Kvetchus's page

Organized Play Member. 104 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually get the idea of why "communication with" would imply a two-way communication pathway, thus giving the non-telepath the ability to speak telepathically with whomever has the telepathic ability. And, in fact, despite the "works the same as telepathy" caveat in the Limited Telepathy description, my groups still goes with Limited not allowing two-way comms because we feel it makes the ability much too powerful.

With full Telepathy, my groups has decided that it's designed to be sufficiently powerful to specifically allow for two-way communication, but with limited telepathy, we felt it was overpowered for a first-level character to be able to have a two-way communication with ANYONE since basically everyone speaks common except monsters that you don't need to talk to really anyway unless the story requires it... and then the GM will need to make sure *some* communication method exists outside of an overpowered skill.

So, the point is, after 7 months and hundreds of hours worth of additional playing since my post above with a group that includes both Lashunta and Shirren characters along side non-telepaths, I feel very confident that disallowing two-way communication with Limited Telepathy is the right call. It provides very interesting roleplaying opportunities when the Lashunta and Shirren can talk without being heard and can coordinate when not in the same room, etc, and also provides interested interactions when non-telepaths are trying to respond without anyone noticing, etc.

What this ruling did was remove limited telepathy from play as game breaking but kept it in play as a roleplaying device. So far, the one-way-only method has worked extremely well.

I imagine if/when Paizo actually provides some formal guidance on this, we might still continue to play it the way we do because it works well from roleplaying perspective and it certainly doesn't break the game or even make the players running lashunta or shirren feel nerfed. Heck, if anything, it gives them a "I can do this and you can't" feeling that helps further define their race. "I can talk to you in your head, and you can't do anything about it, haw haw."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rob and Owen - thanks for the clarification!

Question though: Why not? In game terms, I don't see how, for example, hitting someone with my weapon as he tries to dodge away from me is that much different than, say, trying to grab the back of his armor and tackling him. Yes, the grapple is harder to do, hence the (effective) -8 to hit due to it being a combat maneuver rather than a typical melee attack.. but I'm curious as to the thought process behind why it's not allowed?

Combat maneuvers are (in my opinion) very situational at best, I think in my group after over a year of playing Starfinder, I could count on one hand the number of CM attempts anyone has even made because, let's face it, unless the story REQUIRES it (for example: "to succeed in this mission, you have to tackle target X into the ditch while the cameras are rolling"), why take a -8 to hit on purpose when there's so many other options available? Why further limit their utility when they are already B-side options anyway?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Felix the Rat wrote:
Don't forget that you have to take into account all of your equipment's bulk and the drone's equipment too. A naked goblin hanging from a drone isn't as intimidating...or is it more intimidating? For flying fun, check out the saddle mod and the diminutive Stellifera race that can ride the tiny hover drone.

Video or it didn't happen!

I would agree that, RAW, the Throwing fusion would magically allow this weapon to be used at range as described. It's magic, just think of the cinematics however you want... It would be up to the GM to disallow however on the basis of "that doesn't make any sense because the thing is literally strapped to your hand, maybe even with superglue..." if they wanted to.

As far as returning or called - no, it would not return ready to use. If so, you could easily circumvent the donning aspect that normally requires a full action by simply "calling" it from your pocket. It shows up in your hand, but you'd still need to put the thing on properly. Neither of those fusions actually specifically say the weapon thus called/caught is immediately ready for use. For nearly every other weapon, such specifics aren't necessary, and this weapon specifically indicates a full action to put on and a full round to take off. Remember, specific rules always override general rules.

This second bit could also be used by a GM to justify disallowing the use of Thrown, but again, I think RAW, Thrown is allowed. Either way though - every rule (whether RAW or not) is 100% subject to the approval of the GM.

I would simply point out what's been said many times in many contexts: Starfinder is a different game and is a different team. Nothing that applies to other games, including other Paizo games, necessarily applies here.

