Ah, that explains the discrepancy. Makes sense! Thanks muchly.
Search Posts
As explained in the entry for Arcane Cascade on the Archive of Nethys
In the case of many elemental spells, they do not have a school, only an associated element. As a hypothetical, let's say we cast Tremor Signs. As a magus, I then activate Arcane Cascade. What damage is Arcane Cascade? (I have a good answer as a house rule, and that's literally just looking at the Kineticist's basic blast to see what damage types they get with an associated element, but that's not necessarily how this works.)
My players killed Meyanda dead. Couldn't see any chance of redemption for her. But somehow got along with the transdimensional murdertyrant that is Zagmaander. They even walked through a much more dramatized cave of her victims, complete with corpse mural with allusions to the Alien movies all over, and still seemingly got along much better once they started talking. This is including the fact that she very much was known to the party as to what she both was, had done and intended to keep doing once freed. I think my party is just really mercernary, or I did a really good voice for Zagmaander. They also captured, interrogated then took Sanvil up to the top of the mound to be shot in the back of the head and buried in a shallow grave. Probably one of the most cold blooded things I've seen from the group and really set the tone going forward. Anyway, I would have liked for Meyanda to stick around in canon. She's a cool character, and her backstory really is actually something I think the outlined ending of that book struggled to convey well, or for players to recognize they could turn her to their side. I get the sense that giving ways in which she could be redeemed was mostly to help with 'what if' scenarios and they wrote with the expectation that she wasn't going to survive, nor do the party have much of an excuse to keep her alive after what she's been doing. Shame really, I actually liked the conflicted villain she represented.
Wish I had seen this thread when I started on Iron Gods 5e myself. We started the same year and all! How funny. My players only in the first part of book 3, so Iadenveigh and all the stuff going on there. Not sure when we're getting to the Aurora but I've got the statblocks for that half ready. I'll share some of my converted statblocks and equipment a bit later. Suffice to say I went to a lot of lengths to redo a lot of the equipment rules, environmental hazards and actually introduced some ways to help bridge the gap between 5e's low magic item approach and Pathfinder's abundant approach. For example: Krimox the Thrice-Flensed. Why is this creature a monk? He's a monk because Kuthites are ascetics. Their obsession with pain and self-mutilation is a process of absolution for them, and to actually achieve some kind of spiritual ascension. It is a means of cutting away the weakness and reaching some great epiphany about the nature of reality, much like Zon-Kuthon himself did, and much like Krimox did. You don't just become a sado-maschoist of that level without some extreme amount of dedication and self-control, which is why monks are an incredibly good fit for Kuthites. There is even an entire monk archetype in PF dedicated to the Kuthite monks, and the Nidal oligarchs use mute monks as their police force. As to how you handle his statline, I've not gotten to that point but try and bring over his stats faithfully really. It's worth noting that he is a interlocutor kyton, so replicate some of that creatures abilities first. The bleed attacks, the gaze attacks, etc. And then start adding in appropriate monk abilities like Deflect Arrows or Stunning Blow. I think his PF statblock doesnt really *do* much with the monk template, so this is a good chance to make him more interesting. Really, whatever helps make him more of a threat, and he definitely deserves having legendary actions to help with that if necessary. He technically isn't necessarily a fight either, so remember that he negotiates first and tempts the party into accepting his aid.
Gate doesn't seem to provide a good explanation for why, other than secrecy and jealousy of those how know it, this hasn't replaced starship travel for intraplanetary travel of people. 2 million credits isn't much of an investment compared to something like a Mk4 Tiara of Translocation or what one would presume a starship costs in credits. Surprised there's no benevolent or capitalistic organization (but I repeat myself) spamming these everywhere to link all the planets and charge (or not) a reasonable fee for walking through. This might become more relevant in Drift Crisis. And also gives us an explanation as to how Elf Gates were made. Definitely not something for players to utilize, the extreme costs alone seem to put it purely in either the NPC realm territory (or utilizing BP using some of the BP rules floating around). For comparison, the price is the entire wealth gain of one character between levels 19 to 20.
