lol I just realized I wrote that my group likes to combine Point-Blank Shot and Rapid Shot into one feat, which isn't true. I meant to say PBS and Precise Shot are combined into a single feat.
Search Posts
honestly, my preference for having it at 12 instead of 16 might be because I don't play that many high-level campaigns, but considering the kind of insane stuff casters can do at 12, I don't think an emergency heal seems too unbalanced at that level. I'm gonna go through the ninja clans more thoroughly today or tomorrow and come back with more feedback!
I think you've done a great job with this. I honestly think almost all classes would benefit from having something akin to domains/bloodlines/oracle mysteries/cavalier orders, etc., i.e. a little package of thematic abilities sort of like a mandatory archetype. In this respect, I love the ninja clan concept, and it's also so immensely flavorful and cool. I haven't gone through all the clans yet, but the structure of them is really nice, with the unique Ki Power, the skill bonus, mastery and restrictions. I've dabbled some in trying to make an "unchained ninja" myself, but this is leagues ahead of what I accomplished. Don't really have any specific balance notes right now, except possibly the Oni's Healing ninja trick seems to require an unnecessarily high level and grants rather paltry fast healing. I'd suggest requiring level 12 and having the fast healing be equal to your Cha mod, rather than just 2 hp per round. I've been away from PF for a longish while though, so maybe my balance instincts are a bit rusty. It's just my gut feeling right. Anyway, great work!
some of the ones my group have used in the past, primarily to make life easier for non-caster classes: * Power Attack isn't a feat, but just something everyone can do, regardless of their STR modifier. It thus doesn't exist as a prereq for any feat
Hello folks! I'm not sure if anyone remembers me, but I used to frequent these boards years ago posting homemade classes and stuff. Took a pretty long break from RPGs, but I've recently gotten back into messing around with PF stuff, and I thought I'd share an old class I built before my hiatus, but which I never got around to publishing. Link to the Google Drive folder: Congeries Files
I'm going to dive straight into looking at other people's stuff here, but I thought I'd just throw this up in the meantime. Basically, this is a pretty weird idea I had, of making a playable "swarm template" class. It's a class that allows you to play a swarm, either one that's gained sentience via a hive mind, or one represented by the swarm's "leader" which is played and represented by the player. It's a pretty out-there class/character concept and certainly won't fit every campaign, but I think I've managed to create a playable swarm that isn't too OP or impervious. You don't actually gain the true swarm template, though it is included in an appendix for reference. Anyway, any thoughts or criticisms welcome! Cheers,
Thanks for the clarification. That makes a lot of sense, actually, and definitely seems like the sort of system we could work with. Cheers!
Oh, well, that's very hopeful if it's true. I was getting afraid that since the setting and core rules will be published in a single book, they might be more intricately intertwined.
Sorry if this has already been brought up, but I couldn't find it. Is there any info on how much homebrewing (if any) one will have to do in order to file off the default campaign setting of Starfinder? A lot of the time, my group really likes creating our own campaign worlds, campaigns and adventures. We just want the rules and don't like using prefab fluff. Does this game seem like it's gonna work for a group like ours? Cheers,
Nothing too 40K. It's a really silly, aesthetically displeasing setting to me, so I hope it ain't gonna inspire Starfinder in any noticeable way. EDIT: Kinda ninja'd, but still. :P
PEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEWPEW!!!!!!!!!!!
I want an Unchained Cavalier where the Orders provide as much fun selectable stuff as Oracle Mysteries or Shaman Spirits. Relegate all the boring set-in-stone abilities to the Order of Being Mounted all the Time and the Order of Giving Away Teamwork Feats.
I am very flabbergasted. How is it possible to read the rules text for the magus class and come away with the idea that spellstrike doesn't grant you a free, extra melee weapon attack? Am I missing some well-known rules ambiguity here?
Since it doesn't contain a description of an area of effect (like it's a line, et cetera) I gotta say it seems overwhelmingly likely it's a single-target effect.
Well, this didn't strike me as a particularly "micro-manage"-y issue. It seems rather broad and relevant, the kind of thing I would've expected to find clarified in the rules. All the same, thanks for the info. I'm off to implement some commonsense houserules!
Where in the rules is this clarified?
Hi everyone.
Cheers,
I might be crazy, but surely the fact that you can combine Rapid Shot with TWF has never in any way, shape or form been in question, right? I mean, that whole gunslinger mess was about the ridiculous reloading shenanigans, no? Or am I missing something here?
I don't really have anything further constructive to add to the Magical Child discussion. I just want to get one more post under my belt where I just generally restate my opinion that if it turns out you can't Mauler your animal guide everything sucks and I hate everyone. There. Done. Sincerely,
Right. But why would you play it, though, when a Synthesist seems like it models this whole "magical girl" thing far more effectively? I'm not very familiar with the genre (I only ever saw that one show about the girls with the magical sailor outfits as a kid, dubbed into horrible Swedish), but is like the animal pal thing an important aspect? I thought it was all about transmorphing into a magicky...child...person? I might be out of my depth here. The point is it's a very attention-grabbing, PC-centric character concept, but without access to maulers it seems like a glorified NPC class to me. Which maketh none of the sense.