Therefore, it's illogical to assume something like this is actually an omission until/unless it's specifically called out in another book or FAQ. Instead, it's very clear that, per RAW, AOE attacks including grenades and explode weapons, can, in fact, crit.

As always, GMs are free to interpret the rules as they see fit for their groups - but disallowing crits on explosions would be a house rule and not official rules.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, fair enough. It still means smoke doesn't negate lasers as seems to be an assertion I've seen many times.

So, without getting into this logical pissing match...

18. You can use dex to hit with any and all combat maneuvers if you're holding an operative weapon when you perform your combat maneuver.

Can someone link me to that thread or whatever? I haven't seen that and am interested to learn a little more

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Metaphysician wrote:
Smoke would provide -4 to hit, since it provides cover, not partial cover. Or at least, that is my reading of the rules.

Interestingly, the rules don't specify the type/level of cover or concealment. Improved Cover (gun port in a defensive wall) is what provides the -4, and I'm not really sure I'd agree that smoke can provide the same level of cover as a wall. If the rules said total concealment, I could buy that, but they don't.

So we're left to interpret "cover and concealment" ourselves as meaning partial cover, improved cover, or total cover AND concealment or total concealment. Clearly, the rules don't say TOTAL concealment, so the 20% miss chance is all there is for that. But partial, improved, or total cover? Given the description ("more than half of you is visible" vs hiding "behind a defensive wall or gun port") I'd have to connect smoke with partial cover rather than improved cover. Total cover can't apply since that's like being around the corner or behind a wall and not looking out, etc - something you simply can't shoot through, and that just isn't the case with smoke.

Personally, I think this needs to be in a FAQ.

I don't understand the reason why people say smoke negates lasers?


On page 184 in the Core Rule Book under Laser Weapons, it says that:
Fog, smoke and other Clouds provide both cover and concealment from laser attacks.

Smoke Grenades:
A smoke grenade deals no damage; instead, it releases a cloud of dense smoke. Each character who inhales smoke must succeed at a Fortitude saving throw each round (DC = 15 + 1 per previous check) or spend that round choking and coughing; he can do nothing else. A character who chokes for 2 consecutive rounds takes 1d6 nonlethal damage. (Active environmental protection from a suit of armor prevents this effect altogether.) Regardless of the armor a character wears, smoke obscures vision, granting concealment to anyone within it.

Concealment Miss Chance

Concealment gives the target of a successful attack a chance that the attacker actually missed. This is called a miss chance. Normally, the miss chance for concealment is 20%. Make the attack normally; if the attacking creature would hit, the target must roll a 20 or lower on a d% roll (see page 513) to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.

Partial Cover
If more than half of you is visible, your bonuses from cover are reduced to +2 to AC and +1 to Reflex saving throws.

Improved Cover
In some cases, such as when a target is hiding behind a gun port in a defensive wall, cover provides greater bonuses to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal bonuses to AC and Reflex saves are doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively).


Smoke doesn't indicate TOTAL cover, just cover, so at best, a GM could rule smoke provides total concealment (but I would disagree with that), which makes it a 50% miss chance, plus the cover for lasers is a -2 (or -4 if you rule improved cover, which I wouldn't) to hit.

Nowhere in the RAW do I see anything about lasers being negated.

Also, on the range increment - don't forget about the NIL Grenade launchers.... Basic level 1 item, 280 creds, 60 ft range increment.

Necroing this since it came up at my table just this weekend.

My take is that, since the weapon part of a weapon mount mod, and therefore using the weapon via the mod is a drone ability, and you can't use the weapon because you can't use drone abilities aside from the one specified by chassis.

I think the best way to look at this is: the control system of the weapon is integrated into the weapon mount, can you can't use the weapon mount, and therefore can't actually control the weapon. You might say the weapon is on your arm, but you have no actual way to fire the that weapon because the control system is controlled by your drone an is therefore inactive.

