Goblin

kaid's page

Organized Play Member. 584 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 584 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Is the 10 min cooldown for Shield really necessary?
They want it to be an encounter power, so yes. They've explicitly said they've messed with durations of spells to create spells that last an encounter. So expect more encounter powers to be disguised as cantrips and daily spells.
I totally agree with you, right now Shields is an Encounter Power in disguise. Frankly I rather see Shield nerfed and the cooldown removed, the idea of a cooldown in cantrips is really unappealing to me.

You can use it every single fight if you want just the armor class bonus. It is the players option to use it to block and then put it on cool down for 10 minutes. If they don't then it gives the constant AC benefit when they use it and can use it every single turn if they wish. If they would let the shield block be used every turn it would have to take more than one action to cast and would limit any other spell casting you do.


Damanta wrote:

Why doesn't this book release in july but on august 2nd :(

I need this.
My armor storm soldier needs it.

Gencon. Any big release that comes that close to gencon is almost always going to wind up being launched at the convention. It is simply too good of advertising and market of folks who came stocked with cash to snap new stuff they see up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
kaid wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Is the 10 min cooldown for Shield really necessary?
If you think about it if it managed to be able to do that block action every time you resummoned it that would be basically like 4 or so temporary HP for 1 action every turn. That would be an insane amount of bonus survivability for a cantrip. Even every 10 minutes means basically once per fight every fight you can do that which is still really good.
It cost a reaction too, and are hit points that only apply to strikes and magic missile.

I would note that at least at low level wizards may literally have nothing else to use their reaction on. It looks like you only can use feats/abilities that have a reaction option so something like attacks of opportunity is a specific feat. On the wizard premade I did not see any other reaction options other than the shield block so its a resource not really being spent on anything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Such a legendary smith that they can knock dents out by just scowling at them.


edduardco wrote:
Is the 10 min cooldown for Shield really necessary?

If you think about it if it managed to be able to do that block action every time you resummoned it that would be basically like 4 or so temporary HP for 1 action every turn. That would be an insane amount of bonus survivability for a cantrip. Even every 10 minutes means basically once per fight every fight you can do that which is still really good.


Okay that seems like what I was originally expecting from crossbow. Dead simple to use but takes an extra action to load. Same really with sling the whole load the pouch and then swing it to gain speed is not as quick of an action as knocking and firing a bow.


Xenocrat wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:

Yeah. I don't love reloading for slings. Especially if crossbows are exempt. Just kind of weird.

EDIT: Especially because "the sling is now a more formidable weapon than in Pathfinder First Edition"...
(From the Halfling and Gnome blog)

Larger damage die, but still needs to reload, and only half strength mod...

I think it's more that they think a sling should take longer to fire than a bow (because of the windup) and it made more sense to introduce a separate action to reload rather than make it two actions to "fire."

I think its also safe to assume halfling ancestry probably at some point has a quick slinger option where they use a free or reaction action to reload the sling. It does seem odd though that the cross bow does not have a reload action listed. Even light cross bows knocking the bow putting the arrow in aiming and firing is a bit of a process.


Bardarok wrote:
kaid wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
kaid wrote:
It does seem odd there is this spell roll stat that does not seem to get used anywhere that I can see. I have to assume its good for something but seems kinda odd that the high int does not seem to be doing a lot for the wizard other than skills. It is likely I am missing something but it almost seems like at low levels a wizard would have some advantage favoring dex at least initially to get rolling.
Stated before, but I guess I'll state it again since ppl still seem to be confused. Spell Roll seems to be the equivalent to caster check in 1e. You roll it when you need to make a concentrate on a spell, or to get through SR, or to Dispel Magic.
So useful but early one it still seems almost like there is more benefit for a wizard buffing their dex out rather than going 18 in int off the start. Maybe 16dex 16 int.
Most wizards will have a spell point pool and school specific powers as well. So Int directly effects that. The generalist wizard trades this out for a bonus feat.

