Kamyr's page

Organized Play Member. 16 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS


Is there any word on when this will be updated for Foundry V11?


The copyfit/space limit argument supports my RAW reading. Why waste the space if the class feature works as the class?

It isn't a legal text, but it is a rule set with definitions. 'Class' and 'class feature' are not used interchangeably. Any class feature that grants proficiency is definitely related. 'Class features that grant proficiency grant specialization' is only achievable by implication.

Here's the class features that can grant proficiency, excluding grenades since they're not relevant to specialization. Should be all or at least most of them. I'm not adding links sry D:

E: formatting failed, haphazard fix added

* - Those that grant spec explicitly: esoteric edge, heavy weapon edge, explorer's lash, shuriken assassin, Crusader 1st power, exocortex combat tracking, quick study

* - Those with no specialization language: technomantic proficiency, operative's arsenal, experimental weapon prototype, future training, exocortex mod for weapon proficiency, soldier combat feat for prof, operative combat trick for prof, solar connection (and technically mystic flare)

* - Unique: Fabricate arms (explicitly no spec), biohacker weapon spec, resonating biohack, heavyweight skirmisher (alters base class profs so definitely gives spec)[/list]

Biohacker spec is particularly relevant here.

Quote:
You gain the Weapon Specialization feat as a bonus feat for each weapon type this class grants you proficiency with. For weapons you have gained proficiency with only through the injection expert class feature, rather than the normal Weapon Specialization benefit, you instead add half your character level to damage you deal with those weapons.

The clear class/class feature distinction is present in the standard first sentence shared with all 3rd level class weapon specs, but the second sentence makes things slightly ambiguous. Mentioning the 'normal' benefit could be implying that the normal benefit would be spec, but it could also be overly explained. This and fabricate arms are the only counterexamples, and they're not explicit.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Do class features that add a weapon proficiency give weapon specialization if they don't explicitly say so? Or phrased another way, does the proficiency have to come from the ones a class gives at level 1 for the typical 3rd level weapon specialization to apply?

My RAW reading is they don't give specialization, with a couple relevant examples included, but I'd love to have an official answer.

Quote:
Your exocortex provides you with enhanced combat ability, granting you proficiency with heavy armor and longarms. At 3rd level, you gain weapon specialization in longarms just as if your class granted proficiency.
Quote:

You gain proficiency with two special weapons, you can select special weapons when learning new major forms, and you learn one special weapon as a bonus major form. At 3rd level, you gain weapon specialization in the two selected weapons just as if your class granted proficiency.


No.

They are making an attack with a heavy weapon that uses grenades like rounds.

Weapon specialization won't apply since the damage is per the grenade, but they only need heavy proficiency.


Ability quick pick already exists. It's not an SFS-legal option, but it's balanced imo.

For species traits, I don't care if someone wants to reskin an existing species into something else, as long as the mechanical benefits are the same.


I like these guys. They'd be a nice base for a Mokujin ripoff with extra arms.


DashingSwashie wrote:
Kamyr wrote:
I took a stab at this a little bit after the playtest came out. Don't claim it's perfect, but maybe it'll help.

I honestly like this a lot more than the "slowly accumulate MP over time" like we have right now. Makes you more adaptable.

The numbers do seem a little off-whack though xD Do you mind if I copy this and use it as a base for some homebrewing myself?

Consider it as free to use as any other Starfinder rules. I wouldn't mind feedback, though that can be a DM if it's not directly related to this thread. Some stuff was already on the chopping block when my game with a player using it fell through, but I'll let you guess what.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Putting a major rework aside, I'd probably look at improving the niches then adding more adaptations plus an operative melee option. A couple Fortitude saves that need to work on objects or constructs/undead, but that's not a problem unique to Evolutionist. Otherwise, it's ok, if not what I expected.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I took a stab at this a little bit after the playtest came out. Don't claim it's perfect, but maybe it'll help.


My current home game is a merger of themes and tropes from Power Rangers and Voltron.

It's PBP so just got through them getting to the Castle of Lions Barad-Ra and meeting Alpha 5 CAI


Mechs aren't objects, but they're constructs with the technological subtype. Construct is a creature type. They are never explicity called creatures, though, and the example blocks are written with the frame name (Gargantuan blinkstriker, etc.), so it's vaguely ambiguous.

A reading of them implicitly not being creatures and explicitly not being objects would mean they are untargetable by a vast number of abilities (including plain damage spells like explosive blast or ones that have effect on tech constructs but target creatures or objects).

My personal reading is they are creatures.

They don't have a Will save in the example blocks, but they have a 'base save bonus'. Nothing explicitly says they do not have a Will save, only that components may increase fort and ref. Also, even objects have will saves, so them not having one at all is weird.

Override can be used on 'creatures with the technological subtype'. As can ghost in the machine. Unless mechs are ruled explicitly not creatures (by GM or Paizo), then GitM opens up questions about what 'dictating its actions' entails. I'd probably just let them reuse it for the daze to start.

