Fardragon's page

How is life in Narnia these days?

+2 bonus to Shouting and Facial Hair.

I am Groot?

Vulcan nerve pinch?

pixierose wrote:

Also Nethys didn't disappear. The only deities known to be missing are Torag and Rovagug. Nethys just isn't as popular.

If that's true then it is unknown. The Core Rulebook doesn't account for him. He could be less popular or he could be missing.

I don't see why he'd be all that unpopular when his replacement is very much like him.

It isn't made explicit in the CRB, but the developers have made this point clear on the forums. The 20 gods in the CRB are not the only 20 gods, nor are they necessarily even the most popular gods. It's just that there was only room to write about 20 of the multitude of gods that are worshipped in the galaxy, and those where the ones the writers chose to include.

So, unless a god is explicitly stated as missing they still exist and still have worshipers.

Fardragon wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

Fardragon wrote:

So, why exactly are you contemplating this cause of action?

Because buying starting equipment was harder then I thought it would be (for the sample characters I was creating to learn the system).

That's intentional. You aren't intended to begin with decent gear. It the "grandad's rusty battleaxe" trope.

Ah. But, if I (the most likely Starfinder GM) am not a fan of that trope, then it could be changed by giving access to better gear.

But, before doing so, I wanted to see if that would cause problems with the game's intended mechanics.

I don't know how much you have planned out yet, but one alternative is to have your players belong to a "star fleet" type organisation. They have access to high quality gear for free, but it is all standard issue, so you can dictate what is and is not available.

The point of the rusty axe trope is to encourage players to loot bodies, which is to encourage players to kill stuff, which is to encourage players to adventure, rather do something safe and sensible, like accountancy.

Fardragon wrote:

So, why exactly are you contemplating this cause of action?

Because buying starting equipment was harder then I thought it would be (for the sample characters I was creating to learn the system).

That's intentional. You aren't intended to begin with decent gear. It the "grandad's rusty battleaxe" trope.

It depends what you mean by "hard SF" you can strip out all the magic, and you are still left with technology that is completely nonsensical in terms of real world science.

Space Opera without magic is still Space Opera.

So, why exactly are you contemplating this cause of action?

Yes, it depends if you allow the extra credits to be used to buy level +2 or better gear. If you do the pcs will be significantly more powerful so the challenge ratings will be off. They would also have less incentive to loot bodies for gear.

I think there is a pretty high chance of breaking-the-game(tm) by trying to convert Pathfinder classes. But it seems to me that the mystic class could describe a witch character and a mechanic cover an alchemist.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

That's fibe, is up to her to decide what she likes more.

But it is a blantant attempt to murder logic to pretend that there is no such thing as overkill in combat.

You do not play a solarian for social skills. You play something like an operative (spy) for that.

What if no one wants to play a social skills specialist? It's likely to fall to the character with the high charisma to do the negotiatating. Not every negotiation has a high DC, but if the whole party has charisma as a dump stat they are likely to get themselves into silly fights, arguments with cops, and pay over the odds every other step.

If you really aren't interested in ever doing anything other than hiting things as hard as possible, then play a soldier.

50) The players owe an amount of credits equal to the value of the ship to a crime boss. If the players sell the ship he will want his money back (credit: WEG Star Wars RPG).

I have a player in my group who is working on building a 1st level human soldier. He is finding that he has to make some hard choices in terms of equipment purchases, to the point that he initially is considering not bothering with a melee weapon (while being well aware of the possible resulting issues with doing that).

Maybe the theoretical soldier vs. solarian builds are overlooking important non-combat equipment?

Yes, I think quite a few calculations are based on the idea that the only gear you need is armour and one weapon.

It's a reason to play a Vesk though.

Fardragon wrote:

It really shouldn't be nessary to define a "typical" settlement, since is will usually be obvious when the adventure doesn't begin in one.

Is the party:

* in prison?
* in the wilderness?
* on a crashing spaceship?
* in other media res?

If none of these, then they are probably in a settlement.

In Dead Suns the PCs start aboard a shuttle. Now do you restrict the PCs to level items only? Level+1? Or level+2? Do you dictate it based on their backstory? The rules say that settlements can either be level, level+1 or level+2, or whatever the GM says. So based on the rules, what do you restrict the PCs to for chargen?