The reason oozes used to have low AC was more than just because they're slow moving blobs. They want to be hit in order to do their special effects. Hitting them with weapons was typically not quite what you wanted to do to deal with oozes (or you wanted to use weapons that proc'd their abilities). This is especially true of the ones with split. Not every ooze wants to be damaged anymore, so maybe it makes sense to bring them up to par for their CR.
Iunno why there is a reluctance to track it, since it is technically a resource with a price cost attached. While it certainly might show up as loot relatively often, it is also game dependent, and in some situations low usage moderate capacity firearms like small arms can be an expense over time depending on what kinds of ammo you're using. Some ammo even has significant bulk restrictions like petrol tanks and missiles, so you certainly should be tracking those. And some do fall into extremely low usage counts. Really, it's a show of good faith to be tallying attacks made and making the adjustment afterwards. In the same way you should be expected to be tracking credits, loot and class feature resources expended.
While a sniping urogue can make pretty good use out of firearms, you're honestly significantly better off just getting a wand of snowball or minor magic for an at-will touch cantrip and accomplish much the same task but archetype free and less feat intense. You don't even need to wholly dedicate your build to sniping with a cantrip, as just taking the Stealth skill unlock and Superior Sniper talent will mostly get you there without taking too much from your build overall. Actually, I'd make a very strong argument that you'd get more value out of Underground Chemist than you would Gun Smuggler due to being able to add Int as a damage mod to splash weapons, and splash weapons themselves have plenty of easy feat and equipment support options, where as you only gain the 1d4/1d6 from the pistols, which is kinda rubbish for something that is so feat demanding to actually get working.
A few years back, when I helped contribute to Kobold Cleaver's PaRaProMo race creation stuff, I definitely didn't make use of the race builder stuff whatsoever. For the most part, I tried to eyeball it off actual race examples we had, and retrofitted it to the race point values.
It'll happen when it happens. Androids are already an available ancestry option, so the tech guide or tech content is probably not that far off.
I already posted a reddit threat about this subject, but I wanted to get wider opinions about the power. You can read it here. The ability reads as follows:
Necromantic Servant (Sp): As a standard action, you can expend 1 point of mental focus to raise a single human skeleton (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 250) or human zombie (Bestiary 288) from the ground to serve you for 10 minutes per occultist level you possess or until it is destroyed, whichever comes first. This servant has a number of hit points equal to 1/2 your maximum hit point total (not adjusted for temporary hit points or other temporary increases). It also uses your base attack bonus and gains a bonus on damage rolls equal to 1/2 your occultist level. At 5th level, whenever the necromantic servant would be destroyed, if you are within medium range (100 feet + 10 feet per level) of the servant, you can expend 1 point of mental focus as an immediate action to cause the servant to return to full hit points. At 9th level, you can choose to give the servant the bloody or burning simple template (if it’s a skeleton) or the fast simple template (if it’s a zombie). At 13th level, when you take an immediate action to restore your servant, it splits into two servants. You can have a maximum number of servants in existence equal to 1/2 your occultist level. At 17th level, the servant gains a teamwork feat of your choice. The source for the necromancy implement and focus powers. Given this has no attached descriptors and appears to be conjuring from nothing an undead, is the power and using the power fall under the usual 'evilness' that most other undead related powers tend to fall under? Is it actually a summoning effect and not really making an undead? Was the omission of this deliberate? Is even bringing a temporary, fake but still evil undead into existence an evil act if the ability used lacks any of the relevant descriptors? A notable additional example (and likely the prototype for the occultist version) is the Oracle Bones power, Raise the Dead, which also lacks these qualities:
Raise the Dead (Su): As a standard action, you can summon a single skeleton or zombie to serve you. The undead creature has a number of Hit Dice equal to your oracle level. It remains for a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier. At 7th level, you can summon a bloody skeleton or fast zombie. At 15th level, you can summon an advanced skeleton or zombie. You can use this ability once per day plus one additional time per day at 10th level. The mystery's source is here.
