Goblin

kaid's page

Organized Play Member. 492 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 492 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Texas Snyper wrote:
Tallow wrote:

The melee line for the Redcap:

Please have something, a semi-colon, the words or, and, or a double dash or something that visibly separates the two types of attacks. Right now the damage for the Scythe blends directly into the start of the bladed boot attack. Visibly that's really bad and confusing. Especially if you are listing Damage: with a bold label directly after each type of attack, then the next attack needs to also either be labeled [[A]]Melee: on its own line, or some icon or word to separate the two attacks so they are visibly distinct from one another.

e.g.

Quote:

[[A]] Melee scythe +13 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing; boot +13 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

or

[[A]] Melee scythe +13 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing
[[A]] Melee boot +13 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

my preference is a separate line for each attack

or

[[A]] Melee scythe +13 (deadly 1d10, trip), Damage 2d10+4 slashing -or- boot +13 (agile, versatile B), Damage 2d4+8 piercing

I think the "boot" entry doesn't have an [[A]] tag next to it is because it can only be done as a part of the [[R]] reaction of stomp. It's on a second line because it is its own attack but it can't be done as a part of a [[A]] Strike action, it's only used when you [[R]] Reaction.

It is also possible that it is part of a combo attack. You do the one action and you scythe then you boot. The listing is not really clear on that unfortunately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

The good:

Ability Modifiers instead of Ability Scores. That makes tweaking monsters a lot easier. (Why wasn't this done for PCs?)

The bad:

I'd really like to see where the numbers for AC, TAC, etc. come from. It makes tweaking stats easier.

Overall no HUGE complaints, except...

I am starting to see a theme here where EVERYTHING takes an action. While unifying the rules does make things easier to learn, I fear that being TOO reliant on the action mechanics is going to lead to the "one size fits all" problem. I'd really like to see a clause in the Interact Action that allows you to take the action simultaneously with another action, so long as it makes sense.

For instance, grabbing a potion (or bomb for an alchemist) out of your belt pouch with one hand while you open a door with the other.

The ability score thing is not done for PC simply because their ability scores change over time. NPC generally won't be changing their attribute values in the course of play so no real point giving the actual attribute number instead of just the bonus or negative.


So just so I am clear it is one action to use the scythe and the "slashing boot" attack combo?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Smite Makes Right wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
How can there be unwilling Evil acts then ?
Edit: How can an act be unwilling by the person performing it and be good or evil in regards to judgment of that person?
The Paladin code mentions willing evil acts. If there could not be unwilling evil acts there would be no need to specify willing

Given all the various mind altering spells out there it is very possible to be forced into doing something that you have no control of your own body to prevent. Penalizing a paladin for that would be silly.


That and if it is even somewhat reasonable to hold a release of a new hard cover for gen con release it makes massive sense to do so. So even things that could technically ship in the last week of july should just hold till gencon anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Neuronin wrote:

There is no 'honorable' way to use poisons. It is almost universally recognized as a severe crime to deploy poison as a weapon, and poison is famously a weapon of assassins, tyrants, and cowards.

I don't mind blackguards and dark knights and such being willing to use it...Laertes in Hamlet sure thought it was a great idea...but if you're going to start off with Paladins as champions of Lawful Good, going out of your way to say it's not a cowardly, dishonorable action to smear a substance intended to cause painful, lingering death (or, in the case of soporifics, dull the senses...like some kind of coward) on your weapon to eke out every possible advantage in a fight is not merely wrongheaded, it's disgusting.

(For what it's worth, in 1st edition paladins couldn't use poison OR flaming oil. Flaming oil is a notoriously famous way to burn down entire forests and townships...not precisely a heroic way to do things, either.)

There are many societies that use poison in every day use for hunting and have done so throughout a lot of human history. If you can light your sword on fire or project cold or some other effect I am not sure how much worse poison is than that. Also there are non lethal poisons that could be very appealing to paladins. If your goal is to bring somebody in for justice using something that lets you more safely apprehend the wrong doer with the least amount of physical injury to them as possible seems pretty nobel.


