For the spell thrower turret, you would need to determine how much of the computer's attack bonus is bad, to know if the spell chip works without an attack roll.
A tier 0 computer is +0, which is a 45% chance to trigger a level 4 spell gem.
The bombarding fusion option tends to be more expensive, but a 100% chance of working.
You could let it power most technological items for a minute straight. I think I would make that use 1/day instead of 1/day/item. Let's them use overcharged & charge hungry weapon attacks easier, but doesn't let them juggle various weapons, then charge their power armor, then charge an energy shield, etc.
I don't have my books with me, but can you stick a Summoning Grenade in a Bombarding Fusion weapon? That would be a free summon per day, if I recall, which doesn't make you a Raidou Kuzanoha-level Devil Summoner, but it's getting there.
It would be cheaper and more reliable than the computer controlled spellthrower for sure.
I think this works.
1) Get yourself a weapon.
2) Get yourself a computer with a complex control module for said weapon.
3) Install a spellthrowing fusion in that weapon.
4) Buy spell gems of summon monster with the demon graft
Well, it's not a program that summons demons, but now you have a spellcasting turret that can summon demons. Or shoot fireballs.
Edit: Dang it, I forgot about spell chips, that's way simpler... But my way is automated.
There's the 'typical' booting up a long dead computer, or one in a facility without power to access it. That's not a good way to use it though as it's dependent on the story letting you use it.
If you absolutely need a tier 10 computer in a remote location but don't have a generator.
Or, possibly the intended standard reason:
Portable Power wrote:
Starship Power Budget wrote:
You could squeeze on an extra gun, or special system, or something and power it for a minute even without the PCU budget.
Unfortunately, you and your GM are going to have to decide how long a starship round is. Do you get to use the extra power once? Twice? One ten round combat a day?
I suppose this might also let you start up a ship's shields or a weapon when it is otherwise docked/unpowered.
Lord Fyre wrote:
I wonder if it would be easier to reference starfinder material for technology in Iron Gods?
Obviously all the rules about old, failing tech from the tech guide would need to be preserved.
But instead of crafting a +1 striking laser pistol with the 'technology' skill or skill feat, you would craft the next rank of pistol which has more damage dice innately.
There are also a lot of additional technology items and cybernetics that aren't directly combat applicable.
Either way, you're still importing rules that don't have a PF2 version yet, so I guess it doesn't save you any work.
I don't see that as a problem in a full campaign. If anything, I would encourage the other players to follow suit by buying lower level weapons and armor and relying on looted guns.
If these are a bunch of one-offs or short 2-3 session campaigns... I still don't really see the problem. Good loot should be sparse in such a campaign.
On the plus side, they've gone starfinder for stat ups.
The difference between a 16 and an 18 is only +1 at levels 1-4, 10-14, and 20. Levels 5-9 and 15-19 there is no difference.
So, an 18 is better, but it's not terrible to have a 16 in the stat you want.
Seems to me that not knowing adds another level of complexity to an already complex system. For those of you who have to keep scanning, how on earth do you and your gm keep accurate track of so many variables without turning starship combat into a slow quagmire?
I'll be honest, normally as a GM I only take pilot and gunner actions on ships I run to speed up play.
So, while I support this interpretation:
"Samantha DeWinter wrote:
Could combine A and C, meaning you only get the snapshot, but each subsequent scan reveals everything again. So (assuming each turn you just meet the DC, or exceed by less than 5), turn 1 you get info "a", turn 2 you get info "a+b" turn 3, you get "a+b+c" etc. I think defenses ("b") are the only ones that are likely to change from turn to turn, but this covers if there's some weird re-configuring ship options in later supplements.
My players know I don't typically take engineering and science officer actions. They tend to just attempt to hit the same shield quadrant over and over again without scanning.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Because scaling bonuses exist in the system, being properly specialized in something requires a scaling bonus.
I was thinking more lowering the number required to succeed so that specialists aren't required to pass. Close to where someone with skill focus and max ranks stands a decent chance at passing instead of upping skill focus to equal a class bonus.
I'll definitely post them if it doesn't look like one of those 'just rewrite the whole system' conversions.
I don't have the CRB yet, but right now I'm considering just adding new flavored class feats for the fighter(soldier), rogue(operative), and alchemist(mechanic). The casters probably need a new class and spell lists to build off of, the solarian definitely does, and the envoy needs something new to make it something other than a spell-less bard.
Option A) you learn their shield balance once and never again. This makes that bit of info mostly worthless.
Option B) you always know how their shields are distributed once scanned. You can continue scanning or do other things with your action.
Option C) Their shield distribution becomes 'unknown' every turn. In addition to needing to keep scanning, it becomes a lot harder for pirates to figure out what's in your cargo bays if you keep re-balancing a shield point back and forth.
Edit: Yep, it does say current value, it looks like option A or C it is.
I think requirements should, for the most part, be trained in skills, or capable of casting spells from ____ list, or expert in _____, never a specific feat or dedication.
