Bagiennik

Frames Janco's page

37 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


I think Moment of Clarity is included specifically to open up the spellcasting barbarian, which I think is fine. Maybe when we see some sort of skald class or archetype it'll add the rage trait to compositions or add some new ones :)


Thanks for the responses everyone, I had missed the traits on components.

Prototype does seem to be quoting a specific exception though - is that working as intended for rage? If you swap out the verbal (concentrate) for a focus (manipulate) then would you need to stop raging?

I'm not trying to cheese, just a curious gm. But an angry vuvuzela, or shredding a lute, does sound fun.


Looking at a barbarian with bard multiclass, rage specifies you cant do anything with the concentrait.

From what i can see that only applies to sustaining a spell over multiple rounds - does normal spellcasting have a caveat Im missing?

And since Perform is concentrate, how does that apply to composition cantrips? Is there any restriction there?

Whats the case for moment of clarity?


masda_gib wrote:
Was this supposed to be an answer to another thread? Or is the actual question just missing? :)

My bad, I edited my original post and deleted it by accident. Was just asking how you actually gain composition cantrips through multiclassing as they are focus spells, which Blave answered :)


Accidentally deleted my first post, whoops.

Thanks yeah, just saw it then - wasn't expecting it to come in so late! But that's fair I guess. Cheers.


P 458. In the Affliction Example text box, about 3/4 down

"Succeeding at your second save would reduce the stage t by 1 to stage 1..."


Thanks for the input! Looks like landscape may be the way to go.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


Be aware that we are getting an advanced screen early next year.

I hadn't heard about that - are there details somewhere for it? Do you know makes it 'advanced'?


I've been deliberating on which version of the GM screen to order.

What are the major differences? Is it just art & layout?

What will everyone be picking up?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Christopk-K wrote:
Is the champion the paladin of any alignment? That would be awesome.

Yes Champions are now the broad bundle of the holy martial class, with separate alignments deceiving different names.

Paladins retain their LG status.
Redeemers are NG
Liberators are CG


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bellona wrote:
I really, really hope that Paizo makes available a black/white printer-friendly PDF version of that character sheet. The one in this blog post has so many coloured areas, which uses way too much ink/toner and makes them useless for writing in remarks and the like. :(

I posted this earlier and Erik Mona confirmed there will be a printer friendly version :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:
Frames Janco wrote:

Only thing I'm slightly disappointed to see confirmed is the colour scheme on the character sheet.

Here's to hoping there's a cleaner, print friendly version. But excited regardless

Erik Mona promises a printer-friendly version:

Erik Mona wrote:
There will for sure be a printer-friendly version.

Praise Desna!


17 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder if the 5-foot speed reduction in Mountain Style can be countermanded by some thing that dwarves can get, which would make it make sense as a Dwarf thing. Dwarf monks are already speedier than others of their kin, but something that makes you faster in armor should also probably apply here.

Also, how should I imagine falling stone attacks? Dragon tail attacks are kicks, wolf jaw and tiger claw attacks are made with your hands, etc. Are falling stone attacks like knee and elbow strikes?

All I see is a dwarf suplexing a lich.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

This is excellent - thanks Mark (and Rei for getting it up!). Excited about all of the nuggets here.

Only thing I'm slightly disappointed to see confirmed is the colour scheme on the character sheet.

Here's to hoping there's a cleaner, print friendly version. But excited regardless!


Do these eps appear anywhere other than on twitch? Would love to listen at work but can't use twitch :c


Edge93 wrote:
It would be really helpful if Googling anything related to Pathfinder Spoilers didn't mostly give me car accessories...

You can always exclude results in google using '-', eg. '-car' '-nissan' in the keywords


Shemp, the Kobold wrote:
Here you go: Bestiary, 2nd Edition

Oh snap I didn't even make the connection that they were kobolds. Cool, thanks!


Apologies if this was higher in the thread or elsewhere, I couldn't seem to find anything, but has anyone got a link or an image of the new design? I haven't seen it.


I've always felt the biggest reason for the quadratic growth of casters comes down to the daily refresh.

At low levels you have few spells/day and expending them all renders you useless.

At high levels you have more spells/day than you could possibly want and so you can just throw out powerful effects one after the other and do it all again the next day. It's usually not a matter of IF you're going to use your resources - just WHEN.

Meanwhile, martials are just... consistent.

/theorycrafting tangent

I've always been interested in a system where your spell pool doesn't reset each day, but rather it recharges at a certain rate, and spells all draw from the same pool.

Say you have a spell pool = to your level + casting stat. You recharge your pool every day by an amount, lets just say half your level for now.