Makes me really curious to see what a specialist would look like. The generalist just seems a bit strange off the start where having a high int just does not seem as important. Given the starfinder like attribute gains going 16 dex 16 int as a generalist seems pretty solid. Gain more accuracy for your spells that need it and better dex and by the time you start picking stuff up that cares about higher int should be easy enough to bump it.


Dire Ursus wrote:
kaid wrote:
It does seem odd there is this spell roll stat that does not seem to get used anywhere that I can see. I have to assume its good for something but seems kinda odd that the high int does not seem to be doing a lot for the wizard other than skills. It is likely I am missing something but it almost seems like at low levels a wizard would have some advantage favoring dex at least initially to get rolling.
Stated before, but I guess I'll state it again since ppl still seem to be confused. Spell Roll seems to be the equivalent to caster check in 1e. You roll it when you need to make a concentrate on a spell, or to get through SR, or to Dispel Magic.

So useful but early one it still seems almost like there is more benefit for a wizard buffing their dex out rather than going 18 in int off the start. Maybe 16dex 16 int.


Voss wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
Barathos wrote:
I hope Acid Splash scales quickly, because 1d4+1 isn't worth anything after 1st level.

I bet it will scale with an additional 1d4+1 (with +1 to splash and persistent damage on crits) every two levels.

My first thought when I saw the preview was "whelp, we're back to a 1st level wizard using a crossbow when out of spell slots", but then I realized that since Acid Splash is a Touch Attack it's got an accuracy bonus baked in vs the crossbow.

I was wondering if spells should just use the Spell Roll to attack, instead of relying on Dex (which still seems to be the all-important stat, as I expect most wizards to need it anyway for AC reasons). Then again, a wizard using int to attack might be too accurate for the tight math of PF2E. My next thought was to eliminate touch attacks and touch AC, to put those to-hit numbers back in line. Then I realized that i'd gotten to the same design decision as 5E (which, to be clear, are fine for that game). So, I think we're fine as is.

Somewhat fine. I'm actually wondering if most spellcasters have any use for their 'primary' stat, unless they're really dedicated to save or suck spells (or other things that require saves). Focus on attack spells requires dex, and the buff/utility route doesn't get bonus spells per day for high stats, so... don't really need it either. They can focus more on strength or dex for battle<class> or dex for archery and the general superiority of dex.

It does seem odd there is this spell roll stat that does not seem to get used anywhere that I can see. I have to assume its good for something but seems kinda odd that the high int does not seem to be doing a lot for the wizard other than skills. It is likely I am missing something but it almost seems like at low levels a wizard would have some advantage favoring dex at least initially to get rolling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Just now came back to this blog after sseing it earlier, and realized that I'd been misreading "Celerity Rigging" as "Celebrity Rigging".

4/5 Icons agree!

And Celery rigging a totally different set of bio power armor.


Kittyburger wrote:

6 Medium + 11 Large + 1 Garguantan.

Does the Gargantuan suit have a classic car as its head?

I dig giant robots.

Gundam Style!


A good upgrade of existing stuff is a good way to work it. Really no need to list the same armor 20 times just give us its base and then ability to keep it up to snuff. Could be fun for an exocortex mechanic to work into so he can be tinkering with his power armor to keep upgrading it.


Gregg Reece wrote:
Shouldn't the dagger on that sheet have +4 added to its damage?

If they chose to wield it in melee yes but its basically listed in the ranged slot so it is showing its stats used as a thrown weapon. Really with the rapier you probably should not be using the dagger to melee but if for some reason the rapier got lost/damaged and destroyed then yes the daggers clearly do qualify for the +4 damage in melee.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

Mark,

How do Bards provide material spell components?

Like how clerics can present a deific symbol, bards can play an instrument as the Material Casting as well, if they want. Or just provide the materials as normal.

Oh, I thought each class had a unique and fixed method: arcane focus, holy symbol, or blood. So these are optional replacements for the old goofy dad joke components?

Bards need a helmet mounted harmonica.

