Quantum Steve's page

Claxon wrote:

Nope, I like it.

Those checks should be secret and players shouldn't know the results.

Trust your GM to play fairly. If you don't, you should probably find a new GM.

What if you're a GM and you hate this?

What if you're a player looking to GM and are intimidated by the lack of transparency on the other side of the screen?

What if Game Masters trusted their players rather than strictly enforcing players blindly trusting their Game Masters?

It's just such a frustrating backwards step.

Secrecy and hidden rolls should be the optional rule, not the default assumption.

Metagame knowledge is difficult to deal with. Rarely,as a player, can I say with absolute certainty that I would have made the same decision without metagame knowledge, and I don't think anyone can say any different.

It's possible to play with no separation of player and character knowledge, but that shouldn't be the default option, and limiting metagame knowledge is never a bad thing. That's why players don't sit with copies of the GM's notes

Has anyone actually made the rift boots? I know they were taken out before the final version, but I feel like they could make for a cool item. For now I'm sort of operating under similar rules to boots of escape but with some modifications. My version is currently only capable of being used once per day and then charged through "kinetic energy" as determined by doing things for the rest of the day or a few hours the next day. Also they currently can only do 50 feet, but a character with an item crafting feat could upgrade them at a lab.

If anyone else has statted these up I'd like to see what they came up with.

I made them work similar the Arcanist Dimensional Slide exploit, with every 10 feet of movement using one charge.

Healer's Hands doesn't change how many uses Treat Deadly Wounds requires, so still requires the same number of uses as without the feat.

Without Healing Hands, a player has the option of using:

0 uses, and taking a -4 penalty
1 use, and getting both a +2 bonus and -2 penalty
2 uses, and getting a +2 bonus with no penalty

Healing Hands removes the penalty, but doesn't make any other changes, so a player would have the option of using:

0 uses, with no penalty penalty
1 use, and getting a +2 bonus with no penalty
2 uses, and getting a +2 bonus with no penalty

Being invisible means they cannot tell where you will hit them or when. Will I head but you or stomp on your foot? You do not get flat footed, but you do deny dex.

As to no other benefit from grapple, that is true as far as the grapple is concerned. However, the invisible is a separate thing, so also gives benefits.

/cevah

You're saying that the enemy is not denied it's Dex bonus to CMD because invisibility grants "no other benefits" as far as the grapple is concerned, but it is denied it's Dex bonus to AC along with every other benefit of invisibility, including 50% miss-chance from attacks made by the grappler?

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Also, invisibility never, ever makes a target flat-footed. Other abilities might, but invisibility cannot.

The only written rule is: "A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus higher than +10."

A Monk cannot activate his +7 body wraps while wearing a +5 amulet just like a Paladin couldn't activate her bonded weapon ability to enhance a +10 weapon.

From a rules point of view, teleport has observable manifestations that can be noticed with a perception check.

Assigning a DC to that check can be tricky. Any DC you assign is a 'houserule', so just go with the DC and reasoning that makes the most sense to you.

It probably should be errata'd given the number of players who are misinterpreting the term "weapon damage dice"

Weapon damage dice being the plural of weapon damage die

The weapon damage die for a greatsword is 2d6. That's singular. A single 2d6 die. Once you realize that, the feat makes perfect sense exactly as worded.

Still, players will misinterpret unintuitive game terms no matter how they're defined.

IG has a lot of traveling across the country between mags. Land of Fallen Stars is massively helpful if you want to do any adventuring or random encounters during these trips. If you're just going to fast forward to the next destination without incident, it's not needed.

You can make ranged attacks in the dark; your target would have total concealment.

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

Scatter Firearms, however, ignore concealment. You just choose a direction for your cone, and make all your attacks as normal; no miss chance. It's dark, so you can't see what you're shooting, but other than that it works the same.

I like rolling for stats, but PF just isn't suited to it. Ability scores have too big an impact on the first several levels of play. Even with point buy the difference between a 15 point character and a 20 point character is significant; random stats just make it worse.

Rebalancing the game for a party of randomly overpowered/underpowered PC's is usually more work than it's worth, IMO

Quantum Steve wrote:

Clustered Shots with rapid fire and rapid shot wreck robots, too.