A level 6 Sorcerer with 14 Cha = Pool of 8, recovering 3 each day.

Each day you could cast a total spell level up to your pool. Two level 3s and two level 2s, 8 level 1s, 4 level 2s, whatever. But if you expend your pool, then the next day you only have 2.

I find this more immersive having an energy capacity and more powerful spells drain more than having arbitrary limits per level.

It also allows mages to go full nova if they want, but it comes at a cost. It allows more powerful options, but these arent just added to a growing list of resources.

I don't know, maybe a bit late now, but I wonder if this is a way to mechanically distinguish sorcerers

Now obviously there are other balancing concerns here, but personally I think this would allow for more interesting choices and opportunity costs. It adds in the IF of using the resources, as well as the WHEN.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the way Pillars of Eternity did it.

Every stat contributed to most things.

You had Might, which scales the damage/healing of all your effects.

Dexterity increased recovery time between any attack.

Intelligence increased durations and aoes.

Mind you that system would not translate well to tabletop due to its percentage nature, but the core design is interesting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Bulk as a capacity catch-all is a good concept, but agree it could use a different approach.

My shower musings on how it could work differently:

Bundle in "inventory space" to the formula. This could be as simple as making a 10ft long pole, which may not weigh a lot, have a higher bulk due to its space requirements.

Eg (at a simmered down level)

A lighter, smaller object - 1 bulk
A lighter, larger object - 2 bulk
A heavier, smaller object - 2 bulk
A heavier, larger object - 4 bulk.

The more complex version of this is stretching it out over light + bulk items, to alleviate the "I carry 300 daggers" absurdity. So while light objects may be light, they still occupy space. Removing the 10 light = 1 bulk system and just have everything scale on a "capacity" so light objects still occupy a space. I realise this is approaching the old system, but you could keep it abstracted and the numbers simpler than realistic weights. Think inventory space in games like Diablo (but without the tetris).

Another approach would be to split the light objects and bulk objects into 2 scales. Light objects operate on a quantity scale realistic to how many things you could feasibly hold and store. Instead of 10=1, you can hold up to X light objects, which is easy to track with rows and numbers on a sheet. This doesn't necessarily even need to be tied to STR, but could be a function of armor/backpacks/bandoliers (the fighter's plate armor doesn't have pockets, but the rogues leather armor does). Bulk objects have the same grounding in weight as they do at the moment, but don't need to equate to numerous light objects to be realistic, and can have a closer tie to STR.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I concur with above sentiments that CON should play a role in rage capacity. It keeps its legacy interaction (more CON = more rage), and makes more sense thematically for barbarians as the CON class.

Counting 3 on 1 off is easy.
Increasing flat checks adds a bit of a mental load and book-keeping, though rolling for perseverance is a fun bit of drama.

I like DM's suggestion of guaranteed rounds = CON modifier, but would change the flat check to be 11+ or something after that. So 3-5 guaranteed rounds depending on how you build your character, then some chance rounds after that when you start to flag. The probability of continued rounds at a 50% success drops significantly as well, but allows for those awesome "Oh wow another one" moments.

Gives some design space to influence the flat check as well through feats as others have suggested.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:

Frames Janco wrote:

I think it has more to do with some players making a point to come to every thread and sowing dissent in emotive posts when it is clear the devs have already heard it.

This isn't some conspiracy - they're just game developers. Give constructive feedback and your posts will stay. Playing devil's advocate for the sake of it is not productive.

There's a lot of this going on on both sides. Sure, we don't have a "my group is quitting the playtest" thread without some people chiming in to agree and give their reasoning. There's also a contingent that shows up to those threads to dismiss the OP with comments such as "playtesting isn't for everyone," "the playtest is designed to be fun," and "I hope you filled out a survey" (with an implied "because what you say in your...

Oh don't get me wrong, I have no issue with people posting their experiences and think it is 100% a valuable contribution. I was directly responding to the insinuation that devs are actively censoring opinions they don't like - the "there is something creepy/unsettling" and "I won't say more because my posts are getting removed" kinds of posts. I don't think there is any place for those sorts of comments on the forum.

IMO all playtest discussion should be on the game itself, not on the folks at Paizo or how they run their business.

Anyway the irony is that I've derailed with a post of my own, ha. Apologies.


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
... Paizo aren't entitled to my money.

Is this antagonisation really necessary? I don't think they've ever tried to suggest otherwise. This is a playtest for people interested in playtesting - they're not running an extortion racket. They've readily accepted and acknowledged several times that a portion of the community won't like their changes. That's to be expected.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
dnoisette wrote:
Skeld wrote:


Am I missing out on some drama?