My bard is totally sporting one of those one man band outfits. I will maintain all of the buffs!


MerlinCross wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
kaid wrote:
Voss wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Stone Dog wrote:

So Muses are an alternate way of saying "your characters passion" and that passion can be hung on whatever sort of narrative hook that you like. I like it.

As for what makes martials stand out in combat, while all characters share the same progression bonuses to dice rills, it feels like PF2 is focusing more on breadth of ability rather than just big numbers. At a range the elf wizard and the human fighter might be hitting the target roughly equally,but the fighter will have more tricks up their sleeve in actual adventuring conditions.

Which combined with getting more proficiencies on leveling is why I'm not bothered if fighters don't get as many proficiency ranks in skills at level one, at least if their weapon skills feel like actual skills in play.

Not only will the fighter have more tricks, but even the differences they have can lead to some pretty significant results.

For instance, suppose the elf wizard is pretty tooled up on Dexterity and his bow and can hit a solid challenging opponent on a 10 (pretty good for a wizard!) and the fighter is ahead by +3 on accuracy. The wizard is going to do pretty well on that arrow (especially since he can cast a spell and then shoot each round as sort of a freebie). But that fighter is going to do 50% more damage on average just from the accuracy, without any of his tricks.

Why +3? Can't the wizard just prioritize dex over int to close that gap(since stats don't give bonus spells and its presumably possible to just avoid save based spells)?

Are buff spells eliminated in PF2 that a spellcaster can't boost rolls/give higher bonuses? It would seem odd if all of those old personal buffs are missing (especially since bless isn't missing...)

I am pretty sure that extra +3 comes from weapon proficiency. Fighters get their ranked up proficiencies for weapons incredibly fast compared to others. So basically if the
...

I think we won't know that for sure until we see the weapon/martial class feats that get unlocked are. It is not just that being a higher proficiency is a flat bonus better but it also opens the door to taking feats/abilities that require that level of proficiency and that should be the real differentiation point between casters who dabble in combat to those martials fully focused on it.


Cantriped wrote:

I think I love everything about this new bard. Yup. Everything.

I can live without having there be multiple casting progressions, and Bards drawing from the occult tradition works as well as any other if it lets them have spells that fit them.

Although from a design standpoint, it seems odd that Occult is the only tradition that isn't practiced by a prepared spellcaster by default. I think I could have totally accepted bards as charisma-based prepared spellcasters (especially with unlimited performances in the form of exclusive cantrips already baked into the class either way).

Otherwise I'll just have to wait for Paizo to publish four more primary spellcasting classes... one occult prepared, and one spontaneous caster of each of the other three traditions (no more, no less in order to satisfy my obsession with symetry in design). Sorcerers don't count because they pop up in every magical tradition (like lazy, superhuman roaches).

I am pretty sure that occultists or possibly known by another name would be the prepared occult spell casting class. Bard is a good choice though to show off the occult spell list until the other classes are added in the future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Stone Dog wrote:

So Muses are an alternate way of saying "your characters passion" and that passion can be hung on whatever sort of narrative hook that you like. I like it.

As for what makes martials stand out in combat, while all characters share the same progression bonuses to dice rills, it feels like PF2 is focusing more on breadth of ability rather than just big numbers. At a range the elf wizard and the human fighter might be hitting the target roughly equally,but the fighter will have more tricks up their sleeve in actual adventuring conditions.

Which combined with getting more proficiencies on leveling is why I'm not bothered if fighters don't get as many proficiency ranks in skills at level one, at least if their weapon skills feel like actual skills in play.

Not only will the fighter have more tricks, but even the differences they have can lead to some pretty significant results.

For instance, suppose the elf wizard is pretty tooled up on Dexterity and his bow and can hit a solid challenging opponent on a 10 (pretty good for a wizard!) and the fighter is ahead by +3 on accuracy. The wizard is going to do pretty well on that arrow (especially since he can cast a spell and then shoot each round as sort of a freebie). But that fighter is going to do 50% more damage on average just from the accuracy, without any of his tricks.

