Emkrah

Garretmander's page

779 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 779 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Danbala wrote:
Quick question abut the starship level heavy laser cannons on the roof of the garrison. My players intend to try to have these added to their ship when they level. Is there any restriction on that? Is it simply a matter of spending the BPS? If so, will that make them overpowered?

As long as they can fit them in their BP budget it's fine. They also technically don't need to take those lasers in order to fit heavy laser cannons on their ship.


HammerJack wrote:
I just realized the autocorrect. That was supposed to say "you have to determine how much of the computer's attack bonus is BaB."

I've been assuming none, so they have to make an attack roll vs item level + 1


HammerJack wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracomicron wrote:
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.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
(barathu falling out of the sky every time they open fire is one of the wonkier parts here...)

It's no wonkier than anyone using a jetpack falling out of the sky when they shoot something twice.


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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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:

You can use your custom rig to supply limited power for up to

1 minute to a computer or starship system that lacks power.
Starship Power Budget wrote:

Most starship systems consume power. The starship’s power core

provides this power in terms of power core units (PCU). The PCUs
needed for all of a starship's systems can exceed the total PCUs
provided by the core, but usage can't exceed the available PCUs—if
it would, some systems must be inactive.

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:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
"What PF1 rules do you plan to import into PF2?"

None. They're completely different games. It'd be like asking what D&D 5th edition or AD&D 2nd edition rules I'll be importing.

I'll try to give the game a chance on it's merits. If it's awful I'll just play D&D 5th edition or PF1e. Otherwise if it's at least as good as either of those I'll start houseruling things as problems arise.

That is why I was pointing out my "special" needs. Iron Gods and the Technology rules.

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.


Doesn't each missile need a dedicated gunner continually rolling attacks to keep up?

Also, typically, starship combats occur at 3d6+5 hexes apart, that doesn't sound like a lot of room to build up the 'my ship is dragging mines' situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
There are a lot though.

Makes the universe a bit more interesting when something weird is going on.


Metaphysician wrote:
... if it is altering the psychic medium of an entire planet, in what way is *that* not detectable, like a giant beacon?

I would assume it's obvious that the resonator is somewhere on the planet.

Finding where it is would be more difficult.


James Jacobs wrote:
In my headcanon, she was an Androffan human.

So how many human civilizations are there in the PF universe? Ones that appear to have either evolved separately or been created by a deity/deities. Ex: Golarion, Androffa, Earth.


Edge93 wrote:
Seisho wrote:

If you put a lot of effort in it (or take elf) you could go with 18 in both in the campaign and keep both up on the same level

admittedly your other stats would look a bit worse
There's no way to have a stat aside from your key score at 18 to start with.

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.


Ravingdork wrote:
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.


Malk_Content wrote:
Garretmander wrote:

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.

Would love it if you posted any progress. I love starfinder but it is seriously disappointing how shackled it is to old design paradigms.

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.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Option D, by absolute RAAAAW since you learn things further down the list and shields are up the list you can only ever learn them once, EVER!

ow ow ow the sunday edition really? OW OW OW... why didn't we OW OW recycle that.. OW OW OW...

That was option A).


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.

Relevant text:

Quote:

Scan (Helm Phase)

You can scan a starship with your sensors to learn information
about it. This action requires your starship to have sensors (see
page 300). You must attempt a Computers check, applying
any modifiers from the starship’s sensors. You can attempt
this check untrained. The DC for this check is equal to 10 + the
tier of the starship being scanned + its bonus from defensive
countermeasures (see page 298). If you succeed at this check,
you learn the first unknown piece of information on the following
list. For every 5 by which you exceed the check, you learn another
unknown piece of information. Subsequent checks reveal new
pieces of information, continuing down this list.
1. Basic Information: Living crew complement and ship
classification, size, speed, and maneuverability.
2. Defenses: AC, TL, total and current Hull Points, total and
current Shield Points in each quadrant, and core PCU value.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Going from an outer god orbiting the sun at the edge of the system to an undead, no longer asleep, outer god orbiting the sun at the edge of the system definitely sounds worse.


Would it not be easier to bring skill DCs down than to add ways to be super trained in skills without a class bonus?

And maybe half the operative's edge bonus, or limit to specialization skills.


Hello,

I placed an order for, well a variety of items.

Concerning package #4, it looks like the package contains the lost omens world guide which is delaying the package.

