Kelizar

Charabdos, The Tidal King's page

162 posts. Alias of IonutRO.


RSS

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Full disclosure, I feel that video-game style tanks aren't a good fit for TTRPG in the vast majority of cases. It's kind of immersion breaking for me when characters go around expecting to take lots of damage over and over.

I mean, for fun, imagine the job interview for the party.

Party: "So, what would you say that you bring to the team?"

Vanguard: "Well, I can take a beating, and if I get hurt enough, I can do lots of things to reduce the damage myself and you all might take later on."

Party: "Okay, what else?"

Vanguard: "... like I said, when I get hurt I can make weird things happen that can protect you all."

Party: "Let's say no one is hurt. What are your specialties?"

Vanguard, sweating: "...I could maybe stab myself in the leg and-"

Party: "I think we're done here."

I see you stopped reading the class description at "Reactive".


Solarians are Monks.

Vanguards are Brawlers.


Who are the Razatlani? I don't remember them mentioned before.


pithica42 wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Are there any rules for Building and Modifying Constructs/Robots?
The drones in the book work like gear (with item levels and prices and what-not), so I assume they can be crafted using the normal craft rules from the CRB page 235. There isn't anything about crafting constructs/robots from like out of the AA books, though.

Damn, alright.

Do any of the new armor types have anything that makes them worth it compared to CRB armors?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
This... is really disappointing. Even having read the justifications and clarifications through the thread, it still feels like it's cheating to know that the "Healer Barbarian" was still at least part Cleric. Oh well, just that much more reason to try my own hand at a non-Cleric Healer build. Probably Sorc or Alchemist.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
This... is really disappointing. Even having read the justifications and clarifications through the thread, it still feels like it's cheating to know that the "Healer Barbarian" was still at least part Cleric. Oh well, just that much more reason to try my own hand at a non-Cleric Healer build. Probably Sorc or Alchemist.
It's also important to note that the barbarian came in a post with a list of all the classes I had seen do some healing, in addition to the specification that she was very weird compared to the others; she became popular on that thread due to people being interested in the barbarian that healed. It's not like I posted in the thread about healers and made it just about barbarians.

What's unfortunate is we didn't have the complete picture, so people got the idea that there were viable non-magical options for healing.

Not "a barbarian/cleric" can heal.

Dragonborn3 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
This... is really disappointing. Even having read the justifications and clarifications through the thread, it still feels like it's cheating to know that the "Healer Barbarian" was still at least part Cleric. Oh well, just that much more reason to try my own hand at a non-Cleric Healer build. Probably Sorc or Alchemist.
It's also important to note that the barbarian came in a post with a list of all the classes I had seen do some healing, in addition to the specification that she was very weird compared to the others; she became popular on that thread due to people being interested in the barbarian that healed. It's not like I posted in the thread about healers and made it just about barbarians.

What's unfortunate is we didn't have the complete picture, so people got the idea that there were viable non-magical options for healing.

Not "a barbarian/cleric" can heal.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
I am quite disappointed to hear that. When you said a barbarian was functioning as the primary healer, I expected it to be an actual barbarian and not a Barbarian/Cleric multiclassed character. Casters are still required to be the healer, it's just you get the "cleric feat" version of mutliclassing instead of 3.5e style multiclassing.

Stop it, you're embarrassing yourselves. It's been clarified over and over that she was mostly using the Medicine skill and items and used her cleric multiclass to prep combat buffs, not healing magic.


Are there any rules for Building and Modifying Constructs/Robots?


pithica42 wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Sounds like a major damage boost to 4-armed races?

Quote:
Soldiers get a new fighting style, called shock and awe, that focuses on overwhelming enemies with auditory and visual stimuli.

Relevant.


zergtitan wrote:
F5 F5 F5 F5 F5........

Hah, tell me about it!


Cellion wrote:
Handcannons question

Spoiler:
I think the idea was to boost side-arms in general so that Envoys and casters don't feel they need to get Longarm proficiency.
Cellion wrote:
Operative Melee Weapons

Spoiler:
Okay, maybe they really are just boosting operative damage, IDK.

pithica42 wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
pithica42 wrote:
Dark Midian wrote:
Out of curiosity, how many hand cannons are there, and do they have any neat effects?
** spoiler omitted **
How many new kinetic side arms are there overall? What are their niches/gimmicks?
** spoiler omitted **

Huh, interesting.