They where in a settlement settlement before boarding the shuttle, and they didn't have thier gear removed, so it would be level +1.

It aint rocket science.

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

bookrat wrote:

If you play any other game than starting at Absolom Station, you're playing outside the assumptions of the game. Got it.

Nope. Because if you start in «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» you are starting in a «typical» settlement. Which means the game assumes you buy lvl+1

And what would «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» even be?

A "typical" settlement is not defined in the Core rulebook.

Any place where you should be able to buy or have delivered weapons? Probably not a pacifist monastery or a plantation staffed by slaves of which you were one in your backstory, but most other likely places to start should qualify.

It really shouldn't be nessary to define a "typical" settlement, since is will usually be obvious when the adventure doesn't begin in one.

Is the party:

* in prison?
* in the wilderness?
* on a crashing spaceship?
* in other media res?

If none of these, then they are probably in a settlement.

And if the GM thinks it excessive, they can always make it unavailable.

But dismemberment isn't going to be a worry every enemy you fight.

Fardragon wrote:

People seem to have the same problem they had with Peacebringers and Warshades in City of Heroes. Because they can do several different things they are naturally not the best at doing any of them. The solarion is basically a back-up class, filling in where needed.

Solarian is the highest DPR class in the game. Period. Probably by 5th level or so. How are they 'not the best at anything'?

In a gear dependent game there is no "highest DPS class". We have talked about situations where gear is limited, but the reverse can also happen: the party has vast amounts of credits and the shops are full of level+2 gear. In which case the soldier wins easily.

I was fooling around with the rules last night, and started making a Vesk Solarian, and then realized that a Lashunta (Korasha) would make an even better solarian than a Kasatha; they get a +2 to STR and CHA, and a +2 to two skills, besides!

I do feel like solarians might end up getting an Unchained treatment eventually, because by comparison to every other class, they feel a bit ungainly in structure with the interplay between melee orientation and Charisma as primary. I swear they'd almost feel more effective getting longarm proficiency and using the stellar revelations as battlefield control to put targets in more advantageous positions,

People seem to have the same problem they had with Peacebringers and Warshades in City of Heroes. Because they can do several different things they are naturally not the best at doing any of them. The solarion is basically a back-up class, filling in where needed.

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

The game assumes you can buy no greater than +1 in a "typical" settlement.

Exactly. So, unless you are not in a «typical» settlement (ie: a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement), the game assumes your lvl+1.

Your GM could of course change that, just like he could ban solarians, make Ysoki an evil race, or say that everybody has to play with a Kasatha because his campaign will be about kasathas, and that's ok. Just that then the campaign is not within what the game assumes.

I would guess that a good 50% of adventures don't start in a settlement at all.

Everyone meets in the tavern is a tired old cliche.

Everyone starts in prison with nothing is catching up fast as the new cliche.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Rules say most settlements (at the GM's discretion) will allow level + 1 euipment.

They do not. Rules say the game assumes ilevel+1 is available (quote with page reference below)

Quote:

Says nothing about chargen though.

Actually, Chargen directs you to Chapter 7 (Equipment), after noting you've got 1000 credits and waffling for a bit.

Literally, 'For more on the equipment availability and how much it costs, see Chapter 7'

In Chapter 7, p167. We have Item Level (where availability is discussed).
To quote the relevant bit:

"the game assumes that in typical settlements you can find and purchase anything with an item level no greater than your character level +1, and at major settlements items up to your character level +2. The GM can restrict access to some items (even for appropriate ilevel) or make higher level available for purchase."

So Chargen points you to Equipment, and that chapter flatly tells you level +1 or even +2. It is, in fact, the default assumption of the game, with the GM's option to restrict it beyond that.

No. It doesn't. It says the equipment is available IN A SETTLEMENT. It does not say "at chargen, characters are assumed to be a settlement". The rules are deliberately non-specific, because it depends on the GM.

Biology is focused on your own species. Xenobiology focuses on alien species.

You will be mediocre at Diplomacy and Mysticism compared to the other PCs, you have only 3 skill ranks per level, and your character cannot take 10 for common knowledge.

