Helvellyn's page

Unsure if I just haven't found it yet or if it is being held back until the Gamemaster Guide but a lot of the underpinning tables don't appear to be in either the Core Book or Bestiary.
The Universal Monster table in particular doesn't seem to be in so I'm not sure how easy it is to convert an encounter where the creature isn't in the new Bestiary and ensure it is broadly the right level of challenge. On the same basis the Hazard table is also not in the new books so your stuck with only the listed hazards as a reference point rather than the full table.

Thank you.

It’s probably something obvious I’ve missed after reading through the scenario but.....

I wonder if this one will have the players in charge of a larger ship (Kind of a Star Trek type set up rather than the usual guardians/firefly type approach)?

A couple of questions came up during my playtest of the Biohacker at the weekend.

Does the Conserving Fusion work with the Biohackers Injections ability?

The description of the infusion states the ammunition is not consumed as though the weapon has never been fired and specifically lists darts as a type of ammunition that is affected.
The rules under Injections however don’t say how long the injections last after you have made them. It does say you mix the injection as part of the standard action you take to attack with it or inject a creature so it’s possible the injection only lasts for that standard action. However, in the section on regaining daily uses it comments that when you regain your daily uses any injections you created early but didn’t use becomes inert, even if still in your possession. This implies that injections would last longer than the standard action you take to create and use them.
If it functions for Biohacker injections, then is has quite an impact upon the class as in practice it means that misses no longer use up one of your injection uses per day as you can continue to try to use the injection you made until you successfully hit. This makes the conserving fusion pretty close to mandatory once you can use it.

Do conditions inflicted by your injections escalate?

Many of the conditions that the field of study allows you to inflict on your target as a counteragent cause conditions some of which can escalate into a more serious condition if they receive the same condition again. For example: If someone who is already fatigued is fatigued again, this escalates to and they become exhausted.
The specific example in play was an opponent that was already suffering from fatigue was hit by a fatigue causing counteragent due to the Enzymology field of study. Do they therefore become exhausted as per the description of fatigue in the core rulebook?
Although there is nothing to indicate that they don’t become exhausted, it is rare that player character abilities cause this kind of escalation so we weren’t sure if this was intended.

If it had boosts to your recommended skills it would potentially be too good at creature identification, since it should have those maxed and its scanner uses those for all creatures.

As it stands the biohacker’s creature identification is not particularly effective as it takes a move action whereas normally it doesn’t take an action at all.

For a 4th level character is it a 4000 credits in total or 4000 credits plus the 1000 you would get as a first level character i.e. build the 1st level character first then advance it to 4th and add the 4000 credits then?

I don’t really want Dex to damage. That effectively makes Strength based characters and Dexterity based characters the same with damage being weapon plus your stat. If we are having Dexterity based builds then a better approach would be to make them different in the way Strength and Dexterity (or neither) are applied. Maybe Dexterity builds favour many attacks against large single attacks for strength builds, I’m sure there are other possibilities too.

I mentioned this in the first impressions thread so with this thread being specifically about the Instinctive v Studious Scientific Method, I'll copy what I said there to make it easier to find:

The Instinctive option under Scientific Method looks weaker than the Studious option. Instinctive allows you to use wisdom instead of intelligence on three skills (Life Sciences, Physical Sciences and Medicine); Studious allows you to use intelligence instead of wisdom on two skills (Perception and Sense Motive) and also allows you to use Intelligence for Wisdom saves.

This seems a little uneven and I don’t think the Instinctive Option for Spark of Ingenuity is significantly better (If at all) than the Studious one to make up for this. Not sure how to address it, maybe allow Instinctive Biohackers to use Wisdom to determine bonus skills per level? They require less time to study and learn activities, because there instincts are so keen they have a sixth sense when understanding how something works (Other Justifications are available).

Had a read through the Biohacker with a view to play it over the weekend. I’ll fill the survey in when I’ve played but in terms of initial thoughts:

The Instinctive option under Scientific Method looks weaker than the Studious option. Instinctive allows you to use wisdom instead of intelligence on three skills (Life Sciences, Physical Sciences and Medicine); Studious allows you to use intelligence instead of wisdom on two skills (Perception and Sense Motive) and also allows you to use Intelligence for Wisdom saves.