Spoiler:
Do the "rotating" pisols have any mechanics related to them being rotating or is that just fluff?


pithica42 wrote:
Dark Midian wrote:
Out of curiosity, how many hand cannons are there, and do they have any neat effects?
** spoiler omitted **

How many new kinetic side arms are there overall? What are their niches/gimmicks?


Why no more answers?


Big Lemon wrote:
Remind: Line weapons still target AC, meaning it's possible to fire it and miss all targets in a line, or only hit one of them. The beam is not large enough to guarantee damage (or target Reflex saves).

The attack roll on a Line isn't separate for each target. You only roll it once and compare it to the AC of every creature in a line. So a line of Sprites (I forgot Pixies are Small, not Tiny, so pretend I said Sprites before) all share the same AC and so it's all or nothing when it comes to hitting them.


Big Lemon wrote:
Well, perhaps you're right. Multiple targets are not *explicitly" called out in the general plasma flavor text, so there's no reason why a single target plasma gun can't or shouldn't exist.

Oh, single target plasma guns already exist in Starfinder, but there's only 1 type, and it's a high level gun with only 2 tiers to it. It's called a Plasma Caster and it comes in a 13th level version and a 17th level version.

All I was saying is that I hope the Armory adds more single-target plasma variants besides the Plasma Caster, whose gimmick is that it deals loads of damage at the cost of loads of charges.

Big Lemon wrote:


One of your complaints, correct me if I'm wrong, is that plasma guns in SF function like irl flamethrowers, yes? If that's true, then I bring you back to the fact that there'as no description for how wide the beam of plasma is. It can very well be a tiny, narrow beam that penetrates all targets in a line, or an incredibly wide, flamethrower-like shot that engulfs all targets in a line. It's all theater of the mind. You can imagine it whichever ways suits you best

If you were actually getting at something else, then my mistake.

Multiple creatures can share a space, so it's probably big enough to hit many creatures. If a line was made entirely of squares filled with 4 pixies each, all spread out instead of lined up in any way, a plasma pistol or rifle would still hit all of them.


Big Lemon wrote:

"Superheated or electromagnetically charged gas becomes ionized plasma, which plasma weapons emit in a controlled blast"

Just saying: Nothing in there about how thick it is, just that it is powerful enough to penetrate multiple objects.

Sorry, I didn't mean the fluff on Plasma Weapons in general, I meant the fluff on Plasma Pistols and Plasma Rifles specifically, which fire lines of plasma, as opposed to something like the Plasma Caster, which fires bolts like the Plasma Guns in Fallout or the Blasters in Star Wars.

And it doesn't actually say anything about plasma being able to penetrate multiple objects under the fluff for Plasma Weapons in general.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Not sure what you bey fallout weapons.
It's a video game series. Basically I meant if there's any pew pew plasma pistols and rifles as opposed to flamethrower style plasma guns.
Ah ok, I know the games, but I have never played one of them. There is a list of plasma small arms. As in Pathfinder, in Starfinder plasma is electricity and fire.

So are they single shot as opposed to AoE? And are there any plasma longarms like that that are single shot ad opposed to AoE?

cachorro8urubu wrote:

Tldr; plasma guns are "line" weapons, flamethrowers are "blast" weapons. Flame rifles and flame pistol are "line" weapons with a very flamethrower feel (you could say they are focused flamethrowers), but I still get a strong "fallout" vibe fro "line" plasma guns, each shot so hot that it pierces the target. It's the same mechanic for both these last weapons, but with a different flavor to then imo

1. I was referencing real flamethrowers, which shoot jets in a line.

2. The flavour text clearly says the plasma weapons shoot a literal line of plasma. It's not just a hot projectile that goes all the way through the target due to its heat, it's a thick lance of plasma that goes through the whole line as a continuous beam.


Zaister wrote:
Not sure what you bey fallout weapons.

It's a video game series. Basically I meant if there's any pew pew plasma pistols and rifles as opposed to flamethrower style plasma guns.


Zaister wrote:
Sorry, I can't post any more details tonight. I'll try agaim tomorrow.