Lou Diamond wrote:
Would it be possible to make the new combat system viable for multi armed races as player characters.

It is likely as doable as what we see in starfinder where they can have as many arms as you want. Basically extra arms mostly help to hold other weapons so you don't have to draw/shift hands on stuff much. They don't give you any extra attacks so you can basically have an octopus humanoid without messing up balance.


Weather Report wrote:
emky wrote:
This seals the deal for me: PF2 is not for me, for much the same reason I don't like 5e. Background/character fluff like this should not have a bearing on the mechanics of a character.
In 5th Ed they are pretty easy to ignore, just choose 2 skills that make sense for your character, and off you go. The fluff benefit can be worked out like any other fluff benefit.

As with starfinder I am assuming there will be a themeless option so if none of the backgrounds appeal to you there is some generic pick that is not tied to any specific background or can be applied to some background of your own.


The Unfortunate Pumpkin wrote:
I just hope there are enough backgrounds in the final version for me to write whatever backstory I want for my character and still be able to find a background that fits it. One of my favorite things about character creation is thinking out and writing my characters backstory, so I hope the backgrounds don't limit what I can create as a backstory.

In starfinder they had a themeless theme so I am imagining they will have something like that as the my background does not fit any of the listed ones well so here is a generic one that I can use for whatever.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
So traits combined with set ability boosts..does this confirm the removal of point buy? Either way, kind of interesting and maybe has possibilities.

Yup it looks like this is the logical expansion of how starfinder was working so basically as you make your character you do the points as you go so pretty fast and easy to get your stats and still have enough room for flexibility. I am just curious if the plus 1 point bumps are more useful than they wind up being in starfinder.


Gisher wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that folks on this thread are making some incorrect assumptions as to how shields work.
Xenocrat's description matches what I gathered from the podcasts. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there were feats or class abilities that can make shields more appealing.

I would bet that more shield oriented classes are going to get a feat that lets them do stuff like move+ready their shield. Right now the basic mechanics sound okay but I am guessing there are a lot of feats and other things that will modify the action flow of how shields work.

For those who like playing tanky type characters the shield changes seem really good though. Especially at low levels it is blocking a pretty sizable amount of damage every round if you are working to do that. Ironically it also looks like shields will work more realistically in that basic ones are pretty disposable as they get shattered and splintered pretty frequently through use but better the shield than your head.


I think they will do a starship book eventually but each of the adventure path books has one or more ship and the pact worlds book had a number of them so it is not as critical as other stuff that they want/need to add. It sounds like the last of the dead suns AP books will contain info on the real big ships of the line and fleet carrier ships which helps fill in the who does a military move a fleet through the drift with any kind of coordination.


Ubu wrote:

My brother is an electrical engineer and develops cube satellites, the one problem with vacuum is that it makes things outgas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_for_use_in_vacuum

Vacuum, combined with solar radiation is basically the worst environment for any man made materials. Outgassing even makes aluminum grow tiny splinters that will flake off of any exposed surface, often destroying electronics.

I don’t think it’s too far fetched to assume a creature that can survive in space could have sensory organs that can “smell” these molocules all around them.

This is pretty much why the car spacex shot into space is going to be a bare skeleton pretty soon. Solar radiation+vacuum is going to wreck all the plastics and carbon stuff pretty fast until there is nothing but the most durable parts of its frame/motors left.


BENSLAYER wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
John John wrote:
It is known that 3 magic items will be necessary for high level play.
What's the source for this? "It is known" doesn't help me get up to speed here!

I think one of the developers said it but I can't seem to find it now. From what I remember the question was about eliminating the big six and the answer was that they basically reduced it to a "big three" instead.

I don't think I am crazy since the OP seems to have the same memory.

It was on the Know Direction Podcast that Bonner mentions necessary Magic items being reduced to three. At the time @CalebTGordan made a round-up thread here.

Seems like bards will have their niche of consumable magic item usage. High charisma and likely good ability with magic items could make them pretty decent backup healers with healing wands still.


Porridge wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

I can tell what those are based on the previous volume's preview.