This seems a little uneven and I don’t think the Instinctive Option for Spark of Ingenuity is significantly better (If at all) than the Studious one to make up for this. Not sure how to address it, maybe allow Instinctive Biohackers to use Wisdom to determine bonus skills per level? They require less time to study and learn activities, because there instincts are so keen they have a sixth sense when understanding how something works (Other Justifications are available).

The other initial thought is that something linked to polymorph (Maybe as a field of study) would seem a natural fit for the class but currently isn’t an option.

It’s also going to need some higher level injection weapons to enable it to install level appropriate infusions but I’m going to assume they will be in the equipment section of the new book.

Everything else seems fine on an initial look.

No.

No, it doesn't just apply to sniper weapons or no, you can't use it to aim with small arms as part of the trick attack?

Can you use a sight to aim a small arm as part of your trick attack at all?

If the text states:

"or as part 
of a sneak attack where you do not take any movement even 
if you also aim a sniper weapon as part of that action."

Does this mean it only applies to sniper weapons?

Thank You

Tried searching but I couldn’t find anything. Apologies if this has already been answered.

Does Debris Field last for the shorter of 1round or until you leave graviton mode, or the longer?

The rules text is:

This ability functions for 1 round or until you leave graviton mode.

No, the guide is correct.

The blog was referring to cases such as SFS #1-00 which is tier 3-4. As was previously clarified on the forums, since you have to play a pregenerated PC for this scenario (specifically a level 4 pregen for this one), you can apply credit to any PC in the level range - specifically a level 3 or 4 PC for SFS #1-00. So if you only have a level 2 PC and play #1-00 the chronicle sheet applies once they reach level 3.

If the scenario does not require you to play a pregenerated PC, you must apply credit to a PC of a lower level than the pregen once they reach the same level of the pregen, or to a level 1 PC using the rules on page 8.

Ah right, I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quick question. On page 7, The guide seems to contradict the blog when it comes to applying credit for playing pregenerated characters. The blog states that the pregen needs to be applied to a character in the level range for the scenario but the guide seems to imply that it needs to be applied to a character of a lower level than the pregen.

The blog states

We've also allowed players to apply credit to a character of any level within the level range of a pregenerated character scenario, which should ease up some of the credit discussions around Starfinder Society #1-00: Claim to Salvation.

The guide states on page 7

Credit for playing higher-level pregenerated characters must be applied to a Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild character of a lower level than the pregenerated character or to a 1st-level character.

I’m assuming this is a typo on page 7 as in the more detailed section on applying credit the guide agrees with the blog.

Helvellyn wrote:

Or is it something that is permanently applied to your character when it is created so you can boost the statistic further at level 5 etc...

You have a character with 14 strength which you increase to 16 using the boon. At level 5 you then spend one of your stat bonuses to increase it further to 18 and then at level 10 you use your next set of stat boosts to raise the stat to 19.

^ It's this option.

Hope this helps!

Hmm

Thank you

Sorry to ask another question about the +2 stat on the legacy race boon but I’m a little confused as to when and how it is applied.

Is it slotted at the same time as other boons. So you choose at that post briefing stage in the scenario which stat to boost and it is your scores at that point in time which are used to see if an attribute qualifies for the 14 or less criteria.
For example at the point you slot your other boons, you choose it as your one personal boon and raise strength from say 14 to 16. During a later adventure you have used one of your stat boosts at level 5 to increase strength to 16 and therefore it no longer can receive the +2 so you need to select a different stat.

Or is it something that is permanently applied to your character when it is created so you can boost the statistic further at level 5 etc..
You have a character with 14 strength which you increase to 16 using the boon. At level 5 you then spend one of your stat bonuses to increase it further to 18 and then at level 10 you use your next set of stat boosts to raise the stat to 19.

Or is it something that is permanently applied to your character when it is created so you can boost the statistic further at level 5 etc, but it doesn’t count for the purpose of increasing your attributes at level. 5, 10 etc working more like an personal upgrade.
For example: You have a character with 14 strength which you increase to 16 using the boon. At level 5 you then spend one of your stat bonuses to increase it further to 18 and then at level 10 a you use it to raise the stat to 20.

Thanks

With the caveat that I may have read the play test rules wrongly, we are finding that the underlying maths is really fun in combat but is proving limiting outside of combat with players just avoiding skill rolls in situations where failure would have significant impact.

As an example:
The player playing the rogue finds using stealth in combat to remain hidden and sneak up on the opponent’s mage a lot of fun. The success rate feels about right and so far the dice rolls have added to the tension rather than proved frustrating.

