically different from a human because it is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

The point is that the decisions are being made for game balance reasons.

There are plenty of ways to justify that decision in-game if you decide to look for and accept one.

Or you could decide to reject all of them and just decide that this is too immersion breaking to have a fun game with your friends with.

Up to you.

"It's for game balance" is not the end all be all excuse you seem to think it is. It certainly doesn't make something immune to criticism. Nor is this option the only way to mechanically balance multi-limbs.

If they have the advantage of multi-limbs, then they can have the disadvantage of something else. Literally anything other than "they only kinda have multi-limbs". None of the multi-limbed species have options for better senses, or flight, or what have you.

You can find a justification for literally anything if you look for and accept one. "I only got two rules. 1: Never kill someone without a reason. 2: You can always find a reason to kill someone." That's a terrible argument and I don't recommend it for future use.

Also, if "I use the weapon in arm 1 and the weapon in arm 3" breaks something mechanically, it feels like the deeper issue is with the thing that broke. It's hard to imagine players not coming up with shenanigans that break the thing even worse.

And personally, I very much want even more of the alien cantina effect. The less humanoid bipeds the better. Which this sort of mechanical decision making doesn't really seem to lend itself to.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

-2 penalties for using your off-hand don't exist in PF2, FWIW.

Everybody can, by default, fight with two weapons. It's just that the default advantage of doing so is "you have two weapons, which have different traits" not "you get extra attacks."

Moves the goalpost back

And how many people do you know that need to spend a mental equivalent to a third action to "switch hands" first?

Because, extra attacks are not the question at hand. But if you can quote where I said 4 arms = 4 attacks, I'd thank you kindly.

What we are talking about, is someone not being able to push a button with their left hand because they did not spend a separate action to "activate" their left hand.

Do you need to activate your left hand to press a button? Do you then need to activate your right hand to open a door? Does that activation take literally as much effort as actually opening the door?

These are also rhetorical questions and the answer is no. Though I'm sure brain damage is capable of such an impact.

Quote:

You are proposing using both hands equally effectively and at the exact same time to do different things.

Try rubbing your belly and patting your head.

Which you can do and it literally requires no training.

Tell me, can you type with both hands? Did you spend as much time and effort as learning a musical instrument to do so? Did you even spend effort or did you just naturally get better at it as your grew up? Has every human that doesn't type one handed spent a feat to do so?

Let us be clear here: We are not talking about having 4 hands and thus having 4 actions. We are talking about having 4 hands and being able to use 4 hands. So hand 1 spends an action to pick up a grape, hand 2 spends an action to pick up a grape, and hand 3 spends an action to pick up a grape.

What the rule and people are arguing for: Hand 1 spends an action to pick up an grape, hand 2 spends an action to pick up an grape, brain uses the same amount of effort to spend an action to 'switch hands', wait until next turn, hand 3 spends an action to pick up a grape. However: If hand 1 spends the action each time, we can pick up 3 grapes.

We are fine with 3 grapes being picked up with 3 actions. We are not fine with 3 grapes being picked up with 3 actions if 3 hands are involved.

If they are a 4 armed character, them only using 2 arms is exactly the same as a 2 armed character only using 1 arm. So if a 4 armed character needs to spend an action to switch between their limb sets, then a 2 armed character needs to spend an action to switch between their dominant limb.


breithauptclan wrote:

And how many four-armed people have you met personally?

People also have dominant hands. Ever tried writing with your non-dominant hand? How is your handwriting at that point? How about shooting a pistol with your non-dominant hand?

And yet... Starfinder1e doesn't represent that in the game mechanics either.

So maybe don't make 'but reality' arguments when talking about decisions being made for game balance.

I'm sorry, are we discussing a -2 penalty to using your off hand or being physically incapable of using both hands? That's a rhetorical question, we are discussing using both hands.

I'm holding a banana in each hand. I move one hand to my mouth and take a bite. I move the other hand to my mouth and take a bite. How many people do you know that need to spend a mental equivalent to a third action to "switch hands" first?

How many people would need as much training at becoming proficient in a weapon or instrument to do such?


LEGS
Some characters, such as humans, have multiple legs. Performing actions with multiple legs concurrently is a challenge and can’t be done without intensive training. You must designate which leg is your active leg. You can change this designation from one leg to another by taking the Switch Active Legs action, which is an Interact action.

This makes as much sense to me. If a naturally 4 armed character needs a feat to type with all 4 hands, why doesn't a naturally 2 armed character need a feat to type with all 2 hands? A 4 armed character using 2 hands is literally the same thing as a 2 armed character using 1 hand.

This is absolutely immersion breaking.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
You do remember that both games are gonna use the same ruleset and be compatible with each other right?

Yeah, and that's a problem.

QuidEst wrote:
SF1's artificial personality upgrades allowed voice commands, but weren't acting as independent NPCs. Starfinder made a pretty clear distinction between AIs and VIs, and the computer's skill modifiers were always pretty lousy.