Yes, that makes perfect sense actually. Same logic applies to why Explode weapons can crit in Starfinder. I guess that's how I'll rule it until/unless there's some official source specifying otherwise.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
So the grid intersection is now taking double weapon damage and has 1d4 burn. Since that is what you rolled the natural 20 against.

Yes, technically, you'd be right if you want to spend the time calculating damage to objects (like the floor, or wall), but likewise all creatures (and things, if you want to bother with all that) in the blast radious would also take double damage.

I'm willing to concede this isn't the case if someone can provide a citation from an official source (ie Paizo books, FAQ, staff response, etc) that actually indicates AoE attacks can't crit. Again, how it's handed in other game systems, or even other Paizo games, is entirely irrelevant and ruling otherwise is mearly houserule, which you're welcome to do, but the issue is whether it's allowed under RAW and the answer to that is YES by way of the fact that it's not specifically disallowed so therefore the Critical Strike rule stands.

Basic question here: Do passengers (or pilots I guess) need to have weapon proficiency in the weapons mounted on a vehicle? Or, do gunners using vehicle mounted weapons take the normal -4 penalty if they're not proficient?

Thinking, for example, of say a typical Operator acting as a gunner on the back of some sort of car that has a light machine gun (heavy weapon) mounted on it. Does the fact that it's mounted allow the gunner to avoid the typical penalty?

I was unable to find any definitive rules, if I just missed them I'd appreciate a citation. Thanks!

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As I said in this post:

There is nothing in the CRB that specifically disallows weapons with the explode type from critting. I really don't care how such things were handled in other games, Starfinder isn't those games.

CRB p245 (slightly paraphrased):

Critical Hits
When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20, you hit regardless of your target's AC. If the total result of your attack roll meets or exceeds the targets EAC or KAC, you've also scored a critical hit. You roll your damage twice, each time with all your usual bonuses including any additional damage from special abilities and add the rolls together. Some weapons inflict a special effect on a target of a critical hit, in additional to dealing double damage (see page 182).

Grenades and Plasma Cannons require an attack roll, thus RAW they can crit. Unless someone can point out a specific rule (or FAQ post) that says otherwise, this rule on critical hits stands. Victims can save for 1/2 damage (or no damage, depending on skills) as usual, but there is nothing RAW that indicates AoE weapons cannot crit.

CRB p245:

Critical Hits
When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20, you hit regardless of your target's AC. If the total result of your attack roll meets or exceeds the targets EAC or KAC, you've also scored a critical hit. You roll your damage twice, each time with all your usual bonuses including any additional damage from special abilites and add the rolls together. Some weapons inflict a special effect on a target of a critical hit, in additional to dealing double damage (see page 182).

CRB p180

... (the one where you make attack rolls on every target in the AoE cone ...
If you score one or more critical hits, roll the extra critical damage only onces and apply it to each creature against which you scored a critical hit.

SO... Blast AoEs allow for crits, and nothing in the Critical Hits rule disallows AoE Explode crits. Targets hit by an explosion can roll a reflex save for half damage. I see nothing in the Starfinder RAW that indicates weapons with the Explode special cannot crit. You can talk about other games and whether they allow it or not, but unless there's something specific in Starfinder that disallows it, the RAW clearly indicate that, if you make an attack roll you can crit.

The fact that Burn is listed as a Critical effect for plasma weapons, rather than a special (similar to how they list Boost damage) or as part of the actual Damage entry is also quite telling as far as the RAI. There's no reason at all for Piazo to have listed Crit effects for plasma cannons if they didn't intend for said cannons to be able to crit.

In my group, we used a homebrew feat to allow for a medic with a needler to shoot heal potions from range. Basically, you have to make two rolls.

1) you have to target their flat-footed KAC. This is because, while they aren't dodging, they still have armor on and are in combat, so it's not like they're standing still. They simply stand still for a second, just long enough to expose themselves for the needle, but not long enough to make them vulnerable to their enemy. Also, the target has to know the medic is shooting at them in order for the flat-footed penalty to apply, otherwise it's treated like a normal attack roll.