The same player is not prepared to use stealth outside combat to scout ahead. The relatively high chance of failure (20-30%) and the consequence of being spotted (Having to face the encounter alone until they can get the other players there) discourages them from attempting it.

As I said, maybe we are reading the rules incorrectly if so ignore me but this is currently what is happening when we use the new rule system.

Thanks for the feedback. The Envoy Expertise Talents are exactly the kind of thing I was worried I had missed. Oh well, they will just have to settle for being nearly as good.

I'm thinking of making a minor change to the skill focus feat. I don't think it would cause problems elsewhere but thought it might be worthwhile checking.

Firstly I apologise if this has come up before, I’ve had a look using search and not found anything but if I’ve missed it please feel free to ignore me.

One of the problems we have been having with Starfinder characters is the difference in effectiveness between a character with a class bonus to a skill (Mystic’s Channel Skill ability for their two connection skills, Technomancer’s Techlore with Computers and Mysticism) and one that does not have a class bonus.

This has hindered players who have wanted to have their characters be highly skilled in something that isn’t already part of their class (For example having a charming Technomancer, an Ace Pilot Envoy, or Soldiers with any skill). At lower levels this can be worked around with the Skill Focus Feat, which allows a character without a skill bonus from their class to keep up because it grants an insight bonus which duplicates the insight bonus from the class abilities. However, at the higher levels they start to lag behind as this bonus never increases beyond +3.

In order to allow characters without a class bonus to keep up even at higher levels I am considering changing the Skill Focus Feat to instead read (The bold sentence is the change):
------
Skill Focus
Choose a skill. You gain +3 insight bonus to checks involving the chosen skill. This bonus increases to +4 at 11th level and by a further +1 every 4 levels thereafter.
You can take this feat multiple times, its effects don’t stack. Each time you take this feat, it applies to a new skill.
------
I have considered allowing the feat exactly as it stands in the current Pathfinder rules (which provides a +6 bonus once you have ten ranks in a skill) but felt that that allows characters to have a skill higher at certain levels than currently possible within the game which may well create other difficulties. I also thought about an Improved Skill Focus feat to provide a larger boost but felt that two feats were unfairly expensive for the benefits gained.

Anyway. As far as I can tell this doesn’t create any potential problems further down the line but I was interested to see if there is something that I’ve not taken into account. Hence posting it here.

Many Thanks.

Although not related to your initial post, and I might have misinterpreted your other post, but if you have skill focus (Bluff) that isn't going to stack with the Envoy expertise. Both are insight bonuses so only the highest will apply. Although this might be what you were after (effectively guaranteeing at least +3 even if you roll a 1 or 2 on your expertise die while it is still at only 1d6).

I like the change. Anything that saves space by removing unnecessary rules text is a good idea. It also creates space for more exiting spell descriptions too whuch would make looking through the spells much more inspiring.

My initial impression is very much in line with the opening post. The rule mechanics and class frameworks look really good. The modular nature of character generation opens up loads of options as well as creating design space for third party publishers to create different genres (Just change the feats and you can move the game to low fantasy/wuxia setting or whatever you fancy).

However, the feats and powers themselves are not catching the imagination much. Not sure if its the clinical nature of the text in the write ups or just a lack of a wow factor in the feats function.

Will be intresting seeing how this affects actual play and how it develops from there.

I quite like resonance as a whole especially with it applying to consumables like scrolls and wands. However I have to add my voice to the choir when it comes to having resonance and restrictions in uses per day. I'll see how it works in the playtest but having to track multiple resources here sounds like unnecessary complexity.

Nice idea. It will be interesting to see how it works for small tables.

I’ve wondered about something similar but from a monster perspective. With single bad guys being difficult to use in PF1 (I find the fights either tend to be too easy or in boosting the CR of the monster you end up with powers that a group can’t yet counter) increasing their number of actions may balance out the fights without needing a high CR. Enabling the single bad guy to be a more workable option.

I am concerned about the use of a stylish icon rather than the use of the word action (In the example given). This is an area that can cause problems in terms of clarity and really should be something that is tested with a large number of users.

I understand it won't be in for the formal playtest document but hopefully it will be able to be heavily tested at some point over the next nine months.

I think the classes listed are about right for the core rulebook.