Why +3? Can't the wizard just prioritize dex over int to close that gap(since stats don't give bonus spells and its presumably possible to just avoid save based spells)?

Are buff spells eliminated in PF2 that a spellcaster can't boost rolls/give higher bonuses? It would seem odd if all of those old personal buffs are missing (especially since bless isn't missing...)

I am pretty sure that extra +3 comes from weapon proficiency. Fighters get their ranked up proficiencies for weapons incredibly fast compared to others. So basically if the ability stats are equal then the fighter is going to be ahead of what less proficient people can do.


Unicore wrote:
If occult is the spell list most connected to the astral plane and mental examinations, will an INT Lore based bard become the new ultimate knew-it-all? Will the diviner loose her place as the ultimate diviner?

Well given a lot of the occult stuff in PF1 and starfinder talk about the akashic library I assume that yes those pursuing the occult arts tend to know a lot of strange and inexplicable things.


The Sarcastic Sage wrote:
RiverMesa wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:
Can we take this as an indication that the 6th level caster doesn't exist in 2e?
All the classes in the playtest have been previewed now and no half-casters to be seen so there will not be any the playtest and probably none in the PF2 CRB. Doesn't mean that there isn't room for them in future PF2 books but probably not till 2020.

There is still a chance for Druid being a half-caster! (...Probably not, though.)

What about Paladin, though?
Take a look at their preview. Paladins lost all spell slots, and now use spell points.

That does seem like the pattern. You are either a full caster with 10 levels of spells or you are not. But some classes like paladin and ranger have or can acquire the ability to cast stuff using their power points.

It likely makes it a bit easier for them to balance power wise when your casters all have similar types of access to stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
BardWannabe wrote:
This is the most uncomfortable I have been about any of the changes so far. I really liked playing bards as competent melee fighters after they spent some time buffing the team. Won't making them full casters necessitate balancing them in a way that makes them less effective in hand-to-hand?
Nope. Clerics and druids have always been able to do it. If anything, I think melee wizard is pretty reasonable to build toward in PF2 aside from HP concerns.

Ok... So... What makes the martial characters stand out, then? If every Spellcaster up to and including wizards can be 'pretty reasonable' or better melee characters, what pushes anyone to pursue pure swords, rage, alchemy or forestry?

If full caster aren't less effective in hand to hand, it seems like the other characters are just losing out, because they don't have the spells lists (and crazy cantrips) on top. Especially since mixing support actions penalizes a character a lot less than the -0/-5/-10 attack routine.

A lot of it are going to come from their feats and the fact they can attain higher levels of skill with their weapons at a much faster rate than others can especially warriors which likely open up more feats and options that require a high level of skill to utilize.

So everybody if they choose to and devote some effort towards it can be competent in hand to hand combat but those who specialize in it should excel.


I am pretty sure they talked about bioware and necrographs will be covered in the armory as well as probably some other flavors of enhancement tech.


Claxon wrote:

Slow is annoying, but as others note you could still charge another character if you are a high enough level Blitz soldier or choose Stellar Rush as a Solarion (and those are really the only characters that should be going hard into melee combat). It's also easy for Soldiers to have a reach weapon, or a backup ranged weapon.

Solarions are the only one with any real difficulty since they don't get longarms by default, and don't currently have an option to add reach to their Solar Weapons (something that's been overlooked IMO).

Still thrown weapons are a good answer, as well as charging.

So, it's challenging but not insurmountable.

Solarians however have options like stellar rush to close the gap even hindered. They also have a number of other powers that can be used to gimp the movement of others or attack at range.

Every melee monster really should have a star knife or other thrown weapon you use your same stats you are focusing on and even slowed its unlikely the opponents can get far enough out of your range for it to not be effective.

The other solution is team mates. There is a reason you don't run solo so if you get goobered up with some debuff your buddies can help.