Their feats should be a list of feats they can choose from whenever, with a capstone feat with a pre-req of X number of feats from this prestige archetype.
I missed that. Fair enough. I'm thus struggling a little with what I consider a contradiction. Some solutions seem to be okay to improv but others are railroading and I can't parse a qualitative difference between some of the scenarios and outcomes discussed.
I may be getting it wrong, but as far as I can tell:
The party fails to pick a lock to sneak into the servants quarters of the evil noble.
I'm probably going to try my hand at homebrewing the starfinder classes in an effort to see if it'll be somewhat simple or massively complex to port the starfinder setting and adventures into PF2.
I'll probably still end up running starfinder as starfinder, but I want to see if it's easy or hard.
But I think I'll need the GMG first.
Even just narratively faster. You aren't besieging a dungeon for seven days and seven nights. You're breaking into the bad guys base and blasting your way out in under an hour.
I think my PCs went through book 4 in two in game days. A full level of xp in a day of adventuring, twice in a row is very fast.
Gotta love that English language right?
Think of it like this: broken is a condition that applies penalties, it is not itself a penalty. A bonus feat is not a 'bonus' it is a bonus feat - one term, two words.
I believe RAI provisional repair removes all of this:
Weapon: attack and damage rolls take a –2 penalty and can’t deal extra effects on a critical hit; armor: AC bonuses are halved and the armor check penalty is doubled; vehicle: –2 penalty to AC, collision DC, and Piloting modifier, and it halves its full speed and MPH; tool or tech that provides bonuses: bonuses are halved.
But RAW, it might only remove this:
Weapon: attack and damage rolls take a –2 penalty, armor: AC bonuses are halved and the armor check penalty is doubled; vehicle: –2 penalty to AC, collision DC, and Piloting modifier, and it halves its full speed and MPH; tool or tech that provides bonuses: bonuses are halved.
Or even as little as this:
Weapon: attack and damage rolls take a –2 penalty, vehicle: –2 penalty to AC, collision DC, and Piloting modifier
In my opinion, the first option is most correct. The item is still broken, but none of that first quote applies.
Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
I think the 'issue' is that if you buy grenades by the six pack as a house rule, why isn't the bombard soldier crafting by the six pack as a house rule?
Personally I'm with Ascalaphus, make grenades stronger before you make them cheaper. Add specialization damage. Maybe remove the dex modifier from the save and add full item level, maybe add full item level and dex modifier.
Nevermind that a tier 10 computer, a level 20 item with a price tag of 320,000 Cr, only has a 55% chance of hitting a CR 8 combatant's EAC.
That said, depending on your GM, a ranged combatant carrying around a portable turret heavy weapon could make for an interesting way to keep yourself in cover and still attack... this is all a tangent to the original post however.
Technically penalties are just the negative modifiers to the roll (Bonuses and Penalties, Pg 266 CRB).
I'm not sure whether the halved bonuses and the like disappear. I would treat the ability as 'ignore everything under the broken condition, it's still has the broken condition', but RAW it appears to only remove the -2's and such.
The Artificer wrote:
It technically works, but probably won't hit anything, and would just be a waste of credits.
You'd need to buy a computer of some tier, it's attack roll is equal to it's tier, then you need to spend 10% of the weapon's price for a complex control unit. On top of that, the GM is within their rights to shut the whole idea down. You can build a turret, but nothing says it can or cannot be mounted in a power armor's weapon slot. Definitely nothing says it doesn't provoke an AoO in your quoted post.
CRB: Computers, Control Module wrote:
Which goes back to what I was saying before, that I don't think the vehicle rules we're written very clearly with respect to normal combatants and vehicles.
Vehicles provide cover, mobility (kinda), and maybe weapon mounts. If they provide total cover, they also act like a bag of ablative hit points.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
The same bonuses you get for disguising yourself as a generic cat. You wouldn't get any additional bonus to disguise yourself as a specific black cat.
Nope, other than the whole 'magic methods of entering and leaving the drift do not work'.
There is room in the setting for souls being trapped in the drift if the ship they're on is stuck there too. The default assumption is not that all that die in the drift remain in the drift.
It may be that they just find their way to Alluvion and are shuttled up to Pharasma by Triune, or souls make their way to the astral plane like normal-they aren't getting there magically, that's just how souls work.
He didn't advocate genocide in modern time. 21:2 said that genocide would have ended the war centuries ago, one way or the other. His students took this as advocacy and the whole mess started.
This bit didn't strike me as a liberal vs conservative adventure so much as an adventure in office politics.
Say, observing a target for three rounds where the target is not aware of the sniper, or at least not able to take steps to make it hard for the sniper.
So... bring the assassin class into starfinder?
Personally I think snipers are currently unsupported, but in an okay place mechanically. They need adventure writing to support their use, like vehicles and starships.
Vehicles... look like they work fine in normal combat. Some of them move too fast to stay on the board.
The ones providing total cover and having weapon mounts may be very nice in combat, especially if you didn't buy them yourself.
I've often thought of making the more exo-skeleton type power armor into vehicles.