Clustered shots do not work against hardness, only damage reduction.

Clustered shots wrote:

When you use a full-attack action to make multiple ranged weapon attacks against the same opponent, total the damage from all hits before applying that opponent’s damage reduction.

It is a perfectly valid house rule to say it works against hardness too, but as written it doesn't.

Gunslinger deed Dead Shot does work against hardness.

Huh. I always read clustered shots as any effect that recuces damage (i.e. damage reduction) rather than literal DR, but now I see how that might be a more appropriate interpretation.

What static bonuses your players got? Maybe I could use those as suggestions for my players.

Enhancement bonus and Deadly Aim, for starters. The two gun users are an Archeologist Bard and a Gunslinger who get Bardic Luck and Dex to damage respectively. The party also usually keeps some buffs going like Good Hope and Inspire Courage.

Other classes get bonuses to damage, too: Weapon Training, Favored Enemy, Judgement, Sneak Attack, Challenge. Arcane Casters get Arcane Strike.

Clustered Shots with rapid fire and rapid shot wreck robots, too.

The PCs in my IG campaign use their EMP pistol (one of the only non-timeworm guns they have) to great effect against robots. Static bonuses to damage are quite easy to come by and vulnerability to electricity more than compensates for hardness 10 that the vast majority of robots have.

I never noticed the price on tech gear, though. An EMP pistol should be less than an arc pistol for the limitations it has

What are you expecting? It replaces a bunch of rather weak deeds with a bunch of rather weak deeds. Archetypes are meant to be no better than the base class.

The only ability that's underwhelming is Batherskite's Stagger, and only because most of a weapons damage comes from the modifier rather than the die. The other abilities are flavorful and on par with the abilities they replace.

The Batherskite still gets all the best Gunslinger abilities, so it should be just as good as a normal Gunslinger.

Well, it changes the probability of a success, but only a bit, so I guess it's an OK variant.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Ckorik wrote:

A sense of self over your character is one of the most fundamental things you have control over - it shouldn't even be an option to take it away.

On the other hand, with the right players, that can feel like having a positive sense of jeopardy and narrative tension in ways mere character death does not generate.

You make a great case why this system should be optional.

All rules are optional.

Ask your GM. If you are the GM, then go for it. Magic item pricing guidelines aren't really rules, they're guidelines.

Personally, I think that 500gp is far too inexpensive for a +1 bonus to initiative and a +6 would be even worse, so I would not price such an item this way.

Archeologist Luck doesn't have audible or visual components, so the bard can't actually use intimidating performance

I have a question about Furkas Xoud since none of his magic items are ghost touch he doesn't get to use them correct?

Xoud's items lie in a heap on his remains. The "gear" Xoud's ghost carries are ghostly replicas that function exactly as the originals, and as such he has no problems using them.

Since his rod of gripping smoke isn't ghost touch it will only do 50% damage against corporeal targets, as is normal when such things interact, but all of his other gear function as normal.

Balkoth wrote:

That's usually something like a 20-30% damage increase against most targets (especially tough enemies). If Barbarians had an item that said "Your melee attacks now do 25% more damage" you don't think that would be rather key?

Wait what? At what level? This is a 15,000 go magic item, something that would be rare for an 8th level character to possess (investing heavily into one magic item), and it's 25% of their damage? Two more points of damage per hit? Sorry, but... What?

The +2 to attack boosts damage much more than you think

At 8th level a Fighter should have +8 Bab +6 Str +2 GWF +2 Magic +1 WT -3 PA for a full attck: +16/+11.

With a Greatsword they should be dealing 2d6 + 9 Str +2 Magic +2 WS +1 WT +9 PA, so 30 damage per hit.

The average AC for a CR8 baddie is 21 according to the Bestiary, so we're looking at:

80% hit with first attack * 30 damage + 10% crit * 80% hit * 30 damage and
55% hit with second attack * 30 damage + 10% crit * 55% hit * 30 damage
= 44.55 damage per full attack.

