Drewg's page

10 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Thanks for your feedback.

The idea behind the Survival Instincts gambit (and other gambits) is that you can lose its benefits (Bust) if you push your luck, which is why I tuned gambits to be a bit stronger than typical static bonuses.

I certainly appreciate what you're saying about the Will Save bonus. The reason why I chose to give bonuses to Will Saves and Survival checks is because they are both keyed to Wisdom, and using the active effect of Survival Instincts confers no bonus as a result.

As far as Insomnia goes, isn't being "crazy overpowered" the point of capstone abilities? Turf Masteries are still a work-in-progress, so I'll make note of the concern nonetheless. TrPQ/edit?usp=sharing

The link above is a google doc outlining the drifter. It's a work in progress.

The Drifter would be Starfinder's version of a Ranger, with some elements from Gunslinger. Inspiration for this class comes from the Predator series, the Dune series, and others. They have two main distinguishing features: Drifter's Turf and Gambits.

A Drifter's Turf is kind of like a favored terrain, but it influences a lot more. Turfs grant constant bonuses instead of bonuses dependent on being within your favored terrain. For example, if your Turf is "Dunes" you gain fire resistance. Using the Survival Guide feature, they can impart some of these bonuses.

Gambits are the a-la-carte features a Drifter gains on even levels. They have two aspects: a passive bonus and an active bonus, called a gamble. When the drifter makes a certain type of roll, they can "gamble" on that roll for added effect, but if they fail the associated check, they "Bust", or lose the passive benefit of their gambit. Gambits are refreshed when a 10-minute rest is taken to restore stamina.

Please leave any notes or ideas you have in the annotations, they would be much appreciated. You can also leave any questions, ideas, or notes you have in this thread. In particular, I'm looking for Gambit and Turf Mastery ideas.

The names of these classes don't fit aesthetically with any of the core classes. No core class name is a compound-word. Vanguard is one single word, but it doesn't do a good enough job describing what the class is. Vanguards are essentially a different flavor of Solarians. Look at how Mysticism is a class skill for them. Look at how their class features use words like "embodiment" and "insight". And they should have a similarly made-up name to describe them.

Biohacker : Xeneticist
Sounds like Geneticist. The "Xeno" prefix does three things. It gives it a sci-fi vibe. It is close enough to "Gene" to tell you that they mess with DNA. Finally, "Xeno" means "foreign", which fits perfectly, since they specialize in introducing foreign elements into others' bodies.

Vanguard : Atomite
I feel like this name has a few things going for it. For one, using the "mite" suffix mirrors the "ian" suffix of the Solarian. Both suffixes give you the impression that the class is a member of an order. For two, this name is just one letter off from "atomize" which is exactly what Entropic Strike does. For three, hey look, it kind of has the word "might" in it.

Witchwarper : Esper
They possess the extrasensory perception necessary to see alternate realities. The name "Esper" has taken on several new meanings in pop culture over the years, which blurs the lines of how it can be used. Examples include Final Fantasy and a certain anime I don't care to mention the name of.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The purpose of this thread is to point out perceived editing errors and mistakes in the Classes section of the Playtest rulebook that do not warrant an entire thread about them. Please reference class and the the page number and along with your submission, and describe why you believe it to be an error.

Pg. 109
You and your mount have grown closer, and your loyalty to
each other is unbreakable. The mount you gained through the
righteous ally class feature is now treated as a full-grown animal
companion (see page 284). In addition, your mount never attacks
you, even if it is magically compelled to do so. Finally, you can
make a Retributive Strike against anyone who hits your mount
with a Strike, even if the attack was not a critical hit.

The bold text does nothing. According to the Retributive Strike rules on pg. 106, the Trigger requires that the target be an "ally or friendly creature", and the text does not reference a Critical Hit at all. Since a Steed Righteous Ally counts as an animal companion, it already counts as a friendly creature. Bearing these facts in mind, the bold text does nothing.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Occult doesn't make sense to me for the Bard, especially as the only Occult caster in the core rules, Sorcerer notwithstanding.

What is the reasoning behind this? I'm sure they're are many reasons, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the decision.