Yes, there is continuing the campaign article, rest of the articles are ships of the corpse fleet and ships of the line which includes "Sometimes battleships and dreadnoughts just aren’t big enough! This article presents new rules for starships of extraordinary size and power capable of acting as mobile bases for entire fleets"

!!!

Wow. That alone might make this worth getting!

Stuff like this is mentioned in the adventure path drift article. To keep a fleet together during the drift you need to have them all linked up or docked to one ship so clearly there are some monstrous ships out there to work as fleet carriers.


The nice thing is while inborn advantages help most can be pretty easily duplicated by tech so if you really want to be able to do something an armor mod generally will let you make that happen. So they can have a bigger range of what is allowable without blowing the system up and even an OP race is more of a matter of better at some specific stuff at lower levels.


Ya the system makes total sense for one ship but it must get pretty fiddly for DM's handling multi ship squadrons just a lot of stuff going on to track.


Igwilly wrote:

One hope: polearms. Now with this weapon variety, I just hope that polearms get their time in the spotlight too. I loved these polearms lists in old-school editions. Gygax was crazy on those ones, not for no reason :)

It is always fun to look at historical arms books there were a LOT of crazy looking polearms over the years and often designed for specific uses which were pretty different between them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wild Spirit wrote:

To be completely honest I wasn't feeling the cleric at first, but with the inclusion of unique domain powers I am warming up to it more and more. The potential is definitely there. I can't wait to have a look at the Family domain. Mark, can you please tell us something more about that domain?

(I am personally hoping for some Drakainia type of re-population fun :D)

I always liked the magic food improvement stuff. You are out in the woods or some nasty dungeon but your god loves you enough to make sure you can eat and drink like lords haha.


It may make sense for them to make a new category of hover that covers things like weird telepathic flight/floating flight/hover drone type flight. Stuff that has nothing to do with aerodynamic flight.


Honestly I think they need to relook at their flight rules a bit. They make total sense for winged type flight but really don't seem to work correctly when dealing with things like hover drones/contemplatives who are flying by the power of their mind but apparently have trouble hovering and same with barathu who are floating gas bags who apparently are bad at floating.


Hover drones probably keep pace well enough overland and probably the stealth ones as well as the hover ones fly over stuff so they can take a more direct path and the stealth one comes with climbing claws which in some areas may also let them take more direct paths. Also they don't ever get tired so over any distance a drone should have no problems keeping pace.


In the grand scheme of things 1d4 hp repaired once per day is not breaking anything so I would allow it.


Ravingdork wrote:
That's all well and good, provided your GM agrees.

Also in the description it says it was initially developed by the hellknights. It says nothing about being exclusive to them from the listed information. Just like the eco hive pod stuff it is pretty clearly designed for that one xenowarden ship but it has all the BP values to add it to any ship you want.


You also have to assume if people have their personal comps any basic points of culture or commonly known stuff should just be in their local infosphere or your ships info database and should not require any checks at all if you have even a bit of time to consult with them.


Most of the culture tests I have seen in adventures typically are for really arcane points of a culture or archeology/language deciphering type stuff which makes sense for it to be trained. This is less about basic facts and more about sociology/anthropology/xeneology.


The most common two weapon mount setup is going to be to use them both to work as a long arm/heavy weapon mount or ranged weapon/melee weapon. Not a lot of utility wielding two small weapons or two melee weapons. The big thing you would gain for doing so is extra battery/magazine capacity and potentially different resist types in case you are fighting a variety of creatures with specific resistances.


I think it depends on what you are fighting. A lot of stuff in the last adventure path book were things using archaic weaponry. For humanoid type things its pretty easy to tell if they are archaic or not. For monsters I am less sure but I think it is only archaic if it is called out as such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pantshandshake wrote:
"You take 2d10 points of freezer burn damage, and are now unpalatable."

ICEBURN!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
You see, the Oracle has the potential to heal far more than the Cleric while at the same time having the ability to cast other spells if needed and thus prove to be more versatile as its healing isn't based off of Channel Energy.