However I am hopefull that a number of PF1 classes can be built using the many options that exist in 2nd edition. For example, none of the classes in the Advanced Class Guide classes should be necessary as they should be available through multiclassing existing classes and the character options available (The advanced class guides were designed to be a mix of two existing classes afterall). In a similar vein I would suggest the Gunslinger, Magus, Ninja and Samurai should all be buildable through the core classes rather than needing a seperate class.

After that I think there is probably a need for some of the classes in the Advanced Players Guide to be introduced reasonably soon not just because they are popular but also because they add significant mechanical options beyond the core classes. I'm thinking Witch (Hexes), Cavalier (Teamwork), Oracle (Spontaneous Divine) for example so as to enable adventures to be easily adapted to 2nd edition and bring in classes that offer something new.

Other than that I think the approach to Occult classes should follow the approach used in PF1, namely a seperate book which adds the occult options onto the system in order to ensure all the differences are given sufficient coverage.

Looks good. Especially like the focus on the Paladin’s code. I think it might need some greater definition around what “Murder” counts as though. Considering the complexity of the term (Especially some of the modern usage which can be quite emotionally charged) it might be better to remove the term and instead just state what isn’t acceptable, for example (illustrative only): Must not kill solely for personal gain.

One of the things that I don't think worked well in Pathfinder was the concept of the big bad guy. Action economy was always so heavily in the player's favour against a single opponent that they either folded without getting to do much or just completely wiped the party.

I know multiple opponents made much more interesting encounters that did work well but it would be nice if in some cases the new mechanics or monsters could function in such a way as to allow single big bad guy fights.

So more a worry/query about a style of monster than a specific one.

I suppose the question is will PF2 have builds at all. I see lots of options but as yet nothing to indicate selecting certain options together will create a significantly more powerful character in the way some PF1 options do. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing and I know one of the areas of the playtest I'm most interested in is how all these options work in letting you create and develop your character.

Don't know about a Mythic or Epic system, but I'd quite like to see a decent amount of support for the level 20 game so we at least get some use out of our capstones ;)

As much as I look forward to the changes, especially any "offical" endings for the Adventure Paths; I kind of hope that the recent adventure paths are not part of these official changes.
They will still be pretty new by the time 2nd edition comes out (Especially Rise of the Runelords and War for the Crown) and adventures people will still be playing at that time. It would be a shame if their finale was spoiled for people simply because its mentioned in the new rulebook.

If Paizo aren't planning on taking comments from the community onboard, they are spending rather a lot of money just for the privilege of ignoring us.

More expensive print options (Canada rather than China so they can get the final copy to the printers two months later than normal); developer time on blogs and forum posts; delaying getting the new product out by a year......

As much as I like the range of results that the critical success and critical failure rules add to the game I am not a fan of these results applying automatically to natural 20s and natural 1s.

The succeed/fail by 10 is within the players ability to control. If you are stretching, the chance of a critical failure increases and if you are doing something that is comfortably within your ability, a critical success is increasingly likely. I think this is an excellent addition to the game for all the reasons mentioned in the blog and in the subsequent posts.

However having these results on a natural 20 and natural 1 is just a player killer. Pretty much every roll in the game is either a player trying to act or a player being the subject of an action by an NPC. It is players that are effected the most by natural 20s and natural 1s so it is players who will be subject to double damage from their fumbled saves or their opponents attacks. I don't think I've ever been in a session where one of the players hasn't been on the receiving end of a natural 20 or natural 1.

I know it is part of current Pathfinder and indeed in some cases more dangerous (I'm looking at you Scythe) but I don't think it is something that should carry over to the new edition for the reasons mentioned above.

I've been running Shattered Star, which has a fair number of NPCs, and so far so good! (including a magus they already fought and a creature with gunslinger abilities soon) Tonight, the team, who just hit level 10, are going to take on the last dungeon in Book 3.

Awesome!

One of the things I'm keen to see is one of the more recent adventures (probably part of an AP as there hasn't been a module in a while) where you are having to convert NPCs built from classes that are not going to be part of the 2nd edition core rulebook.

The large variety of character concepts you can create. (Although in the interest of full disclosure I don't like the level of system mastery needed to make some of the them).

The Adventure Paths. (Campaigns of this quality are rare, to have the number paizo has put out even more so).

One of the things I was hoping for was that you would be able to replicate some of the PF1 classes (In style if not mechanics) and that classes that are common in the fantasy genre (swashbuckler as an example, along with other lightly armed classes)could be created with the new flexibilities and options of the system. Is that likely to be the case or are we going to have to wait until later for those type of warrior classes?