I await eagerly!


Any new ballistic side arms?

What are the non magical weapon mods?

Are there single shot plasma weapons ala fallout?

Are there laser shotguns?


I will echo the sentiment that an upgrade system for normal weapons and armor would be grand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pirateprincess23 wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:

Radiation guns? Single target Plasma guns? New Power armor?

Urge to run Fallout in Starfinder rising!

I ran a Fallout world in Starfinder. I overlayed the local map of my area and apocalypsed it, made it so vehicles would serve as starships without the drift and space capabilities (although that was an option given they could get to the right people considering what happened in New Vegas) and I set it to just as Triune was sending out the drift beam, so that info was kicking around certain people's heads. There were raiders and ghouls. I used this https://www.sfrpgtools.com/monster-builder to help me remake some classic Fallout monsters. It was really fun.

I'm currently running a 5e urban arcana game so it'll be a while before I run fallout Starfinder, but my main hurdle in conversion was the lack of non plasmathrower style plasma weapons.

My idea is to use spaceships for naval vehicles, with travel up and down the great lakes being a feature of the campaign.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Radiation guns? Single target Plasma guns? New Power armor?

Urge to run Fallout in Starfinder rising!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Monks aren't trained in any weapons, but they are trained in all unarmed attacks.

Then I must've imagined all those monks I had that used Monk Weapons.


Metaphysician wrote:
Depends. I can entirely buy the concept of a person or species with some kind of "preternatural weapon usage", whose features include "ignore the archaic property". I know nothing about the Izalguun, though, so I can't judge appropriateness.

I think the idea is that while their tech looks primitive, it's actually not, so outsiders don't know how to use it correctly, and so in their hands it's no better than the primitive version.


So, I really liked this race when I saw it and want to homebrew a PC version, but I don't quite understand what the "Modernized Arms" means.

Quote:
Modernized Arms (Ex) Any izalguun equipment that would normally have the archaic weapon property loses this property when wielded by an izalguun.

Does it mean that:

a) Archaic weapons built by Izalguun lack that property?

b) All archaic weapons suddenly lose that property when an Izalguun picks them up?

c) Archaic weapons built by Izalguun lack that property when wielded by them but gain it when used by others?

I'm leaning towards a) or c) because it's an Ex ability, so I can't imagine it miraculously remove the Archaic property of a PCs club when an Izalguun picks it up.


Looks good.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, even if those laws are ludicrous, unjust, unfair."


Urgathoa.

NEXT TOPIC!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I still say raising your shield to gain a passive bonus to defense makes no sense, and seeing as you can never improve a shield's bonus to AC through magical enchantment, the suggestion for the bonus to be permanent is perfectly reasonable mechanically.

And before anyone says you have to actively use a shield to block, the Raise Shield action is not blocking, the Shield Block reaction is. As a passive defense AC represents how hard it is for your enemy's weapon to hit your body, hence why a big wooden board in front of you is a passive bonus to AC, by adding an extra barrier between your enemy's weapon and your body, forcing the enemy to go around it, and hence the AC bonus.

Deflecting the blows attempting to circumvent your shield is an active defense, which makes sense for it to require a reaction, but having a shield between you and the enemy, forcing them to have to go around it, is a passive defense, there's no more action needed to it than making sure you're always facing that enemy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see fusion seals also came out of the PF2 Playtest. I hope the maths is less confusing for these than for SF.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Iammars wrote:
Wait, Lamashtu will let you heal? Really?

She's a mother goddess with lots of children to look after. They might be all evil monsters, but they need boo-boos patched up too.

The Blog wrote:
Many other classes that follow similar restrictions have their own anathema. Care to guess which ones those might be?

Monk, druid, and paladin?


Megistone wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:

For people complaining about weapon damage: proportional strength is a thing.

Claudio Stroe, a child bodybuilder, can lift 4 times his body weight with ease, a feat adult bodybuilders struggle with greatly.

Now imagine a small race character with the same muscle definition. That character would be proportionally as strong as a body builder, and be able to wield a blade proportionally as heavy. An average 1-handed sword is 2.5 to 3 lbs., Arnold Schwarzenneger as Conan swung around a 8.5 lb. sword 1-handed. That's 1.7 times as heavy as a greatsword (a real life one).