For one thing lost, another is gained. Foxfire works pretty much entirely with monk as far as I could tell except for anything that calls out the brawling weapon group.
If undead are soaking hits, that feels like a good way to redirect damage from the indispensable members of your party. The living ones. Unless the monster benefits from bringing creatures to 0 for some reason that is. Also, Final Sacrifice is a great way to make the most of your undead just before they die.
If your backstory adequately explains how or why you can access it, and your gm is okay with it, then that's fine. Rarity is less about inaccessibility but literally rarity from the perspective of the Europe/American-esque fantasy, or hyperspeciality of the weapon in question. If you are in an area the piece of equipment is abundant or regularly used, or from that location, you have a very good justification for having it. For instance, khopeshes are uncommon but typical in Osirion and the surrounding regions, so you could get one easily from there. Similarly, some uncommon weapons are more than from divides of ethnicity or locality. Some are just downright bizarre for weapons. Flame poi are very, very weird, bladed scarves are only used by very dedicated practitioners Some are limited to profession. Nightsticks aren't used by warriors, it's for a specific kind of profession and you would need to go find a guardsman to feasibly acquire one, not a weapons trader. And it is debatable you'd even be able to buy one in the first place. Breaking this down:
If you are some kind of performer turned mercernary, then a bladed scarf or flame poi could be a way of transitioning your skills over to a new profession. If you were a former guardsman, retaining your nightstick makes SOME sense. But more so if you remain a guardsman.
Funnily enough, this isn't new. Here is Unconventional Weapon, a human ancestry feat:
The fun bit with this is that humans can choose Katanas, and therefore Ruffian racket Rogues can sneak attack with katanas. I totally wasn't thinking about doing this exact setup. Nope, not at all. (Also nunchakus)
Mage armor says this:
The language here suggests that, though mage armor uses your unarmored proficiency, it isn't actually unarmored. Meanwhile, Bracers of Armor says this:
Obviously both this and mage armor add an item bonus, so neither work together, but the bracers of armor has no language to suggest it's actually treating you as wearing armor. This suggests you are actually unarmored. Meanwhile, let's look at Scales of the Dragon from Dragon Disciple:
This one is asking for you to specifically be unarmored, but grants a status bonus and not an item bonus. So presumably, it stacks with any effect that grants an item bonus to AC. But what effects actually grant that while still being unarmored? From what I can tell, only bracers of armor between the two first options I listed seem to count. Is this accurate? (Also, I'm assuming you use the worst of the dex caps, so the scales will always take precedent there.)
Since there exist very, very few prerequisite feats besides archetype feats, and those being basically entirely new options and granting you new options equivalent to most equal level feats from normal class options, but expect you to be taking them for the sake of actually filling out those feats and not the dedication (the dedication mostly setting you up for the later feats while providing the necessary baseline functionality necessary to use them) I don't see it as being feat tax heavy at all. There is probably only one or two examples of where this mostly might be impactful. Namely, such as a situation as using one dedication feat to qualify for another, like with archer into eldritch archer. I don't see many classes that could use eldritch archer to it's most extreme effect beyond cantrips being able to even take the class at 6, but that's another point entirely. I feel like there is a misconception as to what the issue was with how 1e used to work. The tax wasn't just in having to take a feat to do a thing (although that is indeed something that often happened in 1e and still a thing in 2e). The tax was the feats leading up to that. You HAD to take Dazzling Display, a feat gunslingers would never use, to ever use Gun Twirling. This is what is meant by a tax. Useless clutter to do the thing you want, but there was no way to get around it without really pushing the limits where you could. (for the gunslinger, it meant taking a specific archetype, for example, which made that archetype one of the strongest since it opened up one of the strongest player options in a feat heavy build. It is feat heavy BECAUSE it is tax heavy) If you were taking a dedication feat, then never wanting the feats in that dedication in the first place, that's kind of absurd given how many more options are available inside of a class and in other archetypes that sometimes have overlapping dedication feats in terms of functionality. You should take dedication feats to progress in that archetype, not to get the initial bonus. Many of them have very, very good feats. The feat system seems set up in a way to tax you as little as possible, is my point, and that's a damn good quality to have. The only thing gating most players is level and available class feat slots, but that's only so you aren't able to do literally everything possible and for you to choose your toolbox carefully. Some classes, however, get to cheat and that's cool. Fighters, for example.