Is there a misunderstanding about Channel Energy here? Because that's /bonus/ Heals per day, not the cleric's /only/ Heals per day. If the cleric wants to play healbot arms race with the oracle, the cleric can /also/ use spell slots to heal. And probably take the Healing domain with even /more/ healing.

But there is almost no circumstances under which even half of a full caster's spells per day past low levels should need to go into healing.

It also skews the spells per day in an interesting fashion for clerics. They are going to have the most spells per day basically being their highest level spells. Since their heal/harm spells from channel are always basically casting at the highest spell level available they have basically a minimum of 5-6 of their maximum level spell casting spells and then 3 for everything below maximum. So if you have an 18 charisma you could have what 9-10 of your max spell level for casting in a day?

It winds up being interesting that while the total number of spells is lower they are really top heavy in tossing out the biggest stuff they can cast at all better then the prior levels. If you are going to have less spells overall being top heavy in being better stocked in the post potent ones you are capable of casting seems pretty decent. Also with that one feat they were talking about you could go from heal to the various cure abilities to pick what you need for a situation and have it be the most powerful version of that you are capable of casting.


edduardco wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Hmm I don't recall seeing anything about needing a feat for 10th level spells...

It was mentioned in an interview with Jason

It is my biggest gripe with PF2 so far

I am curious to see how it is in play. Once you get to that level at the rate feat gain seems to happen in PF2 I am not sure how many feats you even wind up wanting once you get into 10th level spell category. Spending a feat for real world changing spells does not seem on the face of it unreasonable.


eddv wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Jason wrote:
The new version is built upon the idea of classes that have all these feats that they give you. When it comes to archetypes, it makes sense that they have additional feats you can choose. In the new game, they work similarly to how they did before, but instead of telling you what you’ll lose, you’ll get a package of feats you can choose instead of the feats from your class. They work just like an add-on package for you to choose from. It allows them to be more open and it’s not tied to specific features of classes. This kind of speaks to whatever character wants that to be a bigger part of their character concept. The rogue might want to be a pirate, but so might a wizard. It might have a feat or two that’s better at casting spells that burn sails or knocking holes in boats with lightning bolts. There could be a wide variety of abilities that speak to how the class works and you choose the ones that are appropriate to you. In this case, the archetypes allow us to expand the character types that we have. We’re not just at 12 classes, but we have dozens of different character concepts to explore from that decision alone, not to mention all the choices you have within skills and feats. It’s about giving you as many tools as possible to make the character you want to play as. Archetypes are a big tool that allow us to do that. They’re a box of toys that we can let people play with to customize their character.

It's looking like Starfinder Archetypes.

Make of that what you will.

Or something like a hybrid as it sounds like there will still be more class specific archetypes which currently are not a thing in starfinder. But I am guessing even for the class specific ones it will be similar in the each class has a set of things at the various level intervals of if they chose an archetype that effects that level you give up to gain the archetype abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
And as I said repeatedly in the Alchemist thread, it's not a damn tax if they're giving you the money you're using to pay them. I don't know how to explain this any simpler than I already have several times: they're taking away your A, then they're giving 1 money, which you can use to either buy A, B, or C. You are strictly better off than you were before, because if you want A back, just buy it back with the free money they gave you.

We have different opinions on "Feat Tax" then.

What's the point of Offering A back to me even if it's free? It shouldn't have been taken away anyway. It feels very much like we are being allowed to "Buy Into" Archetypes.

So you have fun with B and C, those are great. I had my A taken away and shoved back into my hands with a confused "WTF" look on my face.

Actually now that I think about it, how the heck will Archetypes work if we just BUY what we want? Archetype removes X? Well I'll just buy it back. Balance nightmare anyone?

Doing it this way allows them in future books to also offer you Options D E F G H I J K L M N O P and so on. With the old way you had a huge choice as a priest at level one with your domain but it baked everything in so there were few options other than the one big choice. This way it is more modular so they can expand by making it more modular and then letting you pick what path YOU want to take. So you could wind up with two priests to the same god with the same domain with some fairly significant differences between them and how they play.


