Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Rule differences between Starfinder and Pathfinder that PFRPG veterans might miss


Starfinder General Discussion

101 to 117 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Bloodrealm wrote:


Maybe that should be another thing Pathfinder veterans might miss:
Feats are much less important and are primarily for variety rather than potency.

That was one of the worst things about PF. Why anyone would actually miss that boggles the mind.

The biggest issues martials had was their lack of versatility and their dependency on feats to maintain their power level (which also forced them to hyper specialize).

That this is gone is a blessing.


"Miss" means "might not notice/realize at first" in this thread's context.


On the matter of imprisoning spellcasters: again, in 90% of cases, the answer is the same as for anybody else. Attentive monitoring and reaction forces. You don't need to keep a technomancer from ever casting a spell. You just need to be able to spot an escape attempt, track their location, and deploy forces to punish the effort. Which is what you need anyway, because that's the way you keep *anybody* prisoner.

And this is most definitely a good thing, because eventually the *PCs* are going to end up prisoners. Do you want a methodology that leaves prisoners absolutely helpless, or do you want one that is effective but still allows drama ( and dramatic escapes )?


Metaphysician wrote:

On the matter of imprisoning spellcasters: again, in 90% of cases, the answer is the same as for anybody else. Attentive monitoring and reaction forces. You don't need to keep a technomancer from ever casting a spell. You just need to be able to spot an escape attempt, track their location, and deploy forces to punish the effort. Which is what you need anyway, because that's the way you keep *anybody* prisoner.

And this is most definitely a good thing, because eventually the *PCs* are going to end up prisoners. Do you want a methodology that leaves prisoners absolutely helpless, or do you want one that is effective but still allows drama ( and dramatic escapes )?

The one problem with that is how do you "spot an escape attempt, track their location, and deploy forces to punish the effort" when in the space of 6 seconds they can teleport anywhere in the star system? Add 6 more seconds and now they are completely invisible to cameras and other forms of surveillance (including magic, magic items, and a blanket statement "surveillance systems".)


Bloodrealm wrote:
ShadowFighter88 wrote:
Maybe just a bracelet or anklet that can detect when the wearer is trying to cast a spell and deliver an electric shock strong enough to force them to lose the spell? I'd be shocked (no pun intended) if a setting with Starfinder's level of magical and technological integration couldn't devise something like that.
Magic seems to be largely overlooked and, for some reason, seen as a novelty. EVERYTHING is technology. Combat is technology. Communication is technology. Travel is technology. The universe-shredding FTL drives of ultimate doom Drift Drives are technology. Even the magic is partly technology. They actually might not have a standard way to imprison spellcasters if every caster can ignore all seven types of components.

No, I mean like a technomagical item that detects when the energy used for shaping a spell is first gathered. As soon as it senses the prisoner calling up that energy, it delivers an electrical shock to disrupt it.

You have it look for the energy or mana or whatever you want to call it, the part that has to happen as part of casting a spell regardless of what components the caster can ignore. Have that trigger the shock.


Just have all the prisons manned by washed out Golarion Idol contestants who constantly sing their own off-key versions of pop songs. NOBODY can concentrate through that cacophony.

On a more serious note, even if players can't access it I imagine Dimensional Anchor is probably a staple spell in prisons, if not an anti-magic field and an em scrambler in each of the cells. Though honestly, having the Dim Anchor and using shielded forcefields for the 'door' is probably as much as one really NEEDS to do. Maybe make every entrance and exit to prisoner areas have double-layer entrances that read guards' biometrics and won't open the second layer if there is more or less mass in the area than there should be.


Shinigami02 wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:

On the matter of imprisoning spellcasters: again, in 90% of cases, the answer is the same as for anybody else. Attentive monitoring and reaction forces. You don't need to keep a technomancer from ever casting a spell. You just need to be able to spot an escape attempt, track their location, and deploy forces to punish the effort. Which is what you need anyway, because that's the way you keep *anybody* prisoner.

And this is most definitely a good thing, because eventually the *PCs* are going to end up prisoners. Do you want a methodology that leaves prisoners absolutely helpless, or do you want one that is effective but still allows drama ( and dramatic escapes )?

The one problem with that is how do you "spot an escape attempt, track their location, and deploy forces to punish the effort" when in the space of 6 seconds they can teleport anywhere in the star system? Add 6 more seconds and now they are completely invisible to cameras and other forms of surveillance (including magic, magic items, and a blanket statement "surveillance systems".)