The guns/armor stuff was needed to help smooth out some of the holes in the existing ones especially power armor but it is nice that there are new class feature stuff being added as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

This is very welcome for identifying monsters regulating access to items in locations as wall as access to new books stuff

Are Exotic weapons even needed now ?

Concerning the Sorcerer thing, well how did people justify in-setting getting access to new (higher-level) spells when you leveled up ?

I think it is the exact same issue as far as in-setting justification is concerned

I think exotic weapons are just plain complex weapon types not really rarity although rarity probably does play a factor if you are wanting to use exotic weapons from tian.

Exotic weapons would be things like the chain with dagger end stuff you see in some martial arts weapons things that are just mechanically complex to use. Fire arms probably will fall into this category as well because it requires some specialized operational understanding to function.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not flashy but seems logical. Looking at the current pathfinder 1 after this many years there is just so much stuff a person can really get lost in the woods if they are trying to hyper optimize options from hundreds of different products. Having a good standardized rule of thumb on what it is likely they can/should have access to and what is rare and what is stuff that they really should not expect to see except by adventuring is nice. I assume this will work like this for crafting and crafted recipes. It always was weird that once you got your skill high enough for the crafting stuff you could make anything out of these hundreds of books even though you likely never saw it before and probably never heard of it before in game.


JiCi wrote:
Huh... why does the Rocket Stormcaller look like a small creature :P ?

Bio weaponry. Brethda's tech is mostly crafted bio organisms from weapons to ships so nice to see some choices of bio weapons for the armory.


Dracomicron wrote:

Things I want:

An intermediary (~level 5) battle glove for my armor storm soldier to pretend to have.

Power Armor that has an equal or higher strength to what a fully enhanced character could have at the appropriate level.

And, like, all the chainsaws.

I am kinda curious if they would do that with power armor. One of the upsides of power armor would be maxed out STR without having to actually BE that strong. If you are a very power armor focused character it would allow you to lower your investment in STR so you just have enough to utilize the armor and then you can spend your excess points elsewhere. So I could see them both doing it and not doing it as each has some valid reasoning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Elleth wrote:

So either way we'll be seeing the Druid soon (yes I know it was on another thing, I haven't watched any podcasts).

Nope, check the intro on the ENWorld article to see which ones were in our early demo batch (Jason chose the perfect set that, matched alongside the demo he wrote, showed off lots of cool changes in some really elegant ways, like weakness and resist, shields, etc).
Eh, would have been weird to get it before the blog (which I am assuming is in a few mondays time) anyway.

Well we will be seeing it soon regardless there just are not that many Mondays left before all of the cats leap forth from bags.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Are there bows?

(and i don't mean ribbons)

I would assume so I would expect the bows from the first adventure path at least to make an appearance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pardon me whilst I reload my squid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
As an aside, the flat check is lower on the rolls you get from spending an action. I have rarely seen the persistent damage go more than a round or two with those rolls.

That makes sense basically the only way it lasts a long time is if you just are ignoring the effect for some reason and letting it bang away at you. Still doing some damage and then forcing them to waste an action trying to stop the effect is very handy.


Elleth wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Seriously though I really like how things like alchemist's fire should work against creatures weak to it. Weakness just seems really fun as an alchemist, and I kind of like how the elixir can be used to buff you even if healthy.
Exactly! That 1 persistent damage is really quite nasty if you're weak to fire. A party with an alchemist can be pretty powerful against frost giants and the like (arm your dextrous allies, like the rogue and the ranger, with bombs for added fun! they cost no resonance to use)

Wait. Does persistent damage stack/ping separately? Because that sounds horrifying.

I'm also assuming precision damage is used for either weakness or to proc certain abilities like those of the rogue?