I might be missing some hidden nuance of awesomeness lurking beneath the dark waters of the Magical Child archetype, but I barely get how that character is supposed to be in any way decent in combat without a Mauler.
I was eagerly waiting for an indecent one myself, but I'm weird. @SillyString: ...don't take my dream away, man. This has to be real! Are there any citations regarding Magical Child + Fam-Fam Archies?
I just wanted to say I like this guide a lot. It taught me Magical Child allows you to combine Imp. Familiar with Mauler, which is all I've ever wanted to do in my whole life ever. This guide, it's the first one I've read cover to cover, even though there are so many other well-written PF guides out there. Problem with all the other ones? Not enough cussin'. Not nearly enough cussin', cousin. Cheers,
Yeah, it's stuff like that I'm thinking about. I get that water isn't the ideal medium for a projectile to travel through, but by having it grant total cover the rules are basically saying a few feet of H20 constitutes an Impenetrable Shield of Attack Negation +10.
Right. That's what I figured. It still seems like a weird rule to me. I mean, I get it's hard attacking submerged creatures, but I feel like cover when partially submerged and improved cover when completely submerged would make more sense, as opposed to improved cover when partially submerged and total cover when completely submerged. That might just be me though.
Wait. If I am in a boat, I don't count as being "on land" for the purposes of hitting a creature in the water below me? What about if I'm on a pier? Does that count as "land"?
The rules for combat in aquatic terrain state: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land. Land-bound opponents who have freedom of movement effects ignore this cover when making melee attacks against targets in the water. A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects. Does this mean that, unless I am benefiting from freedom of movement, if I am standing on the shoreline, I cannot jab a spear down to strike a fish swimming in the water, because it is "completely submerged" and thus has total cover?
I am currently loving playing a low Int lizardfolk druid in Rappan Athuk. This could be partly due to the fact, however, that in my group's homebrew setting lizardfolk are essentially a race of slow but lovable bros. They're totally cold-blooded bro.
... Mind. Blown.
Well, I just think the undead creature type's traits are a bit on the overpowered side for a PC, so that's why I've been loath to play one. I may be playing a disguised skeleton in a future campaign though.
Casting greater make whole is a standard action.
I am definitely SillyString's last one. If I could, I would probably just play a crazy homebrewed monster race in every single campaign my home group does. My character concepts have included playing an awakened monkey swarm and a gelatinous cube. I also have this obsession with playing constructs and undead (real undead, not frickin' dhampirs, eww), but I refrain due to not wanting to cause the GM even further headaches than I usually do. I also tend to want to change characters all the time.
Thanks for all the input, guys. Well, it seems I overestimated wyrwoods' core drawback a bit, which makes me more inclined than originally to think they might be broken as a PC option in most instances. I wasn't actually aware of all those healing/revival options for constructs. It was probably a bad word choice to claim a wyrwood "trivializes" encounters. More accurately, it will be a lot of extra work for the GM in certain instances to plan around a wyrwood in order to challenge it. Things like poisons, mind-affecting effects, a lot of things undead (especially incorporeal ones) tend to do are useless against them. Not needing to breathe, eat or sleep can probably also cause unexpected problems, especially at low levels. I suppose a wyrwood unchained rogue could be kind of neat though, especially if the rest of the party is rather high-powered (tier 3 and above).
I can't help but come away with the feeling that this cleric character is a really manipulative, cynical, unpleasant sort. Maybe I'm misreading things, or maybe it's possible to be that and be neutral good at the same time. I dunno. It just doesn't jive for me, personally. I definitely think Suggest Course of Action is the appropriate way of handling a situation like this in terms of rules language, though.
I think Dave Justus is spot on vis-a-vis what should actually be done about this. If I was the GM in this situation I would be like, "Wow, this player and I must have completely different definitions of what constitutes 'good' on like a really fundamental level. We should probably talk this over." I should probably point out I only think it would be evil for the cleric to actually sincerely think and feel these things. If he's just taking the piss out of or trying to deceive the slaver for a good cause, that's a whole different thing.
Yeah, but it's a very weird kind of neutral good cleric who thinks that "religion is a tool to control the populace". I mean, like, that's not a neutral good worldview, right? That's like nauseatingly evil.
Yes, Pinocchio! But the roleplaying half of being a little wooden boy has never been anything I've had trouble with. It comes naturally to me because I'm actually an animated pupp- I mean I'm a fully fleshed living human. I agree the tiny hp pool and dying at 0 hit points is a very considerable drawback, but it seems kind of lopsided, balance-wise, against the construct immunities. Like, basically, you will be overpowered and trivialize a vast range of encounter types, and then you will just...die and not be able to be resurrected. Doesn't really seem like a set-up that spells fun for either the GM, the wyrwood player or any of the other players. Maybe my imagination is just failing me here. I do really badly want to come up with a way of playing a wyrwood that's workable.