If your trying to imprison a 16th level *anything*, your going to need to put a great deal of effort into it. Stick Detect Invisible on your cameras. Implant a locator beacon in his body. Stick the entire prison in a pocket dimension.

Basically, the issue of "how to imprison a spellcaster" is *not* the same thing as "how to imprison a high level character who happens to know one specific spell". Yes, its hard to keep a level 16 technomancer in jail. It should be. . . and its hard to keep a level 16 *anything* in jail.


Bigguyinblack wrote:

Flat-footed is now just a -2 to AC and you can't take reactions.

A 5ft step is a move action called guarded step.
There is no -4 for firing into melee.
Charging now gives a -2 to hit instead of +2. You still take the -2 to AC.

One thing to note if an an ally or other enemy can still give cover to your target in melee. So the -4 is now just rolled into the normal cover rules and not its own thing.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
kaid wrote:
One thing to note if an an ally or other enemy can still give cover to your target in melee. So the -4 is now just rolled into the normal cover rules and not its own thing.

In Pathfinder you could easily have both.


Zaister wrote:
kaid wrote:
One thing to note if an an ally or other enemy can still give cover to your target in melee. So the -4 is now just rolled into the normal cover rules and not its own thing.
In Pathfinder you could easily have both.

Yeah, firing into melee and cover were separate things. I'm pretty sure you could already have melee cover.


[cast raise thread]

Something I've just noticed, and don't think has been mentioned anywhere:

pg 239 (combat rules)

Quote:
Surprised Combatants: During combat, combatants who are surprised at the start of battle have the flat-footed condition (see page 276). As a result, they take a –2 penalty to their Armor Class. Once a character has become aware and acted, she is no longer flat-footed due to being surprised.

pg 248

Quote:

REACTIONS

You can’t use a reaction before the first time you act in a combat.

and pg 276 (conditions)

Quote:

Flat-Footed

At the start of a combat, if you are surprised, you are flat-footed until you become aware of combat and have had a chance to act. Many other effects can cause you to become flat-footed. You take a –2 penalty to your AC and cannot take reactions while flat-footed.

So, you're only flat footed at the start of combat if you're surprised; if you're aware of your opponents you aren't flat footed, so no -2 AC. In either case you can't take a reaction if you haven't acted.

Compare with Pathfinder (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.


Which is a good thing, it prevents the classic "We're both pointing our guns at each other already when initiative is rolled, but for some reason whoever loses initiative is totally surprised when the other pulls the trigger."


Critical hits now double all the bonus damage from special abilities, including extra dice.

CRB, page 245 wrote:
You roll your damage twice, each time with all your usual bonuses and including any additional damage from special abilities, and then add the rolls together.

So, Overcharge, Trick Attack, what-have-you, all these bonuses are straight-up doubled. As of yet, I haven't found any exceptions which state that damage is not doubled on a critical hit, as with Sneak Attack or an Alchemist Bomb's extra dice.


Nixitur wrote:

Critical hits now double all the bonus damage from special abilities, including extra dice.

CRB, page 245 wrote:
You roll your damage twice, each time with all your usual bonuses and including any additional damage from special abilities, and then add the rolls together.
So, Overcharge, Trick Attack, what-have-you, all these bonuses are straight-up doubled. As of yet, I haven't found any exceptions which state that damage is not doubled on a critical hit, as with Sneak Attack or an Alchemist Bomb's extra dice.

That could be to balance out the fact that criticals only happen on a 20, if you beat the target AC, and only ever do double damage (plus any special effects)


Skill Focus is now an Insight bonus. And all but one class get Insight skill bonuses automatically (Operative's Edge, Techlore, Bypass, Expertise, Channel Skill, Sidereal Influence), so this makes quite a difference.


Another think I've noticed about feats that I'm not sure if anyone has noted yet, they don't have the language to prevent you from taking the same feat repeatedly as far as I can see


Hazrond wrote:
Another think I've noticed about feats that I'm not sure if anyone has noted yet, they don't have the language to prevent you from taking the same feat repeatedly as far as I can see

Page 152, right-hand column, under Benefit

101 to 117 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Starfinder® / Starfinder General Discussion / Rule differences between Starfinder and Pathfinder that PFRPG veterans might miss All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.