Two words "Exploding Zombies" Final Sacrifice is going to be very, very fun. Especially with a healthy supply of undead due to Animate Dead. And while it is using multiple slots compared to just dropping fireballs, it also ends up slightly more action efficient due to the summoned creature getting something close to about four actions before you pop them on the following turn. Basically, I just don't see myself using fireballs when I could just be popping low level zombies for close to the same price. Maybe they're not going to be fireballed IMMEDIATELY, but I would already want to wait on my allies to inflict some kind of debuff first.
Oh thank god. Alright, crisis averted.
Dueling Parry, the feature being discussed here, only works so long as you maintain a free hand. The moment you break that requirement, it shuts off and will remain off until you use the action again. I feel like you think I'm suggesting you can flip-flop between having the dueling parry bonus or the two-hand bonus on the fly, but that's not actually how the feat works and not what I'm suggesting. The only thing that an actionless two-handedness change would do is switch off dueling parry early until the next time you use an action to re-establish it. Since it lasts until the start of your next turn, it's basically no different to drawing another weapon, a shield or some other action that breaks the prerequisite for benefiting from the feat, and those also have actual actions called out in the Interact action or similar. (oh and being disarmed which can happen between turns, but that's a little different and not something you choose to do) Gripping it back in two hands doesn't seem like ignoring the features prerequisites at all, just that you can't go back on your choice once you make it. I think you're likely right in that the Interact action is how you benefit from the trait, but that does mean you quite literally need two actions to both draw a one-handed two-hand weapon and then use it in two hands, while an actual two-handed weapon only uses one action to draw it. This is the bit that makes it somewhat absurd. The versatility of the weapon is meant to be a benefit at the expense of considerably higher damage (using an actual two-handed weapon). While Dueling Parry is a feat that is meant to reward the choice further with additional options. But this suggests it's actually an even greater detriment to use the trait the weapon possesses, action economy wise, compared to just committing to one (either to always using a two-handed weapon or always using a one-handed weapon in one hand) or the other, and never giving a two-hand weapon used for it's trait a thought. This is probably going beyond rules discussion at this point but it definitely makes me raise an eyebrow.
Dueling Parry, the feature being discussed here, only works so long as you maintain a free hand. The moment you break that requirement, it shuts off and will remain off until you use the action again.
Except here where it explicitly shuts off your features/actions prematurely.
I'd hardly call trying to get two dedication feats cheese, just kind of a prickly rules situation. More importantly, this seems definitely like a situation of specific over general. Multitalented is concerned with bypassing the normal progression you need to meet while taking dedication feats and archetype feats. These other two options just grant you these feats with no interaction with the typical progression for multiclass archetypes. The only thing these options require you to meet are the prerequisites for the feats. Not the special clause, which is concerned for standard feat selection. If the feature says it does a thing, it does a thing. They don't block each other, but those feats do prevent taking another dedication feat like normal. Consider it like this; ancient elf and eldritch tricker grants the feats, the feats themselves prevent choice elsewhere. You only chose the class for the feature, not the feats themselves.