A small number of similar weird interactions exist if they're creatures, but far less than I expected (eg staggered is rough on 2+ operator mechs, I gave them polymorph immunity for baleful 3+ and poly 6, and I added a will save increase method). And none of it seemed as bad as making people cry when they can't use any effect that isn't at a 'target' or 'enemy'.


For operative, stunt and strike does very well with heavies. It's not the core build, but it can do some funky stuff.


It'll be in a book focused on out-of-combat activities, which is why they cut all of them out of the playtest to not give away secrets.


PF1 let you turn them into skeletons or zombies with similar language to animate dead in SF, except it has a note about using the creature's base statistics. You can see the template building at the end of their blocks. https://www.aonprd.com/MonsterDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Human%20Zombie

That's part of why I had assumed it was supposed to be a minion, until I noticed the minion graft didn't even come out for a while afterwards.

PF2 has it split differently with a more 'summon creature'-esque multilevel version of animate dead and a ritual for actual creation with create undead that'd lock it in as a 'minion' if it's -4 your level. All versions have specific undead that they can make. It has a pretty wide variety, including vampires and ghosts, with higher available levels and a number cap instead of a level cap on minions. I am less familiar with PF2 though.

I don't think incorporeal is too strong, just unclear if it would be allowed. As a GM, I can deal with it, and players have plenty of options, too.

You can still make an army. It's a total CR, not a required one, so you can make 60 CR 1/3s at CL20 by my reading. They'd be easy pickings for high-level AoE or an enemy control undead, but it's doable. How easy that is to accomplish depends on if you can set the CR or have to find a CR 1/3 to apply it to, plus the potential for people to be Unhappy about you doing it.


The reason I mentioned the grafts (which came up in a Discord discussion) is this bit in the undead minion blocks from AA1:

"The most commonly encountered undead in the galaxy are the mindless minions of greater undead (such as necrovites and vampires) or of powerful spellcasters (including both mystics and technomancers of all races)."

That's not a mechanical limitation on the spell directly, but it strongly suggests a RAI edit to use them. I don't have AA1's pdf for a better look. The spell already strongly suggests they are mindless undead, but it doesn't say it outright. Templates didn't exist in the CRB. Not even other undead to copy. And if you use the AA1 creation, it doesn't say how to handle special abilities.

Going further, there were some clear cases where 'any type of undead' becomes problematic given their specific creation methods (Jiang-Shi, Drift Dead). That also raises the question of undead (incorporeal) if there's a corpse there, since the corpse would be 'as intact as' a formless body.

NPCs also don't have proficiency in the templates or stat blocks. If they can use ones you give them, then it's entirely possible to have a horde of commanded and animated undead with higher damage than their CR using exploding weapons. Worst case, they take the -4 to DC and do half damage to anything without evasion. Mindless can definitely at least use weapons, given the skeletal undead stat block and graft.

[Full disclosure, I have already edited all the undead spells heavily in a homebrew project. Like Garret said, animate dead is immensely open to GM interpretation. Command undead is also wild if the GM doesn't take steps to restrict it.]


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

These questions are regarding the spell animate dead.

Can the caster only create undead minions, or can they make other undead?

If the caster can only make minions, does it have to be a fleshless skeleton to make a skeletal minion, or does the magic rip off the flesh?

If the caster can make whatever, does the minion get abilities from the source creature or do you get to form them into something new? Does the minion lose abilities if it would lower the CR? Does the caster get to decide the lost abilities if so?

Can the caster give them weapons?


It's right that you up the CR by 3. It's even more of a 'guideline' than encounter CR for normal PCs, imo.

[Begin Longwinded Overexplanation]
The defense can go up a decent bit.
The max tier for L7 would be T8. Assuming 4 PCs, 420 MP to spend.

Base defense is 19 SP (8 regen), 4 hardness, 23 AC.
Legionnaire - 28 MP, 82 HP, 25 AC, 5 hardness
Biped, Heavy - 44 MP, 94 HP, 26 AC, 5 hardness
Tough Arms - 52 MP, 102 HP, 28 AC, 5 hardness
Let's say 4 at-level weapons with average 3xLevel for 96 MP, total 148 spent.

5 unbreakable armor - 212 MP spent, 102 HP, 28 eac/33 KAC, 5 hardness
5 rapid reflexes - 372 spent, 33 eac/33 kac, hardness 5
1 Enhanced shields - 396 spent, MP27 SP (8), 102 HP, 33 eac/33 kac, hardness 5
1 unbreakable armor for 115 HP

A CR7 combatant has to roll a 16, since the gargantuan mech is unlikely to have cover (though not impossible). 3 of those equals a CR 10 encounter. Without penetration, they're doing around 8-12 average damage with a 20% hit chance (50% chance each round they do no damage).

The minimum is solo T6 mechs with 23/24, 16 SP (regen 6 [+2d8 with replenish]), 102 hp, hardness 3 if they pick the lowest AC options and no upgrades to survivability. If the CR7s concentrate fire, they have a decent chance to do damage, but they'd have to get lucky and benefit from unforced errors to actually bring a mech down.

And then the pilot can abandon the mech and keep fighting.