It has to do with players providing feedback and the perceived reception of it by Paizo staff, judging by devs posts on these forums.

I won't say more, last time I did, my post was deleted and so was Vic's.

I think it has more to do with some players making a point to come to every thread and sowing dissent in emotive posts when it is clear the devs have already heard it.

This isn't some conspiracy - they're just game developers. Give constructive feedback and your posts will stay. Playing devil's advocate for the sake of it is not productive.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for your work Jason - it's always great having you engage with discussions and hearing your musings!


Hi all,

So for my next game I am looking to build a character that uses uses force powers and/or telekinesis as their staple. I feel like there's a lot of creative and fun ways to play a caster like this manipulating the environment, foes and allies that's a bit different from the staple caster battlefield control.

I'm looking to optimise, but in the sense that I'm optimising a specialty/flavour so it wont OP like a typical full caster. For example - I'm not bothered if all of my spell slots end up being used for metamagic missiles.

So obviously the three classes I'm looking at are wizard (specifically the Force Commander), sorcerer (bloodline?) or kineticist (aether).

Lvl 9, 20 point buy, 46000 gp.

Immediate things are that I could use most of my gold to craft a ring of telekinesis for the wizard (with forge ring + arcane bond), which could be a really fun schtick (i.e. find him in a prison with nothing but a powerful ring). I don't know if it's feasible for a sorcerer to get a RoT at this level?

Let me know what you can come up with!


I am thinking of building a Force Commander wizard for my next character, who will make frequent use of a Ring of Telekinesis.

If I want to use my allies using the combat maneuvers the archetype and spell specify, how do I resolve the DC (specifically, exceeding the DC). If they are willing and not resisting, would their CMD be still be the written amount? Or go down to the flat 10? or 0?

I basically just want to understand how far I would be able to move an ally, and I can't seem to find the answer through searches.

Thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:


If I was inclined to do this, I think I would simply allow an Assurance on the monster lore roll if the player chose.

Which honestly seems like something rangers will also get.

True dat. Flexible lore assurance would be cool.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've liked some of the suggestions about favoured enemy as feats, and I agree that it is thematically great.

I have always associated it as a representative of the ranger's experience encountering something and they have taken the time to analyse their encounter and remember the details on behaviour, weaknesses etc. This moreso over "I hate goblins". For this reason I like Hunt Target to a degree, as its like studying the enemy on the fly.

But I would be interested in seeing Favoured enemy come back as a "I've experienced this before" kind of thing. Haven't put pen to paper as to what it would be mechanically, but something that takes into account the enemies you've faced. Something along the lines of if you have had an Encounter with this creature, you gain a bonus on [combat mechanic] or [skill check] to do with it. Maybe you can have enemy specializations = lvl + wis or int modifier, but can swap them out after a new encounter.

Not sure if anything like that works / is viable, but I would love to retain the idea of "I have a history with this thing", as it reflects the ranger's wisdom.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Frames Janco wrote:

I think a few of the concerns about potion pricing in this thread are very premature and a bit melodramatic regardless.

There are so many factors at play here and so many unknowns that to start calling design choices horrible or "on drugs" is full of assumptions, unproductive and pretty disrespectful.

Four true healing potions are more expensive than a Holy Avenger, which has been reported to cost 4500 gp. That's... completely unreasonable, by any metric whatsoever.

Eh, I'm not so sure. I'm inclined to give the designers that have been working for years on this the benefit of the doubt here over our knee-jerk reactions.

And don't get me wrong I'm not saying the prices aren't high - I just think we don't have a proper grasp of the economy or relative power levels of anything to say whether prices are completely unreasonable.

Using your example, the Holy Avenger is a pretty decent item. Is it worth 4500gp? Dunno. Noone will be able to answer that at this stage.

Let's have a look, from what others have pulled out about it. Im paraphrasing so forgive me if I misrepresent -

It provides you with some good damage and some situational perks like a 2-action, 2nd level detection spell at will.

Paladins get a debuff effect on an evil target crit, and a scaling 2 action dispel magic on an illusion or mental effect affecting an ally, or 1/day on a target or item.

Some good consistent stuff, some strong but very situational stuff.

Looking at a true healing potion, for 1-2 actions you can draw and drink it for an average of ~70hp. A d8 HD, 16 Con character at level 18 would maybe have around 200 HP (fact check?), meaning they could go from the brink of death to having 33%, maybe even up to 50%. Without knowing damage scaling at that level, this could last them a few extra hits.

The swords great, but it is it better for your career than 4 escapes from death? Maybe. You might not need the potion if you can kill something faster. But you also can't use the sword if you're dead ;)

I get where you're coming from, but I think there's more to it than you're giving the designers credit for.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a few of the concerns about potion pricing in this thread are very premature and a bit melodramatic regardless.