2) you have to make a Medicine roll. This is because you need to know where to hit - a glancing blow off the thumb won't necessarily cut it. This is a medical injection, so hitting them wrong will cause damage even if the healing potion heals them.

If you succeed at both roles, the needle hits, and it hits appropriately and causes no damage while also injecting the cure potion.

However, to answer the initial question - we ruled that you can't intentionally negate the effects of your physical armor without taking it off. Whether you dodge or not, a needle is probably not going to pierce and inch of space steel, so you still have to hit the right place for it to go though, thus necessitating a combat roll even on a willing ally. No attack roll is needed, by the way, to hit someone that isn't in combat and isn't actually at range (obviously).

What class? Operatives (with the right exploits while using trick attack) can ultimately ignore AoO from movement (that is, they don't provoke them at all).

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat or putting it away so that you have a free hand requires a move action. This action includes activating or deactivating the weapon. ...snip...

Exception: If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can combine drawing or sheathing a weapon or weapon-like object with moving up to your speed as a single move action.

Quickdraw feat makes drawing a weapon a swift action instead, but really this only matters if you plan to make a full attack on the first round of combat rather than first moving into position. Since you can get a quick release sheath as an armor upgrade that basically lets you do the same thing, I'd go for kip-up of the two.

Personally, my early feats are always Weapon Focus:(anything) then Versatile Focus since +1 to hit with all weapons is actually pretty good in a game based on bounded accuracy principles.

JetSetRadio wrote:

How is the operative better when the insight bonuses don't stack? I think the only way this is getting tested is if you post the skills of the operative. I think someone is crossing and adding bonuses where they shouldn't. Max skill bonus is equal to class level. Insight bonuses do not stack. You mind posting your buddies skills or even make an operative in a comment and post the skills. Go with the level 10 again.

Just a minor point here: It's max skill rank (not max skill bonus) is equal to your total character level (not class level) (CRB p.26)

So you can fake your scores and get 15+ in every score except Dex and whatever your key ability is, which are both 18s to start with? At my table, we use the point-buy system exclusively.

My current character is an Operative Outlaw (Ghost). He was originally a police detective on Absolam Station (so forensics/investigation is his profession skill) and he later was recruited and trained by the Stewards to be a deep-cover agent (so the Outlaw theme). After years undercover posing as an criminal he has all sorts of underworld contacts, but has been drawn out of cover to go do "other things" (like fight monsters and space pirates and steal all their stuff and pilot a starship for a group of assorted adventurer types...). His teammates have no idea he works for the Stewards, all they know is the first time they met him was on a prison transport ship (he was in one of the cells as part of his cover).

Basically, his persona is a lot like Decker from Blade Runner. A film noir style detective rather than your typical local uniformed deputy.

I share that as an example: you don't need to use a cop-like theme or archetype to make a space cop character. Honestly, any class could do it, though Operative, Envoy, Soldier and Technomancer are more likely to lend themselves to it.

Be really careful of archetypes - make sure you understand the tradeoffs. I would map out what the character will look like without one all the way to whatever level you expect to make it to, then overlay what changes the archetype will make. Then, see which one you like better. It seems to me most of the archetypes are aimed less at battlefield utility and more at roleplaying/out of combat play. Which means unless you're very careful, you'll feel very underwhelmed with any given archetype until you hit higher levels (13 or so) unless your group happens to spend more type on the story/rp rather than doing combats.

My take on it is this:

Telepathy is the same as talking, but with your mind. Unlike vocal speech, telepathy allows you to "speak" at a single or multiple individuals. This power, however, does not confer mind-reading abilities, merely the ability to speak using your mind rather than voice. Therefore, only creatures with telepathic abilities can actually respond using their mind, as they lack the ability to "speak" that way.

As far as objects go - there's nothing in the limited telepathy ability description, or the Telepathy spell description that indicates it's blocked by normal walls. I'm sure there are all sorts of ways a GM could cook up to to limit that if need be though... maybe a faraday cage for telepaths or something, but that's a side point.