JRutterbush wrote:
thflame wrote:
It seems like much of PF2's "customization" will be in the form of gutting our class abilities and selling them back to us as feats.
Which is fine, since they're also giving you a bunch of extra feats. This means that, if you want something close to the old Cleric, just buy it back with those bonus Class Feats. But if you don't, you have so many more options now. Just don't buy the things you don't want, and get something else instead. More options is better, period.

I think to some extent this was probably a wise way to go. Priests got a TON of stuff for their choice at level 1 but then had few other options past there as it was all baked in. And because it was baked in to your initial choices they could not really give you new stuff much later or the power levels would get crazy.

This way they are making the domain stuff and things to empower it more modular to let you fine tune your priest to the way you want them to play.

It also makes it a LOT easier with future expansions/books to add more options for priests without it just being yet another batch of domains that once you are past level 1 don't matter a lot to you as you can't generally do anything with them as you already made your choice.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
eddv wrote:
Biggest take away - Lamashtu, the mother of Monsters, is neutral now?

That seems an...odd takeaway from that post. Especially since Pharasma can only heal now.

My takeaway was that which of those you do was based on deity, not alignment. So Gorum or Ragathiel might be harm only despite not being Evil, while Pharasma is heal only despite being Neutral and Lamashtu gets to pick despite being Evil.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Ah, well.

It sort of makes sense for Pharasma to only do healing primarily as the positive energy heal stuff seems to be your main anti undead tools as well which is something pharasma is all about. For her main enemies heals ARE harms.


NielsenE wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
I like most of this. I was surprised to see that Channel Energy and Spell Points are not connected. I was expecting them to draw from the same pool. My knee-jerk reaction is "don't like!" because I thought the whole point of Spell Points was to get away from having to track several different resource pools. I'll wait to see how things play out at the table though.
Spell Points are used for abilities unique to their pool and to the class. The spells from channel are essentially more prepared spells per day.
So this means the "why" could be something like: Clerics (or PC clerics at least) normally need a large pool of healing. We didn't want that healing to eat into their spells per day (or else they only prepare heals, or just end up spontaneously converting all their spells to cures). We also didn't want to combine their channel with their spell pool, so they don't feel guilty about using pool points for domain powers rather than channel?

I think this is exactly why the heal/harm spell feature is separate from spells and spell points. With the old ability of ditching memed spells to heal you could find yourself in situations where all you were doing is healing and never got to use your other abilities much. Same here if the heal/harm used spell points you would wind up banking them to use for healing and rarely be using them to use your connection powers that they are designed for which would not be that thematic for whatever god you are worshiping.

It also makes it if you really really want to focus on healing you can crank your charisma up and gain more free heals and since wis is not giving you direct bonuses to number of spells you could permit it to lag a bit behind charisma without crippling yourself.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Hmm, rebalancing the number of spell slots I see.

This seems to make sense with the heal/harm options basically being their own extra pool of spells. If they had the old level of spells in addition to that it probably would be just to much. Plus side it makes it a lot easier to figure out how many spells you have for each level without having to look it up every time you level.


johnlocke90 wrote:

Paladins don't fit Starfinder as well thematically.

The game is much less focused on outsiders and undead. They are still around, but the game is focused on exploring all the crazy aliens and planets you can encounter.

We also no longer have detect alignment spells. So a full class based on killing opposite aligned things does not work as well. We have some archetypes for it though.

Pact worlds also offers archtypes and some feats if you want a more divine flavor for a class. Be pretty easy to make a paladin like soldier using one of those archtypes and some of the available feats. Kinda more like older school paladins where your spell casting kicks in around level 6.


Elinnea wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
I wonder if it can be used together with other actions, like Shoot on the Run. If so, it allows to shoot, move, strike with melee weapon, making it particularly interesting with Opening Volley.
Currently, it looks like you can't. Shot on the Run is a full action, which gives you a single ranged attack anywhere during your movement. It has a special call-out that lets you use it for a ranged trick attack. But the space pirate's Sword and Pistol ability is a standard action, so you wouldn't be able to split up the two attacks.