With +2 attack/damage

90% hit with first attack * 32 damage + 10% crit * 90% hit * 32 damage and
65% hit with second attack * 32 damage + 10% crit * 65% hit * 32 damage
= 54.56 damage per full attack.

54.56/44.55 = 22.5% more damage.

Generally, Caster Level checks are: 1d20 + Caster Level; that's it. Sometimes there are spells or abilities that will give a bonus to Caster Level checks, but I can't think of any off the top of my head that let you add your ability bonus.

It just feels lopsided for a solarian who chooses a glowing manifestation to affect light level, but not a solarian who chooses a dark manifestation.

And when I read that paragraph it leaves me feeling like a sentence is missing.

Quantum Steve wrote:

It's not missing anything. A Solar's mote does not shed darkness. If nothing else this is for balance.

Is there a balance problem with a dark manifestation affecting the light level?

Affecting the light level 1 step up is easily accomplished with a variety of light sources. Most races need light to see and normal light conditions don't carry any additional benefits or penalties to most creatures.

Dim light and darkness, however, do carry additional penalties. Being able to lower the light level to dim light gives the Solarian a 20% miss chance against any creature without darkvision. As an at-will ability from 1st level, this is FAR more powerful than being able to raise the light level.

Motes either glow brightly or are perfect darkness. Glowing motes shed light, non- glowing motes shed nothing.

It's not missing anything. A Solar's mote does not shed darkness. If nothing else this is for balance.

EC Gamer Guy wrote:

I'd say taking 20 would take 20 days. Since "receive treatment" doesn't imply it succeeds. Cancer patients receive treatments, not all are cured.

Not sure where you're getting a base time of 1 day from, unless that's aimed at providing long-term care instead of treating deadly wounds.

I would imagine they're suggesting that you can only attempt to treat deadly wounds once per day.

A mote either "glows brightly" or is "perfect darkness." A glowing mote, i.e. one that "glows brightly", sheds dim light in a 20-ft radius. A mote that doesn't glow doesn't shed any light.
There's nothing in the rules to suggests a parity between glowing motes and darkness motes: glowing motes shed light, darkness motes do nothing.
Either can be shut off (so there's no longer a visible floating mote hovering near the Solarian) as a standard action.

Also, there's a forum specifically for Starfinder, so this should probably be there.

There's not a penalty for failure, but there is a penalty for not beating the DC by 5 or more: You don't get the bonus.

You should be able to take 20, but you wouldn't get to add your Int bonus to the amount healed. It is assumed you fail to beat the DC by 5 or more several times, and as soon as you successfully use the skill you cannot use it again on the same subject for 24 hours.

Quantum Steve wrote:

Any PC that wasn't spotted would get to act in the surprise round. If all PCs are spotted, there is no surprise round.

Core Rulebook (p. 178) wrote:

If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens.

You don't have to be aware of all of your opponents; you only have to recognize that there are, in fact, opponents.

Example: The wizard teleports in with a rogue, cleric and fighter. The rogue spots all of the PCs. The wizard spots some of the PC's. The cleric and fighter spot none of the PCs. There is a surprise round. The cleric and fighter don't get to act. The wizard, rogue and all PC's get to act.

Example #2: The wizard casts invisibility before teleporting. If the wizard spots one PC, he gets to act in the surprise round. Only the PC's who can see him get to act in the surprise round. If the wizard spots one PC and all PCs see him, there is no surprise round.

This is correct. I was thinking of something else.

The only question I have is whether the target has to beat all of the PC's stealth checks or just one? If the target is anticipating a trap then likely they would only have to perceive one of the PCs in order to be alerted to the trap (and hence avoid a surprise round).

If the target isn't suspecting a trap at the destination point, then I would rule that a PC that isn't perceived would get a surprise round while the others (who were noticed) would have to wait until after the surprise round. Good luck!

Any PC that wasn't spotted would get to act in the surprise round. If all PCs are spotted, there is no surprise round. This is the case if the target is expecting a trap or not.

Heighten Spell doesn't work with anything that reduces the effective level of metamagic. Reducing the level defeats the purpose of Heighten which makes the spell function at its effective level.