So, under this ruling:

1. Shirren #1 wants to talk to Shirren #2: No one else can hear, they can talk to each other mentally as they both possess limited telepathy.

2. Shirren #1 wants to talk to Human #1. The human can hear, but no one else can. The human can only talk back using it's normal voice as it does not possess telepathic powers (under normal circumstances).

3. Shirren #1 wants to talk to Lashuntas #1 and Human #1. The Shirren can speak to both at once mentally, and both can hear. The Lashunta can respond mentally such that both can hear the response. The human must speak out loud.

4. Shirren #1 wants to talk to the whole group. Yes, the Shirren can mentally address anyone within his limited telepathy range, but only those with telepathy can respond in kind.

Faragdar the Free Captain wrote:
Kvetchus, while you're technically correct, the geosynchronous distance for Verces would be over 4 million kilometers away from the planet, assuming no other gravitational influence (which would be a bad assumption), and that's clearly an absurd distance for a space elevator, not to mention farther than a couple of the Lagrange points. There's a massive difference between the thrusters required for station keeping in a stable geosynchronous orbit and the thrusters required to keep a space station hovering over a planet and not in an actual orbit.

Well...... ok, yes, there's the mass equation. But maybe the core of that station is made of some sort of ultra-dense unobtainium which allow the station to remain in a closer orbit, and the station-keeping thrusters are all actually massive, but only give it a little nudge :)

I mean, at the end of that day, none of this is realistic anyway, so I guess... who cares? To heck with physics - it's all space magic :)

Isaac Zephyr wrote:
Yes, but there are 5 of the 7 classes also limited to those weapons without feats, and Operatives can take those too. You're also ignoring their other option of Quad Attack. So either you trick attack, the equivalent of a charge for your trick attack bonus, or you shoot four times at normal penalty. Soldier and Solarian both cap at 3, however they can have better weapons, at the cost of higher penalties. Narrowing out trick attack isn't looking at the complete picture, it's looking at one of the Operative's lucrative options. Including debilitating sniper, weapons which have very nice damage.

Operative Triple and Quad attacks are full attacks and therefore take the normal multiple attack penalty (-4 after the first one). Also, you can only use small arms or operator melee weapons. So... yes, you can attack more, but your actual DPR isn't going to match (or at least, isn't going to top), say, a Soldier or Solarian of the same level wielding Advanced weapons, especially heavy ranged, or adv 2H melee weapons. Frankly, with the debuffs, Trick attack is much more useful than triple or quad attack anyway, especially at level 13 when "Quad attack, trick attack +7d8" lands. The only reason NOT to use trick attack on every attack (rather than the ammo-wasting quad attack) will be small and situational. 95% of the time, trick attack is the way to go. But regardless -- and despite the trick attack damage, an operator will be out DPR'd by a halfway decent Solarian or Soldier every time.

Operative vs. Mechanic? Ok... so an Operative's skill checks are a bit higher? Big deal. An Operator can't remote hack, she can't overload, she doesn't have all the tricks mechanics have (yes, Operative have their own exploits, but they're entirely different). Not everything with regards to skills boils down to the overall skill check. Mechanics get insight bonuses to computers and engineering that is *roughly* equivalent to the Operator's Edge bonus, but they have a lot of class skills that make them more suited to doing the engineering stuff than an Operator is. Plus, unlike Operative, Mechanics start off with Grenade proficiency. Sniper rifle is Operative... but you can't trick OR quad attack with that, so it's probably not used all that often except in special cases.

Isaac Zephyr wrote:

The focus of my complaint is not who has more, it's the sheer quantity of people who are leaving the game upset because they can put everything into something and be told "yeah that one class does it better". If the same problem comes up enough eventually you can't just blame the players for "doing it wrong", it's a problem with the game.