Still it would let you do some stuff like some of the envoy abilities that use a move action then still basically be able to do a full attack in some situations. A potentially nicely useful ability for classes that tend to use their move action to do stuff so often lose out on full attack ability.


That is an interesting question I can't recall reading about that in the book. I guess it would depend if you want to keep the archetype because they are class agnostic I think you would just give up the class features in order like it shows in the book for whatever class you are currently progressing. I think it would only really have a major potential confusion/impact if you had waited till later levels to switch classes. For a one level dip it should be pretty straight forward.


I think it is generally just handwave assumed that your adventuring is paying for restock and resupply of the ship either via rewards for completing missions or you are being funded by a backer such as the starfinder society that is helping cover basic costs.


They also flesh it out a bit more in the ruined clouds adventure path book and the pactworlds book. The terms near and vast are not really astrographic locations but more of an indication how clear your paths are to get there. Things that are near are basically really well "lit" and easy to navigate to quickly. Things in the vast lack good beacons so it is hard to find the path and has to be traveled slowly.


Shaudius wrote:

Con isn't nearly as important with a pool of stamina and HP, you're basically talking 1 Hit Point per level per point of con when you get 11 effective HP a level already.

You're gonna be hurt from the lack of full BAB a bit, but its not insurmountable.

Beyond that, Mystics honestly lose some of the least from taking an Archetype, especially at the level you're playing at.

What race were you thinking about playing? And how heavily do you care about what you wield as a weapon?

I would agree with the way that stamina and HP work in starfinder bumping con a bit as you level up is probably fine but you don't need to go crazy with it. If you want more buffer you can also invest in force shields for temporary HP boosts as you level up.

For a melee mystic they can do it pretty well stat wise bump str bump wis then put extras in con and maybe dex as you level. If you go str for weapons probably worth it to go heavy armor so dex investment would be light. Easy enough to just keep your spells to boost range attacks if needed. The non full BAB would be a bit of a challenge but you should be durable and with your spells to assist it should work fine.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
ryric wrote:

Actually, in Starfinder that won't work as the math for NPCs is designed to produce different results than PCs. An NPC will have lower AC, better attack rolls, and better skills than an equivalent level PC.

I'm really hoping that isn't true for PF2e as that was major 4e dealbreaker for me.

They have specifically said this is not true in PF2 and that building a character using the PC rules as an enemy is both legal and will result in a challenge of the right CR for the level of the character (or whatever term they use). So you should be good to go there.

The way they put it is that the PC rules are one route to power in-setting but not the only one. So using the NPC/Monster creation rules is, thematically, the same as giving them NPC Classes or using Racial HD was in the previous edition (ie: something unavailable to PCs but an existent thing in-setting). I'm cool with that explanation, as long as the system supports it.

You are correct that either path works just fine in PF2. We don't have legacy math requirements and the dominated PC problem isn't as big (thanks to Critical Successes and Failures; for instance, when Jason's wizard got dominated, he nearly TPKed us right away blowing all his best abilities on us after we were hammered by the enemies, but since it wasn't a critical failure, he broke free shortly thereafter), so there's no need to have the NPCs on a shifted math scale like in Starfinder.

Thus, you can build like a PC, or use the monster generation rules, and they'll both work out great! The one trick of building like a PC is the NPC might drop way too much wealth, so I personally am considering using a hybrid for in-depth NPCs where I build like a PC at first but then don't give PC wealth and instead use the monster rule guidelines to give some quick automatic bonus progression.

This does not bode well for my hopes regarding the PF2 economy...
...

Unless you have really tight encumbrance rules and really strict on encumbrance for loot drops. Lots of stuff dropping but you can't effectively cary much of it off other than the light easily pocketed stuff like some coins and gems.