That does seem to be the impression I get reading it that each persistent thing active is plinking separately. So you are really on fire or really burning alive via acid so on/so forth. But there may be other rules to cover that kind of stacking that we are not seeing.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Seriously though I really like how things like alchemist's fire should work against creatures weak to it. Weakness just seems really fun as an alchemist, and I kind of like how the elixir can be used to buff you even if healthy.
Exactly! That 1 persistent damage is really quite nasty if you're weak to fire. A party with an alchemist can be pretty powerful against frost giants and the like (arm your dextrous allies, like the rogue and the ranger, with bombs for added fun! they cost no resonance to use)

Confirmation that bombs don't inherently cost Resonance! I am overjoyed. That was one of the things I was actually worried about.

Thank, Mark. :)

It looks like you are either paying money to make them so no resonance or the alchemist is using their resonance to make their daily allotment so those bombs are already "paid for" so you can hand those to party members to fling if necessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also if mark is still lurking can we get a bit of clarification on the acid bombs persistance. It is pretty clear on the fire bomb how to end it but having to roll a DC 20 flat check seems really nasty to clear the persistance.

I would guess if you are spending actions you can make that less difficult which is still useful as they frantically try to stop burninating they are more vulnerable to barbarian smashing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing that is interesting though other than some of the oddities in quick alchemy it looks like starter alchemists can run a pretty large amount of bombs/potions a day. Starting with 8 and can make two more during the day potentially is a pretty good amount of alchemy stuff going on through an adventuring day. And at least at low levels seems a reasonable combatant in melee especially if the target is flatfooted.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
kaid wrote:
Also how many actions does it take to fire off quick alchemy. It looks like it has the symbol for one but do you need to have spent actions to draw your alchemy kit in one hand, the formula book drawn and opened to the correct page first?

Mechanically speaking, nothing says you need to use the tools or book during the process, they just need to be on your person. In-universe you clearly do use them, but any such usage is with the 'free hand' required and done by the time the item is as part of the same action.

No other interpretation makes any mechanical sense at all,

I assume that is what they intend but it just seems like you are juggling a LOT of things with your free hand in the same amount of time it takes to draw or swing a sword.


Also how many actions does it take to fire off quick alchemy. It looks like it has the symbol for one but do you need to have spent actions to draw your alchemy kit in one hand, the formula book drawn and opened to the correct page first?


I am pretty sure to use quick alchemy as listed there it requires you to be a skittermander.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So it says due to using resonance during downtime to make items they only have 2 resonance to spend but what did they spend it on during downtime. It can't be quick alchemy or those would already be useless. That is really confusing.


Claxon wrote:
martinaj wrote:

I've been away from these boards for a while, but when SF first hit, several "Solarians need a fix" threads were pretty active, mostly concerned over the fact that they were far more MAD than any other class, and as I look over them again, I can definitely see it. It's not so much that they can't be effective, but making one effective seems to call for a much higher level of system mastery than other classes (I mean it's pretty easy to optimize an operative totally by accident), and they seem to have far fewer viable builds than other classes. It still bothers me that their builds aren't really intuitive - I feel like if a reasonably smart person with little system knowledge sat down to build each class, going with what

That was my impression on going back to them, but I was wondering if the community had ever reached a general consensus?

Having played one my conclusion was:

I can build one for normal play (not space combat), but was only good at melee combat. No real skills to speak of. Which made the character a liability in space combat. The MAD nature of the class really makes things difficult to be able to do anything but combat.

Generally with Full BAB and likely at least decent dex solarians even without any other skills should be one of the better gunners on any ship. Solarians if they are boosting their charisma may wind up being the best ships captain for a party depending on the group makeup.

The only class I have seen that really struggles in a way I think needs fixing in space combat is mystics. Right now they pretty much HAVE to spec into some skills for space combat to do much of anything and even then tend to come out behind anybody else in that role.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:

I LOVE it. I am really excited about fully decoupling Sorcerer from just "wizard but spontaneous." This really makes Sorcerer the most versatile class in the game! I do wish that the Bloodline Powers went past level 10. Also I hope that there are bloodline themed class feats, really delving deep into the "I have Demon blood!" aspect of the class.

Is it August yet?