Black Tentacles break the normal rules of grapple. Controlling the grapple doesn't actually do anything, you can't move, damage, or reposition, or anything else the spell and the spell can still damage you.

#2 is different because this would either be a special case in which the tentacles are considered creatures and habe their own special rules, or the creature itself is or of reach and cannot bbw attacked or grappled at all except at range

Starfinder got rid of the "DC 20 to notice" rule when it comes to invisible creatures. Hopefully they errata the same thing into PF. They also define various states of "awareness", which seem to come from the Ultimate Intrigue book, and a blog on stealth, but it has been expanded.

I liked the "DC 20 to notice" because it served as a limitation to invisibility (which is way OP) and trumps broken stealth scores.

I also run perception as working as both "Spot" and "Listen" but with the same scores. Modifiers, like invisibility, that would only logically affect sight-based perception checks don't affect the DC for hearing-based perception checks. The +20 for standing still, likewise, would make it harder to hear a creature, but not see it. Imprecise senses like hearing would usually take a penalty anyway in cases when sight and hearing both keyed off the same DC.

The end result was Invisibility had mostly the same DCs to notice the creature, but modifiers didn't stack and kept the numbers from getting ridiculous, but that's house-rules.

The paladin code of conduct is a class feature, same as "don't wear metal" is for druids or "don't piss of your deity" for deity-based divine casters. There is no way to separate them other than actually altering the rules--which is fine, naturally! But that particular class feature spawns proportionately far greater whinging. It's puzzling.

Not so puzzling.

Many, many players like to differentiate "crunch" from "fluff". While the crunch is actual rules that must be followed (or house ruled away), the fluff can be freely changed around with breaking "da rules".

Role-Playing choices are firmly in the category of fluff, which is why a class like the Paladin, which has RP baked into the crunch, creates such a dissonance with many players.

As soon as the PCs use the inhibitor facet, Hellion cuts his connection. The PCs can't use the facet a second time because Hellion is no longer connected to the central processor.

The rules on drugs aren't very robust. They only work well when used as intended: normal PCs using them normally.
Try to throw in things like undead or offensive use, and they fall apart pretty quickly.

The Mad Comrade wrote:

Mounts require reasonable gear investment so that they don't die by the truckload. Movement in non-standard terrain is an issue, especially for Large quadruped mounts (hooved or otherwise). Until the cavalier invests in being able to pocket their ride, the mount is a drain on the group's resources.

Having said all of that ... it's a heck of a lot of fun to skewer something in the face with 15' of sharpened steel astride a thundering destrier ... although the Fighter can do that too, and better. They suffer from squishy mount syndrome, but then ... hrm ...

Or it flies. Like with a griffon via monstrous mount.

Except in dungeons with 5' hallways

Also, AC 39 at level 20? I guess things will miss the mount on their last attack. Natural attacks will be an issue, though. CR 20 beasties like dragons will hit on a 4+.

Hold on, so some of you are saying that (back the chest idea). Rogue shoots drops behind the chest and makes a stealth check. Pops up the next round and fire inflicting sneak damage. Falls prone as a free action and uses stealth again. Pops up the following round (from behind that chest everyone saw him drop behind.) but thanks to high stealth roll stands up fires an arrow and does sneak damage then fall prone, rinse and repeat? That can't possibly be RAI.

First the Rogue has to hide behind the chest. Unless this is a very large chest which provides full cover chances are she can still be seen. She'll have to make a bluff check or something to satisfy the 2nd requirement of stealth.

Once she's in stealth she can sneak attack once, then create a distraction and hide again as a move action. She can't get off a full-attack without some way to stealth faster than as part of movement.

She can keep doing this round after round until someone walks behind the chest. At this point she would no longer have cover from the person behind the chest and could not use stealth against him (but she could still use stealh against every one else.)

I hate to harp on this cause I know it's a circular argument but, a rogue is hiding pops up fires a bow, has the feat shot on the run and ends his turn behind another, lets say 3' diameter tree which is enough to proved some kind of cover, not full but some, rolls a stealth and goes undetected because he's ended his turn in cover?

Ending her turn in cover will allow her to maintain stealth. Furthermore, only characters that make their perception checks will notice her move cover.