So a small character with that kind of proportional strength would have no trouble wielding a sword that was heavy and long enough to deal comparable damage to a human's 3 lb. sword (it would probably weigh around 2 to 2.5 lbs though), as long as it had a properly sized grip.

It would probably be longer than arm's length (in humans, the optimum size for a 1-handed sword is about the length of the user's arm, and we know goblin dogslicers are arm's length if not longer, and those are equivalent to shortswords for them) and wider than an equivalent medium weapon, but that character would be able to swing it around just as easily as a human can a medium 1-handed sword.

Now imagine that small character has 18 STR and looks like this...

So an intelligent, sword-wielding ant should easily cut a human in half because ants are very strong for their size.

Also, if the same ant can roar, that should be as terrifying as a lion's roar, because size doesn't matter for intimidation.

Things may be different in 2e, but in PF you usually had higher strength for larger creatures, and lower strength for smaller ones. There were also rules that modified strength and...

Don't be silly, even the largest size sword an ant could wield is too small to be as deadly, but a small sized creature can wield swords that are heavier than medium shortswords. A 36 lb goblin should have no issue lifting a 3 lb sword 1 handed with the same ease a 137 lb human can.

What I'm saying is that a small logsword isn't just a medium logsword scaled to 1/2 size, a small creature can use a sword much heavier than that with ease.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For people complaining about weapon damage: proportional strength is a thing.

Claudio Stroe, a child bodybuilder, can lift 4 times his body weight with ease, a feat adult bodybuilders struggle with greatly.

Now imagine a small race character with the same muscle definition. That character would be proportionally as strong as a body builder, and be able to wield a blade proportionally as heavy. An average 1-handed sword is 2.5 to 3 lbs., Arnold Schwarzenneger as Conan swung around a 8.5 lb. sword 1-handed. That's 1.7 times as heavy as a greatsword (a real life one).

So a small character with that kind of proportional strength would have no trouble wielding a sword that was heavy and long enough to deal comparable damage to a human's 3 lb. sword (it would probably weigh around 2 to 2.5 lbs though), as long as it had a properly sized grip.

It would probably be longer than arm's length (in humans, the optimum size for a 1-handed sword is about the length of the user's arm, and we know goblin dogslicers are arm's length if not longer, and those are equivalent to shortswords for them) and wider than an equivalent medium weapon, but that character would be able to swing it around just as easily as a human can a medium 1-handed sword.

Now imagine that small character has 18 STR and looks like this...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
J-Bone wrote:

From the Beastiary description of the Orcs:

An adult male orc is roughly 6 feet tall and 210 pounds.
Orcs and humans interbreed frequently, though this is
almost always the result of raids and slave-taking rather
than consensual unions. Many orc tribes purposefully
breed for half-orcs and raise them as their own, as the
smarter progeny make excellent strategists and leaders
for their tribes.

So it seems pretty clear that rapey orcs is built into the Orc sauce.

I always saw that as propaganda by the bigoty humans that want to oppress the orc kind and want to keep human blood "pure."

You should read Orcs of Golarion, they are really that bad.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Orcs are a race of psychopaths and rapists. Why should that be a core race? This isn't Warcraft or Might and Magic, orcs aren't reasonable or honorable, their gods are the most vile things imaginable and they reflect that in every aspect, from being unable to form traumatic memories in order to not develop regret over their actions to having a culture based around abusing those under your "control" (your subordinates, your slaves, your wives, and even your children).


17 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not impressed tbh. Combined with the elf and dwarf preview PF2 is sounding like someone really wanted to spread level 1 over 20 levels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So nothings change about the race? Goblins are liable to be attacked on sight for being members of a baby eating race PC or not? Why is that core worthy again?


Graham Wilson wrote:
Or maybe Riding Rats can just be available.

I don't think that's anywhere near as cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

Per the FAQ:

Quote:
The upcoming CRPG uses the existing Pathfinder rules.
Oooh, I thought they were making their own system like for Pathfinder Online (Is that ever going to happen?).
My understanding is that it's not *exactly* the PF1 system but it's pretty close? I don't have a lot of info on that though, this is some half-remembered thing

If it's anything like the Neverwinter Nights games I'll be happy.