Yes I really like the way they are doing the spell lines. If your magic is based on your blood it makes way more sense than all the various blood lines always basically making you a spontaneous casting wizard. It also makes it so you could bump into a whole lot of sorcerers and really have no idea what they are going to be like as you could build them in some amazingly different ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JetSetRadio wrote:

I'm sorry I didn't give clearer directions which made you write more. Let's get away from ability upgrades. Let's even throw the abilities out because with point buying they are useless. Plus if I wanted to nerf my class to make a point I could. Let's just look at the core class and what bonuses they have.

You mentioned having an exo-mechanic and hacker-operative. So looking below, am I missing something? These insight bonuses don't stack.

At level 10
Exo-Mechanic
4+int each level
Bypass computers and engineering +3 insight
Exocortex Skill focus +3 insight bonus

Hacker-Operative
8+int each level
Operatives edge +3 insight
Skill focus for computers and engineering +3 insight bonus

Those insight bonuses don't stack. So depending on how a person builds each will mean they are pretty neck and neck.

The thing that makes a class better or worst at something is their class abilities. Compare the operatives computer abilities vs the mechanics. The mechanic blows the operative out of the water with all the crazy Sh*t they can do. I mean Wireless Hack!?

This is one of the things that does not come across great in examples but in actual fights exo mechanics once they start doing their wireless hacking stuff are the best in combat hackers and are also great for covert ops. Need to find out what some gangs are up to the exo can sit at a cafe across the street from his target and hack their datapad without ever having to go close or be obvious in any way. An operative is a great hacker if they have direct physical access to what they are working on.

Operatives are great in situations where they sneak into a facility and are physically at the terminal.

Technomancers excel when they are working on some alien/ancient tech stuff in languages nobody knows.

Mechanics are best for in combat situations. Need that blast door open now while the fight is going? Need to shut down some alarm system while you are running down a hall? Shut off a security camera that is not accessible offsite or from the info sphere?

In the end their skills all work out to within a couple points one way or the other so it really comes down to how much they are specializing in that activity feat/class ability wise for who shines most at the activity.

Starfinder is pretty much setup so that you can put a group together of 4 of any class and probably be able to cover whatever bases you need to cover skill wise and be able to do a competent job at it. I would just reiterate with others have said watch for non stacking bonuses especially insight ones. That is usually were operators seem to at a glance look a ton better but it usually winds up somebody was adding insight bonuses together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I saw planar adventures at my local FLGS yesterday but they did not have the new starfinder adventure path in yet.


Elleth wrote:
kaid wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

IIRC, the lead editor is cray-cray. All "Activation" actions include that term every time they are used, likewise all "Casting" actions (spell components) include the term Casting... 'for clarity'

So we get s~%! like:
"I perform one Somatic Casting Action to cast [Blank]" and "I perform an Operate Activation action to use my [Blank], which lets met perform a Stride bonus action followed by a Strike bonus action."

I would agree one thing that is really worrying me is the really clunky action terminology. They made a big step forward in saying okay you have three actions every turn to help simplify things. But now it looks like there is a confusing amount of action types with confusing terminology and I am not sure if this starts to negate the benefit they got from simplfying to 3 actions only to turn around and make the action types that complex again.
On the bright side, it has been implied that this is mostly relevant for reactions (e.g. AoO). An operation action is still an action as default so it doesn't add much complexity there. As some people have noted though it could be useful to boil a lot of action types down to verbal, somatic/operational, or mental.

That is my hope right now the range of really verbose action types seems like its going to confuse the hell out of people even when it all boils down to this is an action or this is a reaction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

IIRC, the lead editor is cray-cray. All "Activation" actions include that term every time they are used, likewise all "Casting" actions (spell components) include the term Casting... 'for clarity'

So we get s~%! like:
"I perform one Somatic Casting Action to cast [Blank]" and "I perform an Operate Activation action to use my [Blank], which lets met perform a Stride bonus action followed by a Strike bonus action."