The word "Occult" has a sinister connotation. It evokes images of ouija boards, summoning circles, sacrificial daggers, old relics, rituals, tombs, etc. Many of the Occult classes in 1e exemplified these themes well. Bards being Occult casters? It seems shoehorned in.

Bards have always struck me as the "whimsical" class. Am I alone in this?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

What makes attacks and skills so different? You attack with spells using your spell proficiency, it makes sense to attack with skills using your skill proficiency. Any actions with the 'attack' trait would interact the same with other attack rules, and those actions should specify if you use a weapon to perform them.

What makes attacks and skills so different is that you have a greater degree of control over what skills you invest in. I think it's fair to say that players, if given a choice between taking a combat option and talking a non-combat option, they will take the combat option (generally speaking).

This is why things like weapon and spell proficiency are based on class. They are "freebies" because if players were given the choice, they would max out these proficiencies anyway.

Spell proficiency is based on class. Weapon proficiency is based on class. If you make maneuvers based on skills rather than class, you artificially increase the opportunity cost of non-combat skills and skill feats. You will see less build variety because players will feel obligated to take the combat option over the non-combat option.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

Maneuvers don't have the same reasons to be separated out as Perception does. Why do you think it needs to be its own thing, and complicated by a varying class progression?

Think of it this way. Weapon proficiency is based on class, and not skill investment. Is the weapon proficiency system too "complicated"?

I think Maneuvers should be a separate proficiency from Athletics because Maneuvers are attacks, and attacks operate differently from skill checks--So when you make an attack roll that is also a skill check, that raises some questions:

How does an Athletics check to Disarm interact with Flanking? What if you have a morale bonus to Athletics and a morale bonus to attack rolls? Does proficiency bonus in your weapon also factor into your Disarm attempt? Do you add both? Do you get to add your weapon's potency rune bonus to the attempt?

A separate cut-and-dry proficiency in Maneuvers would answer many of these questions.

If we're allowed to get subjective for a moment, using Athletics for a trip or a bull rush just doesn't feel right. The ability to push people around, trip them up, and wrench something from their hands requires a very different skill set from scaling a rock wall or performing a long jump. It's the control over yourself/control over others divide which I think warrants a separate proficiency.

I'm a fan of the idea. I'll toss up some alternative names.


I'm also a fan of separating Athletics from Combat Maneuvers into a non-skill proficiency. Sort of like Perception. Its progression would be based on class, rather than skill point investment. Call it "Maneuver" and call it a day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Martially inclined 4-level (or whatever the Paladin and Ranger get now) Int based spontaneous arcane caster. Forget the Child of Acavna and Amaznen existed and do this right.

Call it a Myrmidon.

The word Myrmidon has two definitions:
The warrior race created from ants that followed Achillies into battle in the Trojan war.
And "a loyal follower; especially : a subordinate who executes orders unquestioningly or unscrupulously"

In Pathfinder, a Myrmidon would be a knight and adherent appointed by an outsider, dragon, fey, undead, or other higher being. Fits the archetype of King Arthur and his relationship to the Lady of the Lake, or Darth Vader and his relationship with the Emperor.

Would fill the huge gap between Paladin and Anti-Paladin for a heavily-armored semi-caster.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the Know Direction Podcast we learned that archetypes can be as "broad" or as "narrow" as needed, depending on the "prerequisites" for the archetype. So it sounds like archetypes are not locked into specific classes, but depending on the prerequisites, certain ones could be.

It sounds like archetypes will function like prestige classes, but rather than being a separate class to sink levels into, they will replace class features or give access to archetype-specific options in place of "class feats".

For a "broad" example, taking the archetype "Duelist" requires you to be at least "Expert" in both Martial Weapon Proficiency and Acrobatics proficiency. If you pick this archetype, then you gain access to "Opportune Parry and Riposte" in place of a "Class Feat". Easily achievable by many classes.

For a "narrow" example, taking the archetype "Antipaladin" requires you to have the Lay on Hands class feature as a prerequisite, and replaces that feature with Touch of Corruption, along with some other features to complete the transformation. Only achievable by having levels in Paladin.

Know Direction's Podcast.