You attack someone or something without darkvision or low light at night. Smash him with your melee weapon 5' away but guess what that's 20% concealment so I'm gonna go ahead and use my stealth and sneak again next round not to mention, what if he misses his perception he can't attack cause he can't find you?

I could make move outlandish argument but I mean RAW, right?

Again, she would have to create a distraction to hide, but yes, that's how stealth works. It's dark, characters without low-light vision can't see well in the dark and it's easy to lose track of a skilled opponent.

Edit: I should clarify some things about the shot on the run scenario.

If the Rogue shoots from stealth, then uses bluff to create a distraction and hide again, she can still move to different cover without breaking cover a second time.

If the Rogue uses shot on the run, she will break cover when she attacks, but then she can still use bluff to create a distraction and hide behind the new cover.

Quantum Steve wrote:

thejeff wrote:

By RAW, we have to pick either "you need a distraction or you can't stealth, even if you move into any kind of cover or concealment" or "You can always use stealth if you reach any kind of cover or concealment"

You need to create a distraction or you can't stealth unless you're in full cover or concealment.

In normal cover or partial concealment, you're still being observed and can't stealth.

The rules aren't robust enough to cover every corner case. Hiding behind a large tree (that provides full cover) works exactly the same if that tree is in a forest or an empty field.

Where do you get the "full cover or concealment"? Makes sense to me, but the stealth rules don't distinguish, near as I can tell.

And the one tree that provides full cover lets you do the duck behind it, then pop out to sneak attack thing we were just complaining about.

In order to use stealth you need two things:

1. Cover or concealment. Any type of cover or concealment will do.

2. You need to be unobserved. Being in cover isn't enough as most sight-based creatures will still be able to see you. Total cover or concealment, however, will prevent most creatures from seeing you, fulfilling this requirement.

So, just being in cover or concealment just satisfies #1, but you'll still have to satisfy #2 somehow. Being in total cover or concealment will usually satisfy both #'s 1 and 2.

By RAW, we have to pick either "you need a distraction or you can't stealth, even if you move into any kind of cover or concealment" or "You can always use stealth if you reach any kind of cover or concealment"

You need to create a distraction or you can't stealth unless you're in full cover or concealment.

The rules aren't robust enough to cover every corner case. Hiding behind a large tree (that provides full cover) works exactly the same if that tree is in a forest or an empty field.

Ok great but my question is/was do you get sneak damage every round you make a stealth check the round before. In the above example the hob's were firing bows so they weren't going to advance to bring 1 of 6 characters back into sight.

If you are in a room with large chest and that's it nothing else (who knows why there is a chest sitting alone in a room ). A rouge falls runs behind the chest and drops down out of view makes a stealth check. The next round pops up and fires his bow (from 20' away cause I don't to hear about the no sneak from more than 30' thing) he would get his bow damage plus his sneak damage cause he was observed at the start of his turn?

The rogue can't hide if she's being observed.

If the Rogue is hidden and makes an attack, you're denied your Dex, and she gets sneak attack.

Sniping is a whole other thing.

If you're hidden in the bushes you can shoot, and then Stealth; or you can shoot and then Snipe-stealth. Both are allowed due to Concealment.

Sniping-stealth is much harder, but if you succeed, people don't know where the arrow came from. If you don't use Sniping but regular Stealth, people know the arrow came from that shrub and they can go and flush you out of it.

Having seen it in action in a scenario, it's really quite terrifying if Bane arrows are coming your way and you don't know where the archer is. You don't even know in which direction to run to gain cover.

If you're hidden in the bushes and shoot, you automatically break stealth. Unless these bushes provide full cover or full concealment, you're target can likely now see you and you can't use stealth.

As for seeing which direction an arrow is coming from, this has nothing to do with stealth. Noticing an arrow, like noticing anything else, is governed by perception. There's no set DC for noticing an arrow, so it would be up to the GM to set the DC and determine how much information a successful check grants.

Can you be a rogue/unchained rogue? The same answer would apply, I'd think.

If you look at the top of the page for unchained Rogue, it just says "Rogue" They're are the same class so they can't be multiclassed together.

What's up with all the undead lately?