I would agree one thing that is really worrying me is the really clunky action terminology. They made a big step forward in saying okay you have three actions every turn to help simplify things. But now it looks like there is a confusing amount of action types with confusing terminology and I am not sure if this starts to negate the benefit they got from simplfying to 3 actions only to turn around and make the action types that complex again.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
kwiqsilver wrote:
Voss wrote:
kwiqsilver wrote:
Etching a rune is a magical process

>.>

No, it isn't. Etching is a normal thing mundane people actually do with metal and stone work.... unless you want to claim that anyone's great-great grandparent's headstones are magical objects.

This discussion is in the context of creating magic items in the Pathfinder 2 game, not an earthly cemetery. Creating a magical rune of potency or sharpness on a scimitar is a magical process. Removing that rune is a magical process. Transferring that rune to another item would also be a magical process.
True---and none of those magical processes should be referred to as "etching." Just make the method keyword "rune" or "runic" and talk about "applying/removing/transferring" runes.

A alternative can be "inscribe" a rune and "transfer" a rune.

But I think people that care will use their terminology, while those that don't care about roleplaying that aspect of the game will not.

Our languages don't have a term for the magical process so we need to adapt common terms. Almost any term can be argued against.

Or go with their starfinder term fusions. You fuse your runes/magic with a weapon to upgrade/enhance it. They also have fusion seals that you can fasten onto a weapon and then later remove it. Adding fusions can change the whole look of the weapon so winds up being really neat and thematic and has less WTF connotations than etching which implies permanently engraving something onto a weapon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dαedαlus wrote:

Wasn't the whole point of Resonance to reduce the number of fiddly uses-per-day charges to begin with? Now I need to keep track of not only how many items I'm wearing, how many runes are on my armor/weapon (and what material it is...), how many potions I've drunk, how many times I've used my Invisibility rune, how many charges are left in my staff, and estimate how much I'll need healing for the rest of the day?

...Yeah, no. If we do keep resonance in the final version, it's going to have to bear little to no resemblance to how it is now or I imagine that'll be the first houserule that is in place in more tables than it isn't. All the speculative upsides of Resonance from when it was first brought up are gone if we still need to keep track of uses and slots.

This is kinda what is confusing me as well. I was following their train of thought on resonance and agreeing with it but to put this system in and still have charges AND per day activations seems like it is just an extra layer of record keeping for no real gain or only really edge case scenario gain. The easier solution would simply make more powerful things take more resonance and remove all the charge/per day stuff.

If you make wands invested then they can't be shared around the party so whoever has it would be the one using their resonance to heal a target so if somebody wants to totally tap out their own resonance wanding to heal I am not sure that is a problem.


Azouth wrote:
Orichalcum that’s new. I like it.

I still remember hearing a shipwreck off of sicily was found to be carrying a shipment of orichalcum I am like GAMER SENSES TINGLING!


Ectar wrote:

Are staves worth using? The healing staff seems questionable at best to me.

One RP for a low impact passive benefit. Admittedly, having a bonus could be good, considering they scale with level now. Or do staff cantrips scale?
But is 1 RP for a spell from a staff even a good use? I guess maybe when using the staff's charges.
The other option seems kinda steep, though. 1 RP and a spell slot to use a spell from the staff seems high, especially since, from the preview, casters have fewer spell slots than PF1.

Finally, who can use a staff? The post mentions spellcasters, but nothing in the actual description seemed to require spellcasting.

For a healer say you cast a group heal that +1 applies to everybody healed so efficiency wise it is pretty decent for the minimal cost of it. It also lets you use it like it was one of your spells you had memorized so I imagine as you get better staves they will allow you a lot more flexibility on what you can cast each day. I see wizards as one of their hinderances is guessing what spells they will need that day. If you know your staff gives you some of your main bread and butter spells it allows you to prepare other stuff instead and have better choices of what you use. It also gives you 3 charges on this low level staff to cast something without having to use up any spell slots do do it which is very handy for emergencies when you need that bit more throughput.

1 to 50 of 584 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>