I love weirdo monster-like races, especially things akin to constructs, undead, oozes, aberrations and swarms. Eldritch stuff. Wyrwood are super-neat. Weird little magical wooden puppet people. Creepy and cool. But, obviously, with their construct immunities they seem absolutely broken. I know constructs have weaknesses and drawbacks as well, as a creature type, but these don't seem in any way, shape or form to be properly balanced against the boons. Is there some class or...thing or something, some means by which one could include a wyrwood PC in a campaign with other, normal PCs without wrecking utter havoc? Has anyone ever had any good experiences with wyrwood PCs?
Dual Initiative (Ex): The monster gets two turns each round, one on its initiative count and another on its initiative count – 20. For example, if the monster's initiative is 23, for its first turn it could make a full attack (and take a 5 foot step) at initiative 23, and for its second turn at initiative 3 it could take a move action and cast a spell. This allows the monster to perform two actions per round that normally take an entire round, such as using a summon monster spell. For the purposes of spells and effects that have a duration of a round or longer or trigger at the beginning of the creature's round or the start of its turn such as saving throws against ongoing effects or taking bleed damage), only the monster's first turn each round counts toward such durations. Is this the Mythic thing people have been discussing, or is that something different?
A difference of experience, I suppose. Our campaigns tend to feature a lot of unique or modified monsters, especially the BBEGs. It's mostly because all of us players know the bestiaries by heart (we're all monster nerds), so it's a way that we can keep being surprised by encounters both in and out of character. I personally think of initiative as very abstract. It's only a measure of your reactions and, well, initiative, in my book. So a creature with two turns per round would just be unusually quick and adept at exploiting timing and so forth. It wouldn't, in our group anyway, feel like some super-weird unique crazy ability. Mechanically speaking it is, of course, but roleplaying-wise it strikes me as quite inconspicuous compared to things like crazy supernatural abilities and what not.
@Deadmanwalking: Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but aren't the bestiaries simply brimming with enemies "having the ability to do things the PCs can't theoretically get in some way"? I mean, having more than one turn per round doesn't seem that much different from scores of other unique monster abilities out there, many of which are usable at will, that are fine for an enemy to have but would disrupt the game severely if put in the hands of a PC. I do agree though that mechanically this seems very fine and unproblematic. I would echo others that replied before me that you probably shouldn't have a multiple-turn villain just go all out nova with its most powerful attacks straight away. It's also probably a very good idea to have the different initiatives for the multiple turns be quite far apart, so that the second turn's initiative is rolled at a -5 or -10 penalty, and an even bigger penalty if they have a third turn per round.
Oh, no, I think we're all on board with the fact that it's possible to both be vulnerable and resistant to a type of energy damage. The only caveat regarding the actual thought experiment is that it stipulates that you can never gain immunity to cover up or cancel out your vulnerability (I don't even know if that's possible by RAW). But casting resist energy or whatever is fine. Restrictions regarding resistance were too harsh, I came to realize.
That's an interesting observation. I actually wasn't sure whether cold or electricity were more common. I think I would've guessed cold, but I haven't actually looked up like statistics on it or anything. If that is the case it's probably the wisest choice, yes.
Oh, no. I am very well aware that sonic is an energy type. I excluded it very deliberately. Otherwise everyone would just pick it as their default vulnerability.
Wait, so if an attached tumor familiar is an independent creature with its own actions, can it also be targeted separately by attacks?
Yours or mine? :P
Alleran, if you had read the OP you would have noticed I specifically restricted choices to acid, cold, electricity and fire. If you had read through the rest of the thread, you'd have noticed the question has now evolved to a choice between fire immunity and cold vulnerability or vice versa, versus electricity immunity and acid vulnerability or vice versa. Jus' sayin'. :P
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that if the choice is completely free, fire immunity and acid vulnerability is the way to go. But if you have to choose to become vulnerable to the element opposed to the one you choose to become immune to (i.e. fire v cold and acid v electricity), would fire immunity + cold vulnerability still come out on top, as opposed to electricity immunity paired with acid vulnerability?
I suppose it would be fair to say that if you choose to gain vulnerability to an element in this thought experiment, you cannot gain resistance or immunity to that element. Just seems like that would go against the spirit of the thing.
Yeah, no, thinking about it, that is a better way to structure the question. :) I think I would go fire-cold too, being vulnerable to cold and immune to fire. Immunity to electricity and vulnerability to acid just seems like playing it too safe. :P
Hmm. I hadn't originally thought it needed to be opposites, but maybe that's actually a more interesting question? So, if you are immune to fire, you must be vulnerable to cold, and vice versa, and the same for acid and electricity. What would the choice be then? Basically you'd have to weigh immunity and weakness to two more commonly encountered elements, or to two less commonly encountered ones.
|