Weirdly enough, I don't think it's even an action to regrip the weapon, even though releasing it is an action. I suppose that is mostly because Release has to cover a lot more ground than just weapon grips. I would have thought the Two-Hand trait would actually clarify that, but I suppose not. My best guess is an Interact action, but it seems absurd that it's an action to reassert your grip on a sword but a free action to loosen it. Otherwise, yes, any attacks of opportunity and the like would be treating the weapon as using the one-handed dice and not the two-handed dice while you have it in one hand. You can only use Dueling Parry while you meet those prerequisites, so you cannot reassert your grip onto your weapon while you're benefiting from Dueling Parry without losing the benefits.
Honestly, just keep it consistent and it'll be fine. Change it only to one type of damage an have choosing a different energy type require taking it again as a different spell. The differences it'll make is barely relevant, as since if the damage type is less favourable against a certain foe, you were going to use a different spell regardless.
The thing is, if the earthbreaker is one-handed normally, it winds up being used for more than the thunder-and-fang fighting style. It would make more sense to put that style into something anyone can take but isn't baseline for the equipment. An archetype comes to mind, since it was a feat originally that defines your style of fighting. And something mechanically supporting thunder-and-fang would be appreciated, since it is a very cool and thematic fighting style.
Moment of Clarity feat.
Edit: oh wait you mention it. Well yes that's the only one. So...yeah.
Usually when I saw a creature armed with natural attacks in 1e, it was simply to ensure regardless of whether it had a manufactored weapon or not, it could make an attack. That, and natural attacks could be paired with manufactored weapon attacks as an attack routine, assume they had the hands free to do so. Also, some of those attacks come with beneficial riders, like grab. This time around it seems to be mostly to inform their attack routines and when to use each attack, which is not entirely intuitively spelled out. You can put a statblock in front of someone but you should also explain 'hey they have a flourish, an agile attack and a backswing attack. Flourish, agile attacks past first, backswing if you miss'. Just listing the attacks isn't going to grok for everyone, especially if they are using the monster unprepared. This was the benefit of NPC statblocks in 1e that had an explanation of how to operate that NPC and how they fight. Not all of them were very strategically intelligent according to those but they at least explained how the monster might act and use their abilities, which helps when the person running the monster doesn't have a good grasp of what they might do themselves, or any alternative ideas.
Getting super specific on weapons has been and continues to be kinda weird to me. A lot of weapons generally aren't so noticably different to one another to need specific stats. They will generally work like their closest analogues enough not to warrant it, so I feel it is more sensible just to reflavour. Is there really that noticable difference between a fauchard and glaive except maybe in an overanalytical sense? The few that do need specific stats is simply because they are different from real examples. The scythe for instance is a reaping scythe, which has the blade at a right angle rather than at the pole tip. That to me makes sense for why they would differentiate them.
I suppose that does help things. Leeway existing keeps these hypotheticals more grounded, that's for sure.
So I was pondering on the edicts and anathema of Urgathoa, and I kind of realized Urgathoans given their instructions can actually reach a very unfortunate impasse. Rare as it might be, Urgathoans can find themselves confronted with an undead looking to kill them. Unfortunately, Urgathoans must protect and not destroy undead, it's outright anathema for them to do otherwise. Urgathoans ARE encouraged to become undead upon death, but not all undead will raise them as one, nor are they allowed to sacrifice their lives, so they can't simply allow it to kill them, that's sacrifical. (Obviously this is to do with existing as long as possible to indulge in your glutton for as long as possible, so you know, not every urgathoan is becoming undead as fast as they can is what I'm taking away from that) That process has to be basically a voluntary transition presumably, and not as an act of unexpected and forced-upon violence. I wouldn't imagine being killed by an undead and not being raised is going to cause them trouble here, but they have to do SOMETHING to protect themselves until they can get to that point where they can be animated. Or at least, make an earnest attempt to protect their lives. Most undead are pretty much incapable of being reasonably halted or restrained short of Control Undead (Turn Undead is good only, after all), and that is immensely limiting given any reasonably intelligent undead isn't going to be in the level range to make that a useful method of self defence. Many undead also fight to the 'death', so even attempting to simply beat them into submission is a borderline violation and entirely pointless. I know this is quite an unlikely scenario, and I may be overthinking it since it is mostly only villains that are Urgathoans, but surely Urgathoa knows not every undead is going to be willing to recognize her flock as potentially helpful allies, since she doesn't even have control over vampires for the most part, and many of them probably don't recognize her as their ancient progenitor. Hell, the one that sparked this thought was the dullahan, since they will stubbornly refuse to change their minds once they have decided a creature must die, so if that is a Urgathoan, that's a really rough situation for them. They really can't win there, and they might be falling if they don't get undeaded as soon as possible. Or at least, they'll at best just hope they can out run a horseman with a hatchet that never tires. Anyone else got any thoughts about this weird hypothetical that actually might come up every now and again? Is this the evil version of 'the paladin falls'? Also, does marching mindless undead into battle violate the protection edict? I feel taking control over undead and willingly sending them to battle your foes as cannon fodder is the opposite of protect, but given her followers are necromancers, this may actually be something that happens on occasion.