But, that's the thing - Operative does what it's supposed to do better than other classes, and that's skills. It doesn't do combat better than a combat class (though it does do combat better than non-combat classes, which is normal and expected for a "rogue" class), it doesn't do magic (at all), it can't provide lots of party buffs or talk enemies down and debuff without fighting, it can't heal Stamina (the only class in the WHOLE GAME than can do that is Envoy), it can't remote hack computers or have one (or more at higher levels) AI pets, or it can't miracle +2 enhancement (aka, stacking!) bonuses on armor or ship equipment. The list of very useful and powerful things an Operative can't do is quite long.

Goth Guru wrote:


The construct appears to rage and gets the strength and hit point benefits.

You'll need to define this more, since of course "Rage" isn't a Starfinder thing. If you do, make sure you balance it for Starfinder and not just port it right over from Pathfinder...

Be very careful about taking anything from pathfinder - it can unbalance your game very quickly. PF didn't make use of the bounded accuracy method of balance and Starfinder did - it means you need to take great care if you bring anything over. It would probably be fun until all the other players stop playing because you can wipe any enemy out in a round due to radically different scaling. I suspect the same will be true in PF 2e as well.

I agree - Mindbreaker or Overlord mystic is the way to go here. Starfinder makes little distinction between Psionics and Magic. You can pretty much decide for yourself if your "magic" is psychic or arcane. So, anything in the book that seems like it's really a psy power, just call it magic. It's more about the story you want to tell, not the details in the rules.

They need more starship-sized creatures. There's only a small handful to work from, I'd love have more ship-sized creatures.

If it helps, think of shields more like the Star Trek: Enterprise variety "Polarize Hull Plating" rather than the more common idea of a bubble if energy. Think of it however you want - it's more like a damage resistance or temporary hit points than armor.

AC doesn't have anything to do with tracking weapons, instead you have your ship's maneuverability (the ability for the pilot to dodge the incoming missile) which is directly affected by the mass of the ship (so bigger ship, or more armor = less able to juke and dodge), and you have EMC systems to jam the incoming missiles targeting systems = IL. Think of that like AC against tracking weapons.

Really, that's all there is to it. This is more like star wars than star trek anyway - it's a space fantasy system, not really sci-fi.

If it helps - think of shields as magic that keeps your armor from cracking. *shrug*

As far as armor as damage reduction- I've always like that. The old Palladium system (Rifts, Hero's Unlimited, etc) worked like that. Armor didn't affect your to-be-hit chances, it soaked damage (and had hit points). Everything was opposed rolls - but you had to spend an action to dodge an attack - no actions, no dodge, you're hit. You might have 8 actions a round, but you had to mind the action economy. Yes, you could unload 8 attacks on some enemy, but you better dang well kill it, or it was going to get free hits on you... Always loved that system. The fluff from Rifts was great too, just wish making a character wasn't like writing a PhD thesis in mathematics. It made it really hard to teach anyone how to play...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Having darkened lenses in front of your eyes is different than having eyes that are actually tolerant to ambient light levels (high or low). I would suggest that while a pair of generic sunglasses should be able to prevent the detrimental effects of light-blindness, they should also reduce the max level of darkvision.

Both light blindness and darkvision are "free" items as far as game balance is concerned, but simply allowing a mitigation of a racial drawback without penalty still seems inappropriate. It's like saying.. you know.. my android decided not to pass his soul on for 100 years and all that experience has let him understand people better so that -2 sense motives check doesn't apply.....

So, I think if this ever comes up in my game, I'll rule that, A) yes, you can get sunglasses to mitigate the effects of light blindness, but B) because you are artificially reducing light that reaches your eyes by blocking it, rather than the ambient light actually being reduced to a comfortable level, then B) your Darkvision is reduced to 30' instead.

Clearly, character can remove the glasses when it's less bright to get full darkvision (if they remember to do so), but then someone turning on bright lights will nail them. Seems like an entirely fair tradeoff to me.