Can that be removed/shipped separately?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Malk_Content wrote:
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.

Bad solution:
GM: Hearing odd sounds, a maid opens the door, a curious look on her face.

Good solution:
GM: You've failed, what do you do?
Player: I knock.
GM: A maid opens the door, a curious look on her face.


I imagine that for ships involved in sun diving, having the environmental seals on, and recharging while active is somewhat standard practice. Especially when entering ship combat inside the sun.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
I mean, you can already remove the broken condition with a single casting of Mending, so it's not like you can't already get rid of it without that cost...

As an added plus, mechanics make decent candidates for the technomantic dabbler feat anyway.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.


Personally, I don't believe Paizo or their writing staff have gone that direction. The occasional bit of modern political commentary pops up. That'll happen in any media when the writers are part of modern times. It's certainly not propaganda.


Most of them are just flat damage enhancers. They're nice, but boring.

Personally I like the T-quark line to give your initial stellar rush a bit more oomph, but even then it's not exactly a lot of extra damage when you use the boost.


Hawk Kriegsman wrote:

Certainly the impact of additional damage of +solider level of damage would begin at level 3.

Not sure what else would change.

The Bombards specialties are ok, not great in my opinion.

Actually, having cheaper grenades and allow them to have weapon specialization, might actually steer players away from taking this fighting style.

Time will tell.

Also I was incorrect in my initial post. The grenade cost is actually for a box of 6 not 12.

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.


I tend to find plain milestones frustrating as a player, and tend to use xp simply as a measuring stick to figure for my players to know how close they are to the next milestone.

I'm liking the simplicity of the 1000 xp to level system.


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.


They are aliens and not uplifted wolves, so maybe.

I'd think there are all sorts of minor-major allergies the varied races run into all the time. Keeping your personal comm unit stocked with a list of the foods known to affect your species sounds like a good idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

I don't see it as such, no. The 'penalties from being broken' are specifically the penalties listed under the broken condition

broken wrote:
(Item Only) 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.
Yeah, but are the penalties just the -2, or is it all of the above? If it's the latter, than why couldn't the other ill effects be considered penalties of the broken condition as well?

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.


It's #2. You either attempt an attack or you attempt a grapple.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Artificer wrote:
SirShua wrote:
The computer interface should allow the weapon to fire automatically. It'd be a way to boost damage while already engaged.

I am more interested by this than the rest of the thread to be honest .. does anybody else know how this what exactly work? Because I don't know.

EDIT MODE
*would not what

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:

When

operating a device that requires a skill check or attack roll (such
as a computer hooked to a med-bed or weapon), the controlling
computer can either allow a creature with authorized access to
attempt a skill check or attack roll, or attempt the skill check
or attack roll itself. When making its own check, the computer
is assumed to have an attack bonus equal to its tier, proficiency
with any weapon it controls, and a total skill bonus equal to
2-1/2 × its tier. Such controlled objects are normally mounted
to a specific location (such as a controlled longarm placed in a
turret with line of sight to the computer’s terminal), in which
case the mount and related components are included in the
control unit price.


'to suppress the penalties from the broken condition'.

The item is still broken when you try to repair it with engineering. It simply doesn't have the penalties from being broken.

So, no, you still need to spend the money.


Claxon 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.


Wouldn't that be a stealth check and not a disguise check?


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Garretmander wrote:

Well, that's an odd question.

I think I would limit a generic form to very similar forms. Same number of eyes, legs, range of coloration as the base/original generic form.

So you could be a black cat or a calico, but might need to invest in some googly eyes to be an eight eyed castrovellian cat.

But could you gain the Disguise bonus to disguise as a black cat using a generic form?

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.


WatersLethe wrote:
Also, hirelings are great for manning your ship.

Assuming they don't fly off with it.


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.


Well, that's an odd question.

I think I would limit a generic form to very similar forms. Same number of eyes, legs, range of coloration as the base/original generic form.

So you could be a black cat or a calico, but might need to invest in some googly eyes to be an eight eyed castrovellian cat.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
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.


So, if you started with a stealth drone, at level 7 it had:

S:12, D:14+2=16, C:- I:6, W:10+2=12, Ch:6

At level 8, you decide to make a combat drone. It's abilities change to:

S:14+2=16, D:12+2=14, C:-, I:6, W:10, Ch:6

1 to 50 of 779 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>