Oh so this lets you do this with Sacred Fist Warpriest, nice. You still sadly lack the feat support since Sacred Fist robs you of most of them, but cool never the less.
I was kind of spitballing with a friend about dumb stuff you can do in Pathfinder builds, and we kind of discovered an interesting combo. The Versatile Design weapon modification allows you to treat a weapon as part of another weapon group. (Obviously this also increases the proficiency requirement so it isn't exactly free) Sohei monks can flurry of blows with any weapon in a select few weapon groups they choose for weapon training at 6th level. This doesn't include firearms, but does include bows. This is obviously easier said than done. Monks have no inbuilt methods of supporting firearm usage, but the idea that Equilibrium Clerics are actually legal options for monks is very amusing. Any other oddities of the rules that allow for really silly things (either functionally workable or not)?
If an arrow doesn't, neither would a mace, any polearm or axe, since they are all weapons typically at the end of a wooden haft. Very, very few weapons are purely metal. An arrow is just a sharp weighted object or sharpened point in the arrow haft delivered via aerodynamics and velocity towards your target, and the bit that does the wounding can and usually is metal unless the arrow is just a sharpened stick. You can make arrow heads out of other materials, of course, but the standard arrow is likely metal.
Team wide protection from AoE is not nearly as bad as you would think. Especially for squishy party members.
Although it is an explicitly sexual thing (although not necessarily), Arshea was a god in Pathfinder 1e who quite literally grants you bonuses for being naked if you are a devotee. You could flavour it away from that but frankly it isn't something that is particularly common among western cultural standards (or more accurately, standards of acceptable presentation are more aligned with clothed modesty), and the game is written and marketed to an audience seated in those cultures. So almost certainly you aren't going to find much in the way of nudism that doesn't have explicit sexual overtones. Edit: Actually, mentioning Starfinder, there was someone I knew who was very interested in the Second Skin armor for much the same reasons, and Pathfinder 1e had a suit of armor that functioned somewhat similarly. Djezet skin. This stuff is around, and in Starfinders case it even allows you to otherwise exist in extreme environments while 'stark naked', while djezet skin was more or less the same thing, having radiation protective properties according to lore though not for statistics.
The design team indicated during their AMAs for PaizoCon that the actual "psychic" casters (ie, psychic) would use the occult list and have their own gimmicks. Like I can totally see psychic as a fun occult caster with Phrenic Amplifications and Disciplines. It seems reasonably convenient, though I would hope the psychic unique spells come back as focus spells, simply because of how their scaling worked in PF1 was still fairly unique among the other available spells and fits the focus spell scaling progression pretty well. Undercasting was dope, but I could see that also being some kind of psychic specific gimmick.
Oh no, I knew that. I should probably see about how the numbers pan out to sheer damage output to accuracy if you are really pushing the values to be as high as possible. I suspect the damage difference might not be too bad if you consider the likelihood of landing more than the first blow with a nonagile weapon to be pretty unlikely with a -10. But that's probably something worth it's own thread methinks.