True, but an irrelevant semantic argument. Whether or not the computer program has true sentience, it can still perform the tasks. And the control module lets computers do a lot more than voice commands.

QuidEst wrote:
I don't have any issues with computers giving bonuses to recalling knowledge, eliminating rarity penalties, or allowing rerolls. "Your computer starts combat by telling everyone the enemy creatures' vulnerabilities during initiative", not so much.

A lot of people take issues with technological realities but it makes little difference. One of my players has an issue with life support force fields in everything completely negating all but the most extreme of environmental factors from day one. Should we make SF characters wear bulking suits to do a space walk simply because that's how a PF character might do it?

The very idea that ganic people would still be bothering to make knowledge skill checks is silly for the technological progression SF is at. That anything involving a computer would take a manual action, laughable. You jack in and perform all functions faster than a PF character can think.

SF characters should look at physical interfaces and manual research the way you or I look at flint knapping.

Sorry, I don't like the idea of nanites forming into an item. SF characters need to use a hammer and coal forge to craft a knife. Fine, they can use UPDs. But it takes the same amount of actions as a hammer and coal forge!


QuidEst wrote:
It's still a game about the PCs and what they do. SF1 still had plenty of things taken actions, and didn't generally have VI systems handling much on their own. Mechanic was the class for really integrating yourself with AI-provided skills and the like.

First off, AI was only a 10% increase to a computer system. It's very cheap and easy to have AI npcs performing a bunch of actions for you.

Secondly, the mechanics of actions and skills should be built around the idea that technology exists. That it has done things like make memorizing things worthless and processing information effortless. And it did so many hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago.

The world of SF should in no way resemble the world of PF, and the mechanics need to change to reflect that. A PF fighter has to spend an action to remember a red dragon breaths fire. A PF fighter is flat f&$#ed if they get shot into the vacuum of space because they have no protections from it nor options to deal with it. Neither scenario is an issue for a SF soldier because tech has trivialized both. The soldier's HUD automatically displays relevant data, and literally all armor(and a lot of clothing) has full life support fields and they can call space 911 for help.

If a SF soldier got sent back in time, they should have no problem with disease because their basic nanite suite protects them. If a PF fighter got sent forward in time should just instantly die because they don't have the basic nanite suite to survive in an environment full of nanites. And SF has nanites so the environment is just lousy with them because it's essentially impossible for it not to be. Regular nanite updates would be the equivalent of flu vaccines today.


Why would it take actions for the AI in your helmet/glasses to automatically pull up all known data and display it on your HUD? Most relevant combat data could be just symbols and numbers. Hell the AI could parse whole articles and provide only relevant data with no actions on your part.

With thousands of years of tech advancement and magic, such an item should be considered a 5cr item with a real world equivalent. Before long this will be a feature barely worth mentioning. Just like your phone's ability to make a call.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be a HUD. That's ancient tech. Just transfer the data through my jack and it's instantly like I always knew it. Let me spend one action to slot in some skillsoft and now I have expert level prof in a skill. Throw in some extra credits to get master level prof.

Again it's the super future with magic, this is some basic tech.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Corrik wrote:
I want it to not use the PF2 engine.
Oh dang, I have some bad news for you :(

Oh it's fine, I've been expecting this for awhile now. You can't be disappointed if you aren't surprised, however unfortunate the circumstance.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I want it to not use the PF2 engine.


What is the status of androids/warforged? Are they mostly considered free and people or is that still an issue for them? Any android/warforged colonies or the like?


I'd love to play some starfinder.


Sounds interesting, I'll think on some character concepts.


I don't have any issues with it, but ultimately it's up to the other player. I can just as easily be a separate vamp. Still fiddling with the stats and starting to fill out the background. Is there anything specific I should keep anything in mind for the setting/story?


https://drive.google.com/file/d/100yHhnFwcTsf3lNkQcC0rEPfTRrSKw3y/view?usp= sharing

Okay hopefully I did that right.

John Pimento: Basic character concept of a mercenary/soldier recently turned by an assamite to be used as a disposable asset. A role he is oddly happy to fulfill.

John has transitioned well to his new condition. Seeing as he was already living an amoral life of killing in blood service to monsters who didn't care if he died, things haven't changed for him much. However now he has a nice set of superpowers and he never has to do another day deployment in a desert.

I'd definitely prefer to weave the character in with the other assamite. Possibly having them be John's sire?


In addition to edition, any specific character building rules or themes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Iron Gods or Jade Regent would be my first choices, but I'd second Hell's Vengeance.


Liliyashanina wrote:
--3rd party stuff is case by case basis.

Would the Legendary version of gunslinger be acceptable?


The first thing that came to mind is a tiefling gunslinger who is in the abyss to find her demon father.