I'm not a fan of the 1 level dip in current pathfinder. This is due to the unnecessary added complexity and that it isn't really an option for newer players due to the level of system knowledge required to dip effectively (Especially those class+archtype dips). However, it is in many cases the only way to create some of the more useful and interesting character concepts and so needs to remain in current Pathfinder.

In terms of 2nd edition, i'm all for getting rid of a single level dip in a class but only if the new mechanics allow the same results as we currently have for dipping. In effect, the new method for multiclassing stops dipping because it makes dipping redundant, rather than by banning it. This would also be much easier for newer players too.

I would happily spend the extra for a bigger initial bestiary and as much as I'd love extra details on each monster I think number of foes is probably more improtant than detail at this stage.

Although it may be possible to balance extra detail on the main opponents (humanoids, dragons, demons etc.) and still have sufficeint numbers of creatures.

That said I'd probably buy a bestiary that just covered the main creatures but in full detail (I'm thinking about some of the campaign books that give detailed treatment of certain monsters).

In summary, yes i'll buy it. If you can have detail on the main types of monsters plus large numbers of creatures then that would be preferred.

In summary of the summary, it may be easier if you just take my money now.

As an aside, I don't necessarily think it needs new artwork for each monster, in many cases the current artwork is good enough.

If taken purely in terms of modifier to the roll different levels of proficiency provides (especially between Unskilled and Trained), it doesn't look sufficient but without knowing what uses of the skills are gated behind different proficiency levels, the specialised feats etc. It is really difficult to gauge how the new proficiency system will effect play.

In terms of making weapon proficiencies vary from culture to culture, that does sound like something they could easily do with the new Ancestry mechanic.

I always thought Exotic-ness was more about stats than anything else? Like, a Falcata isn't exotic because it isn't from "Western Europe" (because it is, it's Spanish. Or Greek, if we go by the earlier Kopis), but rather because it's a battle-axe that's 19-20. The sword-breaker dagger, same thing. The katana isn't Exotic because it's from Asia, but because it's 18-20 on a 1d8 chassis and has an extra ability on top.

This has always been how I've seen it. They decided to make the Katana a better weapon than it's western equivalents so required the exotic weapon feat to balance that out. For those weapons that retain their improved stats in PF2 then I would expect additional character resources to be needed to use them to act as a balance to the improved stats.

Apart from the obvious is it fun criteria I would say:

1) Easier to pick up and get playing for new players
2) Retains the huge number of different build options for characters
3) Consistent rules with few exceptions
4) Consistent use of language so for example if something calls itself a serum of enhancement, the bonus it gives is an enhancement one not something else
5) How easy it is to run one of the first edition Adventure Paths in the second edition

What isn’t clear is to what extent does a character have to specialise to be at the top of their proficiency . Is the investment to legendary plus the proficiency feats the kind of investment that you can only do with a single proficiency at most? Are you going to have to reduce your number of combat feats to get these proficiencies feats?

I think this is one area which is difficult to judge until the play test. However it looks like criticals and fumbles on proficiency checks are again going to be based upon how much you succeed or fail by which makes the double damage on saves of 1 seem especially odd and out of kilter with everything else.

Of the two I prefer the SF style but I kind of hope they have developed another approach that is easy to track like SF but gives the flexibility of the PF system

I know this may come accross as paranoia but I am a little concerned about the mention of special formatting to describe how the feats work.

One of the areas where I felt Pathfinder was better than its competitors was that descriptions added flavour to the abilities which tended to inspire and place the ability in the contect of the pathfinder setting.

As I said, probably paranoia on my part and the text will be flavour as well as rules, but it would be a shame if we went from inspiring descriptive text to just cold, hard rules.

Throughout the adventure I was writing sticky notes and slapping them onto the front of my GM screen showing the audience's response to their actions ("Lame #LEE" "They have a mascot #LEE" "That explosion was fake, I know Holoshop so I know these things #LEE"), that seemed to help remind the players that the universe is watching. (I was careful to not let it slow things down and had several prepped before hand).

Can I just say that I totally stole this idea with the sticky notes when running it myself. Made up some semi-amusing usernames and used them to act as feedback and to keep the pace going.

Worked really well...........stroke of genius from you I think.

I've received the email for the pathfinder society scenarios but not the starfinder society one (#1-09). The starfinder society one seems to have vanished off the subscriptions page too (It shows #1-08 shipped and the next one as #1-10).