The Sideromancer wrote:

If you spend combat time healing a live target,

  • you have not progressed your team towards the goal condition
  • you have not increased your team's capabilities to achieve the goal condition
  • you have not decreased you opponent's capabilities to accomplish their victory condition
Effectively, you are trading your time with that of the opponent's damage-dealers. You would be healing almost all the time only if that trade was worth it almost all of the time (remember, if you can heal twice the oncoming damage, at least 50% of your time should be spent on something other than healing). In other words, the enemy DPR/DPS is sufficiently large to dominate the match-up. I don't view that as balanced.

Um I would argue time spent healing in combat is actively helping your teams progress towards the goal condition of not dying. When you die it no longer matters what your goals were you failed. As long as everybody is still alive then they still have a chance to complete their task.

Having your teammates not being incapacitated or dead helps increase your teams capability in reaching their goal condition by them not being dead means they still can have goal conditions.

You directly decreased your opponents capability to accomplish their victory by negating damage done. You erased their progress towards their victory condition.

If one healer is capable of negating one or two opponents worth of damage that is a very direct contribution.


It is like the old age of sail but with more automation. Once you are locked in other than doing your watch on the bridge there is likely an awful lot of free time. Stuff like this is why back in the age of sail people got tasked with a lot of cleaning and random maintenance stuff that probably did not need to be done but kept a ship full of bored men to much free time to be destructive. The crew levels on starfinder ships is pretty low which helps a lot and the ships overall seem pretty roomy for the crew size so gives you room to do your own thing to pass time.


If one faction developed it I guarantee you it will spread fast. Knowing something can be done is half the way to making it. Pirates likely are on the receiving end of that trick first from the hellknights so it is pretty likely they work to figure out how it is done and replicate it.


Pact worlds introduced one thing that could make piracy a lot easier. Basically a ship mod that allows you to dampen the ability to go into drift in an area. The more ships using that the bigger the radius effected is. Stuff like that would really help enable piracy. Right now unless your ship is really slow or they some how get really close to you to start an engagement it is hard to lock somebody down before they run away. Something like that device though would let pirates run their prey down easier. It also works against them as well jump "unsuspecting prey" only to find it is a Q ship and you can't jump away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magus Black wrote:
Quote:

Regenerate

The target temporarily gains regeneration 15, which restores 15 Hit Points to it at the start of each of its turns. While it has regeneration, the target can't die from damage and its dying value can't exceed 3 . If the target takes acid or fire damage, its regeneration deactivates until after the end of its next turn.

I seriously don't like this bit here. A creature with Regeneration cant be killed no matter how much damage you deal? This makes it sound like Ogres and the like are either going to absolutely viciously (regardless of level) or they expect everyone to carry Fire and Acid weapons everywhere they go.

Does this mean that their may be mandatory Holy/Unholy/Axiomatic/Anarchic weapon for high level play? I certainly hope not...

You are basically in troll mode use fire or acid to shut it off and then you can kill normally. When fighting stuff like this have somebody with a torch. It does not say they need to take a ton of fire damage just that they take fire damage to deactivate the regeneration.


Aldarc wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
If I remember correctly, there was a stage of PF1 beta where Jason had been considering giving halflings +2 Wisdom instead of Charisma to be more different than gnomes but it got changed due to passionate feedback in favor of Charisma, so there's certainly precedent for changing the ability adjustments due to feedback!
I hope so, because having all three small races having bonuses to Charisma is a little too much to bare. I would be on board with giving Halflings a bonus to Wisdom (resist the One Ring!) and Gnomes a bonus to Intelligence (illusionists!). Anything that made the small ancestries feel less "samey" in their stats. While the floating bonus can be placed anywhere, people aren't going to be getting their impression of the ancestries from floating numbers, but from the hardwired bonuses.

Of the three halflings make sense to have the boost to charisma. Goblins are kinda eyebrow raising for + charisma and gnomes are much more known for their intelligence than their charisma.

It is possible they may be hesitant to give +2dex +2 int though. Still charima seems to be tied to ability to use magic devices/potions more so maybe charisma does make sense to goblins and gnomes. Gnomes are always tinkering with magic stuff and goblins like eating and drinking ALL OF THE THINGS so being able to use lots of potions seems appropriate.

1 to 50 of 492 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>