There are so many factors at play here and so many unknowns that to start calling design choices horrible or "on drugs" is full of assumptions, unproductive and pretty disrespectful.

- The issue of resonance has been raised but is not trivial. Sure you could have 0 charisma and have 18 resonance at 18th level, but do you really want to be using that all up on tiny potions or be using that giant stockpile of magic loot you have? I expect resonance is going to be a valuable resource, and being able to use less of it on stuff like healing means you can use your more powerful items. I think saying "I have 18 resonance to use on potions" is hyperbole.

- ACTIONS. Sure you can do P1 CLW spamming with cost effective small potions and milk as much as you want out of your buck, but in the middle of combat every potion you need to draw and drink will cost you 2 actions (for the most part). It is a HUGE advantage in a dire situation to get more HP per action.

- We don't know a characters WBL. At level 18, the fraction of your total wealth for up to 100 hp healed with one resonance (maybe?) and two actions might be perfectly reasonable.

Tl;dr chill.


Lucas Yew wrote:

...what kind of "new" magic types can the two leftover combos be?

<A>: Material/Spiritual
<B>: Mental/Vital

Mental/Vital sounds the most "Bardic" to me. Charm and invigoration, intellectual crafting of performance to energise. I can't remember if we found out how the bard list works out.

Material/Spirtual just sounds like the whole premise of the Occultist from first, which is awkward if Occult is mental/spiritual, ha. So Im leaning more towards witch/shaman vibes.


I see resonance more like a quota to define how many magical things you can use.

So maybe it's as simple as each day you attune x resonance to it and if you do you get a number of uses out of it per day? That seems pretty straightforward to me and leaves design space for how many charges and how much resonance per day.

Although I may have interpreted the mechanics wrong...


Pantsfinder confirmed.


The aim of this thread is to be a destination for Starfinders looking for inspiration on creating custom equipment. Please give suggestions for what you would like to see, as well as feedback and balancing advice on current suggestions. I am always open to corrections and constructive criticism :) I will be starting off with a focus on weapons, but throw out any and all ideas!

The ideas dump will be updated here: Janco's Custom Armory

As a bit of an introduction, I think some others have shared the same sentiment that I would love to see more ways to give weapons more "personality" and variation. While I fully appreciate the difficulty of doing this in a tabletop setting, I think there are some ways in which we can mix it up a little, at least until more options are released (and maybe even give some ideas to the Paizo team).

Essentially, the ability to give a weapon more personality comes down to the resolution at which variables can be mix and matched. I don't get super excited about the fusions, and feel their value could be better distributed. The way I see it, in order to remain balanced within an item level, we have the flexibility to increase/reduce stats (Weapon type, Damage, Damage type, Range, Capacity, Usage, Bulk) and add/remove features (Critical, Special properties, Fusions).

Here I should note that there are some great random generation tools already created over at sfrpgtools, which you should check out if you haven't already. It is awesome at mixing all the variables and outputting some cool gear. I also love the make and model naming schema.

Adjusting stats gives some finer variation for balancing, but I feel creating some unique special properties and applying them more liberally in different combinations is the key to giving something character.

All that said, the idea is that the page linked above will be a running database of sorts for the community to come up with inspiration for your home game gear.

I'll start off with some of my ideas here, ripe for balancing discussions. Alongside the suggestions, I also use a couple of homebrew weapon mechanics that add a little more flavour. Please give ideas on how to better improve these.

The first is Hit type. In order to circumvent the Pass/Fail system in combat a little, I've played with the idea of a breakdown of "Glancing Hit", "Hit" and "Direct Hit". A Glancing Hit occurs if you roll lower than the target AC by 5. A Direct Hit occurs if you roll 5 higher than the target AC. This allows us to add certain weapon effects that only happen on a GH/H/DH in addition to the current Critical Hit, and I don't think puts too much extra load on a GM.

The second is Qualities. Weapon qualities are almost like grafts that you can apply to a base/existing weapon that modify the stats. These are a flat change to the stats and the only indication would be in the name. For example, you may have an "Accurate" Flame Pistol which has a base range of 30 instead of 20. I haven't fully fleshed these out yet but let me know what you think and how these might scale.

Have a read of the current list, and post your own!


Steel_Wind wrote:


A simple copy+paste of the image from the PDF into GIMP will show you that the layer being copied is separate from the layer with any lettering of numbering on it.

Thanks for the tip!


Yes, on maps - Is there any avenue of getting the "player view" version without the markers (numbers, letters, etc.) on them? Or do I need to dust off the old Photoshop fingers?