That's making pretty categorical assumptions about who else will be in the party. (although personally, I would aim for 10 int, taking the hit to wisdom).

I think:

• For mult-level modules/AP's, the Solarion will be better damage as he gets auto-upgrades to his weapon. The Soldier won't be able to afford new weapons immediately at each tier without giving up other credit-costly goodies.
  

This is very dependent on the GM. It seems that a lot of people posting on there forums are expecting their GMs to throw unlimited credits at them.

Okay, so I've seen the consensus in the forums that Solarians "have to start as Soldiers".

I reject your reality and substitute my own =)

I reject you postulate that there is a consensus.

Sedoriku wrote:

Wait, you ignored every aspect of the solarion class that makes it different from a soilder except photon mode and three of the class skills and call it 'disappointing'. Good grief, this wasn't a solarion playtest, it was a serial numbers filed off soilder playtest and of course you're going to be disappointed. You dumped the key stat for more damage and little to no survivability. The Solarion may have problems, but building one like tis is more of a problem than the class every had. If you want a really good melee DPS, go soilder. Please quit trying to ramrod the Solarion into that mold and complaining when it doesn't work.

The solarian is a front line melee fighter...

Source?

Fardragon wrote:

I keep trying to remind people that this is a ROLE PLAYING game, not a pure combat game. The solarion has significantly more out of combat utility than a soldier (which, as has been pointed out elsewhere, sucks in that department).

That's really more a negative comment about the Soldier's class design...

I won't dispute that if they had given the soldier better out-of-combat utility, then they wouldn't have needed to be superior in combat.

I would say it's neither a positive or a negative, it just a design decision.

th3razzer wrote:

However, once that tops and skews your view of a class, archetype, race, storyline, core game? At that point you need to, NEED TO, shut up; take a step back, breathe, and talk with your GM. Stop flooding - needlessly, I might add - the forums hoping someone, somewhere will agree with you.

Well, he's not really WRONG. Is it really skewing your view of a class to go 'The class is not good at this thing it is supposed to be good at'?

I don't think is states in the CRB what the class is "supposed to be good at".

The error here is the assumption that the class is supposed to be a front line melee fighter that can go toe-to-toe with a soldier. It doesn't say that anywhere.

I keep trying to remind people that this is a ROLE PLAYING game, not a pure combat game. The solarion has significantly more out of combat utility than a soldier (which, as has been pointed out elsewhere, sucks in that department).

That is not what the book says, Rysky. What the book does say is, "the game assumes that in typical settlements you can find and purchase anything with an item level no greater than your character level + 1, and at major settlements items up to your character level + 2. The GM can restrict access to some items (even those of an appropriate level) or make items of a higher level available for purchase (possibly at a greatly increased price or in return for a favor done for the seller)."

"Appropriate level" is level + 1, or level + 2 in larger settlements. The book is quite clear about this.

The GM may decide that the game does not begin "in a typical settlement".

It's not that uncommon for players to start with no gear at all: Take the Strange Aeons adventure path for example.

I've basically come to the conclusion that for my home games, I'm going to have to buff the Theme's ability score bonus from +1 to +2.

Mostly because the size of the original bonus refuses to be meaningful after a certain point.

That's deliberate, so that you don't feel forced into a particular theme in order to min/max your build.

If you want to change it, I would suggest changing the ability score bonus to +0.

Short quotes are okay.

I would say the space hamster would get the feat, but would not actually be abled to wear the armour until they raised their strength to an appropriate level. Being "proficient" doesn't mean you can use it, you need to have proficiency AND the requisite strength.

It should work fine over comms, but in a face-to-face meeting some NPCs might react negatively if they are expected to speak to your computer. This could be represented by the GM increasing the DC of the check.

Sense Motive should be fine, but you might want to wear a subtle earpiece when your computer lie detector alerts you that the person you are speaking to is lying.

Fardragon wrote:

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Fardragon wrote:

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Fardragon wrote:

What do you mean by "monsters"?

Something for the players to beat to death? Plenty of robots for that.

Anyway, we know that at least some artificial beings have souls (androids). Therefore constructing one involves the manipulation of souls. Ergo, constructing a robot with partial AI may require the use of a partial soul.