RIZZENMAGNUS wrote:
DeJoker wrote:


I am fine with playing either but they would have differnt impacts upon the campaign you are running and since you are letting us start with the Bond Warder in place and letting Corrik play a female Warder we really wanted to give something back in return in order to help make the game more fun for you and the other players. Please let us know which one you prefer.

first: just to make it clear for me. Corrik would play the female warder. Dejoker would play a female wilder or initiate.

Correct. I believe Dejoker is fine with either and wants to know what would be better for your game. An initiate who is more aligned with the system, or a wilder who is more outside the system.


I'm down to pay a feat, wait, or whatever. While the mechanical benefits are nice and I'm certainly interested in them, I'm more interested in playing with the character dynamics.

I'll probably have a preliminary build and backstory up tonight. I've kept a lot of things modular because I'm not quite sure how the warder/initiate stuff will land and want to make sure we get things thematically correct for the setting.

A bombastic sorcerous responding to an insult with fireballs while her warder tries to carry to her safety may be a great dynamic, but it's not very on brand for Wheel of Time. Except maybe at the end? Things seem to get a bit DBZ as far as power levels go.

A wilder is good if we want to be outside, and possibly, against the system/cultural norms. We aren't the traditional warder bonded pair, and that might get some scorn or laughs, kids playing dress up, etc. I'd say the Children might have an issue with us but that goes without saying, they don't like anyone.

It could be that we have no better options than to go questing for the horn. Gives us something to do, keeps a spaced out from judging eyes, and could be a good(or maybe our only) means to finding a way to perform the bonding spell. Either by learning it ourselves, gaining the favor of someone who could, etc.

Being an initiate is the best option to "play it straight". DeJoker is an Aes Sedai initiate and I'm a warder-to-be. We're sent on the quest as a sort of proving, or maybe implications of zuko-esque exile by way of quest. Or maybe just because of that devil thing.

To be overly brief, my character's motivations are simply to devote herself to someone, to be good enough to do so. The whys and hows are mutable and varied, but basically this is how she proves her worth, by being valuable through service.

So DeJoker the first question(s) are what kind of person do you want to play that is worth that devotion? Is magic a thing of study, mastery, and control? Or is it a wild and instinctual thing? Do you like being above others or does it just make you feel apart?

But most importantly, you have to ask yourself the big question: Do you want to use cold double speak to avoid lying a lot?

Navarre wrote:
Curious idea. it would help explain a warder. Also, if she were a green, she might be more likely to have more than one warder.

Yeah the green seems like a good fit to me as well. Certainly the best option if we'll have ties to the tower.

Navarre wrote:
Though I will confess I asked about some of the weapons from PF, I'm a big fan of the Nodachi he said no

I always like to play loosy goosy with weapon fluff. You don't specifically need a different mechanical item. Just pick one of the other weapons and fluff it more as a Nodachi. The Hafted Axe or Scythe serve as a two-handed slashing weapon. And a Bill serves if you want to play up the reach of the weapon.

If you are going to get a masterwork weapon you could say its a weapon you specifically commissioned from a smith. And it just so happens that my character is a weapons and armor smith. Could be a connection for how we met.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was having trouble keeping track of the rules so organized them into a document. I figured other people would find it useful.

Wheel of Time House rules


There are too many to name but I'd recommend the dragon reread.

https://thedragonreread.com/


However I've also watched the amazing show on Amazon prime :)

Agreed. There are also a lot of podcasts out there that are good for getting caught up.


Cool beans. Have the meat and bones of an armsman build done. I'm fine with waiting until DeJoker's character gets the spell. We can still set up the character dynamics.

The first thing that comes to mind is my character applied to join the warders but was rejected. Somehow someway Dejoker's caster agrees for her to be their warder. So I serve the role even though we don't have access to the bonding magic yet.

@Dejoker it looks like it costs a feat to get a new spell so that's basically how it works.

unknown ter'angreal: 1d100 ⇒ 99


I've only read the first two(forever ago), but I've been talked at about the series quite a bit. I've also been doing some wiki dives.


@DeJoker I was thinking an armsen going into warder, so if you were interested in initiate that would pair nicely. What were you considering?

4d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 6, 4) = 17 16
4d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 4, 5) = 16 14
4d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 3, 2) = 17 15
4d6 ⇒ (5, 5, 6, 3) = 19 16
4d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 5, 6) = 15 13
4d6 ⇒ (5, 2, 4, 2) = 13 11


Sounds interesting, I'll read over the material.


Interested - I have in my head a battle oracle of Iomedae who got her powers 3 days ago during the attack. I'll work on a character and backstory.


Javell wrote:
Okay, I've got to ask: what does "dirty magus" mean exactly?

Haha didn't even consider the other implications but I meant physically dirty. Because he is a drunk who often sleeps in the mud.

The idea is that he is an elf who used to the bodyguard to some important elf noble or what have you. Blended spell and sword, married to a priestess, living the Elvish high life. But then a heroic human paladin came along and stole the heart of his wife. He didn't take the divorce well and has been on a very long bender.

I'll get a build worked up.

1 to 50 of 677 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>