I would think some classes are unlikely to come back as separate classes, which is fine by me. But I've already been surprised by the APG lineup, namely that Swashbuckler is even distinct enough to warrant a separate class from the Fighter. The distinction of occult and arcane is a good one for new design space. It differentiates witches, bards and wizards nicely, since I have no doubt witches are at least somewhat occult or maybe primal (would be pretty weird if not). But I have to wonder if they are going to make a fifth in the form of psychic just so they can fit back in the psychic spellcasters and how they might appear. One I am interested in seeing return is definitely kineticist and summoner. Both of those are fairly interesting classes with mechanics that let them operate fairly differently to the others. Kineticist burn us maybe one of the most unique limitations I saw out of PF1 design.
The spiked chain has uncommon and Zon-Kuthon with an entire nation dedicated to his worship has it as his favoured weapon. Why meteor hammers are more common than a functionally probably fairly similar weapon is very odd and I have to wonder if it simply was a mistake.
The weirdest part about it is that the stats imply that not only does every fighter know how to use one, but that it's widely used enough to not be uncommon or advanced. Which is the opposite of what the meteor hammer is, being a fairly dangerous and unorthodox weapon that requires a lot of very specific training and mastery to use even safely. It is nice that it is far less obtrusive to get cool, weird weapons that make for flashier characters, but if there is going to be make a distinction about common and uncommon weapons, that's one that I would think fits the bill.
If you have concerns about it, use sweep weapons and agile weapons. There is actually a weapon with both. The hatchet, which means you take an effective -3 if you only attacked once before you cleaved.It's a Barbarian Feat...Agile weapons are thus a really bad idea. Sweep works, though. You only lose half your rage damage bonus, not entirely terrible if your instinct gives you a notably large bonus, and you are potentially hitting an opponent you would not have hit at all, so the loss of damage somewhat makes up for itself.
Cleave is a reaction attack, there is good reason to not make it exempt from MAP because it is an attack outside of the normal assortment of actions and can be procced during your own attack routine. If you have concerns about it, use sweep weapons and agile weapons. There is actually a weapon with both. The hatchet, which means you take an effective -3 if you only attacked once before you cleaved.
Edit: oh wait it's an issue with redundancy. I would imagine you could benefit from having both when yoh don't want to take a penalty but still converse with everyone at once, since if you fail the first attempt you still get to converse for a minute, which means you still have a minute to converse with the entire group if you dont succeed on the first go. If you manage to beat the DC straight up, great, but at a -5 you may not. Glad Hand gives you a second chance which is where Group Impression comes into effect, since you have to now converse with the group as normal. If you are hitting successes on Glad Hand back to back, yeah, Group Impression can be a little redundant but not if you have the potential for failure, in which case Group Impression becomes rather helpful.
I'm good now.
Plenty last I checked.
You're basing that on what? Art?I imagine access for everything Small and Large to be about as common in Starfinder as handicap access is in real life. There's just too many varied alien races out there for engineers and designers the worlds over to not have taken into account something as blatantly obvious as size.I'm sure the Skyfire Legion ships all have double-sized corridors, with high ceilings and poles for the Dragonkin to land and sleep on. But other ships so far, have been less than accommodating for large-sized species. They're Triaxian-based, and their membership is entirely in a dragonkin-bond. Why on earth would they not build their ships to accommodate half their fieldable forces?
285. A race whose natural habitat is the cold depths of space.
And some more...vague prompts 297. The comfort of rain.
Frankly, I really liked Starfinder's NPC creation rules and I think they made for really easily made creatures on the fly. But I do enjoy making NPC's slightly more closer to effectiveness as PC's, so stating them out like in PF1 can be fun but time consuming. Having both on the table would be good for me. I don't dislike either system and think both are fun in their own way.
|