Androids are made in ways that don't cross ethical and moral reasons, from what I remember the Android body is made and a soul decides to inhabit it, which is completely different than creating Undead.

That wasn't always the case. The first androids where originally constructed by humans as mechanical servants. Putting a soul into a non-living body is necromancy. Androids came into being via necromancy.

No it's not. It could be Conjuration since you're summoning the soul. We don't have exact rules for creating Androids so it's a moot point.

Androids =/= Undead

Android bodies where not alive before they gained a soul. Something that is not alive is, by definition, dead. Putting a soul into a dead body is, by definition, necromancy. This necromantic act may have occurred by accident, or at the volition of the soul itself, rather than have been done deliberately by the creator of the body, but it is still necromancy.

What? No.

That logic is nonsense. Minerals aren't dead just for starters. No, just, no.

Er, yes, minerals are dead...

Fardragon wrote:

Michael7123 wrote:

Fardragon wrote:

Belief systems have changed. On Pathfinder Golarion, people believed the creation of undead was an evil act, but that was not always the case (1st and 2nd edition AD&D). Good and evil are what people believe them to be.

The pathfinder setting (to the best of my knowledge) has never operated on the assumption of morality being relative- which is something I really appreciate about the setting. People can believe whatever the hell they want- that doesn't change whether or not their actions are objectively good or evil.

The people living on Golarion pre-gap believed that good and evil where absolutes. Like anything people believe, it could be wrong.

In the Starfinder universe people have become more flexible and less certain and dogmatic in their beliefs, which is why alignment plays a diminished role.

Which shouldn't affect fundamentals like whether or not ripping up souls to make controllable puppets, thereby affecting the souls natural cycle are evil.

It affects whether or not people believe souls are harmed during the process. If you do not believe a soul is being harmed, then you are not setting out to do deliberate harm, therefore you are not doing anything evil. In order for an act to be evil it requires intentional harm. Plenty of good people do harm through ignorance.

Fardragon wrote:

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Fardragon wrote:

What do you mean by "monsters"?

Something for the players to beat to death? Plenty of robots for that.

Anyway, we know that at least some artificial beings have souls (androids). Therefore constructing one involves the manipulation of souls. Ergo, constructing a robot with partial AI may require the use of a partial soul.

Androids are made in ways that don't cross ethical and moral reasons, from what I remember the Android body is made and a soul decides to inhabit it, which is completely different than creating Undead.

That wasn't always the case. The first androids where originally constructed by humans as mechanical servants. Putting a soul into a non-living body is necromancy. Androids came into being via necromancy.

No it's not. It could be Conjuration since you're summoning the soul. We don't have exact rules for creating Androids so it's a moot point.

Androids =/= Undead

Android bodies where not alive before they gained a soul. Something that is not alive is, by definition, dead. Putting a soul into a dead body is, by definition, necromancy. This necromantic act may have occurred by accident, or at the volition of the soul itself, rather than have been done deliberately by the creator of the body, but it is still necromancy.

Fardragon wrote:

Belief systems have changed. On Pathfinder Golarion, people believed the creation of undead was an evil act, but that was not always the case (1st and 2nd edition AD&D). Good and evil are what people believe them to be.

The pathfinder setting (to the best of my knowledge) has never operated on the assumption of morality being relative- which is something I really appreciate about the setting. People can believe whatever the hell they want- that doesn't change whether or not their actions are objectively good or evil.

The people living on Golarion pre-gap believed that good and evil where absolutes. Like anything people believe, it could be wrong.

In the Starfinder universe people have become more flexible and less certain and dogmatic in their beliefs, which is why alignment plays a diminished role.

Talonhawke wrote:

Most people will be happy with that reasoning but it doesn't jive with what lore has been with the universe (and I thought this was the same one) that mucking around with undead is canonically bad evil juju. Lore wise there has been no shortage of making this clear for years and now it suddenly not so bad.

From what Creative Director Sutter and Moreland have said when I've asked them, repeatedly, about it possibly 2 things happened.

1) something in the universe changed on a metaphysical level, in which case we would like an explanation on that since that's not mechanics like BAB and classes, that's a fundamental way in which the universe functions that has completely changed.