Yeeeeeees.


Joe M. wrote:

Per the FAQ:

Quote:
The upcoming CRPG uses the existing Pathfinder rules.

Oooh, I thought they were making their own system like for Pathfinder Online (Is that ever going to happen?).


Arssanguinus wrote:
There absolutely no reason you couldn’t have adjacent, one yard, etcetera in imperial. Switching to metric has literally no effect on the proposed categories you mentioned. Perfectly available in imperial.

A yard is basically a meter. If you haven't noticed, I'm basically saying the game should use yard/meter squares because they're not only interchangeable, they allow for greater range of movement and reach values.

But the game isn't in yards or meters, it's in 5 ft increments, which doesn't allow for the kind of categories I've mentioned.


*Thelith wrote:
Tradition is why Pathfinder exists.

Is that why they're making a new edition and trying to be their own game instead of a variation of D&D? And why beyond the core rulebook of the 1st edition they went on to make their own ideas and forge their own identity instead of trying to just stick to traditional D&D formulas, character options, and ideas?


Chaotic_Blues wrote:
I just hope that ther'll be a small section in the GM's side of the book on how to make your own Ancestries. Galorian specific Ancestries will be of little use to those of us who have campaigns set in Midgard, or the Lost Lands (just to name a few),

Replace ancestries with races. Are you still sure of that?

Cole Deschain wrote:

I think I'm gonna call it "Heritage" in my games...

Anyway.

What I do want:
Variation, not just between species, but between cultures.
Options for culturally cosmopolitan upbringings.

What I don't want:
Ways to rip off biology- Let's say you're a human raised by Dwarves.... you might get a Con bonus for all those hours of work, but you shouldn;t have actual Darkvision.
Cultural lockouts.
Monocultures.

They already use Heritage for sub-ancestries, as it were.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Stuff.
Your system is based on the length of a corn of barley and goes in increments of 3, 12, and 5280. Why and how is that superior to a clear cut decimal system?
Because those 3, 12, and 5280 increments are more useful for measuring things humans actually want to measure than those units divisible by 10.

How? I've been measuring things in metric all my life just fine without issue.

From a game design point of view, meters allow for more variety in weapon ranges and movement ranges. In 1e these can only go in 5 ft. increments, but if you used meters you could have 0m range (adjacent) attacks for unarmed strikes, daggers, handaxes, and other close range weapons, 1m range attacks for swords, rapiers, and most hafted two handed weapons, and 2m range attacks for greatswords and most polearms, and 3m+ range attacks for very long polearms like pikes and sarissas.

It also also allows you to better make use of space to block enemy movement, since medium creatures would take up a 2x2 space and small creatures a 1x1 space.

If the game won't be in metric (which let's face it it's not), they could have at least an official ruling on how to use metric measurements for the grid. I know in 1e they use 1 square = 1.5 meters in the Spanish version. Maybe have all the distances measured in SQUARES in the rules text and then simply have a small section that says "So how big's a square? Well, different cultures use different systems, so instead of using one over another, we went with a neutral square based system, but the game is written under the assumption that 1 square is roughly 3 square feet or 1 square meter." or something like that.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
"Banded mail" is also problematic in that it refers to a theoretical type of mail with leather strips run through the rings to form bands (an attempt to explain different depictions of mail in artwork), or in most Pathfinder/D&D artwork for something like the Roman segmented armor.

I'm ok with that kind Banded Armor tbh, the romans used something similar for a class of gladiator called the crupellarius.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
If they want to keep the list large, why not add lamellar to core? It's another armor style popular throughout Asia and Eastern Europe without really catching on in the rest of Europe. Again, often worn over mail. It also looks cool.

I'm not gonna lie, that'd make me gush.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Stuff.

Your system is based on the length of a corn of barley and goes in increments of 3, 12, and 5280. Why and how is that superior to a clear cut decimal system?


Alydos wrote:
Twin Riposte. A feat tax

Pretty sure that's not what feat tax means.


As a lover of rats (for those that don't know, goblin dogs are a species of giant rat), I would find nothing cuter than a goblin dog that has a nice healthy fur pelt like that of a rat. Just a big ole rat doggo.

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>