Is it just me, or is this more than the usual amount?

Quantum Steve wrote:

Edit: Also,why the limit to only humanoids? Are dragons not "individuals"?

That one I can answer- because kitsune's Change Shape ability specifies that it's running off of Alter Self, which only allows humanoids.

The Kitsune's Change Shape ability also specifies that she can only take a human form, not any humanoid. If we're arbitrarily ignoring parts of that ability (or just ignoring the entire ability altogether), why not go for broke?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Rather than being a limit to human forms (of the same sex?) it may well mean you can't turn into an individual unless you are already in your human form. In other words, you can't go from kitsune to individual. You must got from kitsune, to human, to individual humanoid.

I know anything but the absolute raw is an anathema to you, but you're trying to pick which way to read raw. Given that, what on earth would be the purpose of such a restriction given that kitsune can be in human form 24 7 ?

I counter with a question of my own: Why on earth would they use the wording they did if they weren't trying to expand the forms you can take on? They literally just needed to say "invdividual human" adding in one more word to make it absolutely clear.

But they didn't, so it could easily be interpreted either way. I'm not even the first person to ask this. It's been asked several times before, so it's hardly clear.

The devs didn't think anyone would consider taking a human form that isn't human. Call it an oversight on their part.

Edit: Also,why the limit to only humanoids? Are dragons not "individuals"?

When you are in human form, you can take the shape of a specific individual.

I'm not sure the intent can be clearer. If a Kitsune is in the shape of any humanoid other than human, she's not in human form and can't take the shape of a specific individual.

Because while it is "wielded as one" it doesn't "weigh as one", or "armor check penalty as one", or "require proficiency as one". Those are a whole lot of things that happen when "wielding as one" that aren't happening.

Actually, you've named them all (except the proficiency one, that not a thing). That's not a lot of things.

Quantum Steve wrote:

John Murdock wrote:

when you train you train with safe weapon, like a wooden one, yes accident can happen but never to the point were you are lethally wounded or dying, if you are lethally wounded you have done something very wrong and is very rare, so rare that it is irrelevant, even when you are practicing with another person since you are using safe weapon and armour to not get hurt, and when you practice is to train muscle memories so even in combat you won't fumble like that normally when you fumble you create opening and thing like that never to the point that you are self-hurting

Training with katas or other repeated movements is not accurately reflected by combat. A combat system shouldn't be used to model it.

at first you train movement then you train with people to know how to react in combat, everything is base on muscle memories even historical book for training are like that

If a set fumble rules differentiate between lethal and non-lethal weapons, then they should work fine between live combatants with non-lethal training weapons. After all, accidents happen.

If you use rules for situations other than those they were designed for, you shouldn't be surprised if the rules don't work.

Quantum Steve wrote:

Except training accidents happen all the time.

Not to mention fighting (or practicing) with live targets is entirely different form practice with inanimate objects, so it makes perfect sense if the rule models don't translate perfectly between the two.

when you train you train with safe weapon, like a wooden one, yes accident can happen but never to the point were you are lethally wounded or dying, if you are lethally wounded you have done something very wrong and is very rare, so rare that it is irrelevant, even when you are practicing with another person since you are using safe weapon and armour to not get hurt, and when you practice is to train muscle memories so even in combat you won't fumble like that normally when you fumble you create opening and thing like that never to the point that you are self-hurting

Training with katas or other repeated movements is not accurately reflected by combat. A combat system shouldn't be used to model it.

ryric wrote:

Except training accidents happen all the time.

Not to mention fighting (or practicing) with live targets is entirely different form practice with inanimate objects, so it makes perfect sense if the rule models don't translate perfectly between the two.

Training accidents happen multiple times in 10 minutes for a small group, every day? That's a pretty incompetent group.

Since most fumble systems don't specify anything about the target of the attack, except AC if there is a confirmation roll, live targets vs. dummies shouldn't matter. Some do specify; for example "fumble provokes an AoO from opponent" completely passes my test.

I've had a dim view of fumbles ever since my 1e monk punched himself to death because the Dragon magazine fumble table said so.

So literally any fumble system can past your test by adding the condition "against creatures"?