2) something more and more brought, and kinda danced around, is that Starfinder is not an alternate future to Pathfinder, but a future to an alternate Pathfindee where things have always been this way, which raises so many more questions and implications...

Or 3) What people believed on Golarion before the gap was wrong.

Fardragon wrote:

What do you mean by "monsters"?

Something for the players to beat to death? Plenty of robots for that.

Anyway, we know that at least some artificial beings have souls (androids). Therefore constructing one involves the manipulation of souls. Ergo, constructing a robot with partial AI may require the use of a partial soul.

Androids are made in ways that don't cross ethical and moral reasons, from what I remember the Android body is made and a soul decides to inhabit it, which is completely different than creating Undead.

That wasn't always the case. The first androids where originally constructed by humans as mechanical servants. Putting a soul into a non-living body is necromancy. Androids came into being via necromancy.

Belief systems have changed. On Pathfinder Golarion, people believed the creation of undead was an evil act, but that was not always the case (1st and 2nd edition AD&D). Good and evil are what people believe them to be.

What do you mean by "monsters"?

Something for the players to beat to death? Plenty of robots for that.

Anyway, we know that at least some artificial beings have souls (androids). Therefore constructing one involves the manipulation of souls. Ergo, constructing a robot with partial AI may require the use of a partial soul.

Personally, I would prefer ammunition had been pretty much dropped from the game. Tracking ammo is a dull chore that detracts from having fun.

It's just making robots out of meat. What is there to be evil about?

Fardragon wrote:

Rek Rollington wrote:

Stonesnake wrote:

Actually once the Pilot is declared that position cannot be changed during combat (Captain as well). RAW rules as follows (pg 322):

Quote:

You can switch to the captain or pilot role only if that role would otherwise be vacant (or if the character in that role is unable to take actions).

That doesn't say a pilot can't be changed during combat. It means if you are the pilot, then I can't be the pilot until you change roles or you are unable to take actions.

I haven't seen anything in the rules say that you can't leave your pilot role at the start of the round and become an additional gunner and no one takes the pilot role.

If no one take the pilot role then "ranks of pilot skill" = 0.

"You can take a minor crew action regardless of your role".

Glide: "You add your ranks in the Piloting skill to the Starships AC and TL for this around"

So if there is no pilot, but your gunner has high piloting skill (which he should as it also the gunner skill check) then the gunner can use the Glide action and add his piloting skills.

I'm not the OP I'm not suggesting this is a good idea but so far it seems possible.

In which case the gunner is, at that time, acting pilot.

However, the GM could rule that the turret is to far from the cockpit, and there isn't an auxiliary control panel (if he felt the players where trying to exploit the rules).

I do think there seem to be a lot of people on this forum who are too hung up on the letter of the law, rather than playing the game for fun.

Stonesnake wrote:

Actually once the Pilot is declared that position cannot be changed during combat (Captain as well). RAW rules as follows (pg 322):

Quote:

You can switch to the captain or pilot role only if that role would otherwise be vacant (or if the character in that role is unable to take actions).

That doesn't say a pilot can't be changed during combat. It means if you are the pilot, then I can't be the pilot until you change roles or you are unable to take actions.

I haven't seen anything in the rules say that you can't leave your pilot role at the start of the round and become an additional gunner and no one takes the pilot role.

If no one take the pilot role then "ranks of pilot skill" = 0.

This is a case where the GM has to apply common sense. It's not enough to simply wear a badge saying "pilot" and go to sleep. Any sane GM would rule that player cannot add any ranks to anything, for the same reason that a character who is dead cannot take any actions.

I suspect the way CR is calculated has been changed slightly. I would go with the IaAS values, as the most up-to-date.

It actually happens in RL. Ink cartridges can cost more than some printers (as the printer is sold as a loss leader). The printer ships with ink cartrages included...

The reason this kind of thing can happen is there are very high mark-ups over the manufacturing cost.

In a pseudo-medieval economy mark-ups are lower because supply chains are shorter.

It's easy enough to ajust xp awards if leveling is too fast.

Would be sold at second hand prices i.e. 10%. So you would get 33 credits not 330.

Probably would also invalidate your manufacturers warrantee.

I would say that 1910 Earth is in a parallel universe, not a different part of the Golarion galaxy.