Iseph, Android Operative: Jason Statham
Quig, Ysoki Mechanic: Alan Tudyk (voice)

The rest I'll need to think about

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A couple points:

1. The Skill Focus feats are insight bonues and they do not stack with the operatives edge bonus because that, too, is an insight bonus. When the operative his level 6 (er..7?) and it's edge is now +3, those feat skill bonuses become obsolete. That's mitigated by the operator class skill that lets them take 10 at any time on skill focus skills however.

2. Operator is the skill monkey of the game it's SUPPOSED to be better at skill checks almost across the board, and in it's focused skills, probably the best. This is mitigated by lower HP/SP and (probably) weaker damage. Which brings me to....

3. Trick Attack.. yes, early on it's very powerful because all weapons are low powered in general, so added the extra damage and debuff is big. Later on though, the fact that trick attack only works on small arms or basic operative melee weapons keeps that damage from being over the top as other characters move into advanced weaponry.

On Mechanics - Exocortex actually seems a little better than drones in my experience, but it depends on how you build it. Envoy isn't the skill monkey, it's the bard. Yes, they are very skillful, but that's not the focus - their abilities are where they shine. They're the ones keeping the guards looking the other way while the operative hacks the computer...

I get a little sad when the only thing people focus on is who does more damage and has more skills. It means the GM isn't very inventive which clearly turns off players. GMs need to ensure their stories provide ample opportunities for every character at the table to contribute. If it's just.. walk into bar, kill bad guys, steal their stuff, walk into cave, kill monsters, take loot...... BORING. Operators and Soldiers (maybe solarians, and maybe spellcasters... maybe) will have a great time playing hacknslash, everyone else? not so much.

Please don't blame the game for the failure of a GM's or Player's imagination.

From a physics perspective, unless Verces has other moons that would pull Skydock out of orbit (as it the case with the Earth's moon pulling geosynchronous objects out of sync), there there's not reason Skydock couldn't be in a stable, synchronous orbit. Verces is tidally lock, but that doesn't mean it doesn't rotate. It just means it rotates (around it's axis) at the same rate as it revolves (around the sun). Because of the atmosphere and gravitational effects of the planet (and the drag from the elevator) it already MUST be equipped with navigational and stabilizer thrusters or it would fall out of orbit anyway. However, as long as it doesn't pull any delta-Vs (one way or the other), and it can counter the frictional drag, all it needs to do it ensure it's orbital velocity and vector matches the rotational velocity of the planet and you'll have a stable, synchronous orbit.

Consider Pluto and it's moon Charon for example. They are mutually tidally locked. It's not a perfect example since Charon is really large for a moon, so they sort of orbit each other... but it's still a good case in point.

S. J. Digriz wrote:

Another thing to do is to make the terrain into a monster. Traps, quick sand, exploding fungi, etc. all give those extra party members something to do, if they can help disarm or otherwise circumvent that hazard.

Yes, this is a good idea too... traps have a CR and grant XP just like monsters do as well, so it's a nice way to add challenges that isn't just a swarm of adds.

Ravingdork wrote:

I'v e always been fond of d20 Modern's method of handling it. If using the same type of explosives, I'd allow it to add two extra dice of damage for each doubling of the payload.

Using 10d6 grenades? One does 10d6, two does 12d6, four does 14d6, eight does 16d6, sixteen does 18d6, etc.

With grenade prices being what they are, this keeps it from getting totally out of hand.

So that progression (2 extra dice per doubling of payload) would be something like (for basic lvl 1 frag grenades, which is more likely what people will use at lower levels due to cost)?

1: 1D6
2: 3D6 -- a small damage boost
4: 5D6 -- also a small damage boost
8: 7D8 -- here is where diminishing returns set in.
16: 9D6
32: 11D6
64: 13D6

I like that idea give than it makes sense some of the explosive power would actually be opposed by the individual explosives and therefore dissipated. As smaller quantities, it gives you a slight boost but as you pack more together, the diminishing returns would grow larger and larger. If all the actual material were combined, or if shaped charges were used (something not currently listed in-game), this would be different, but with a grenade, the force expands is a sphere. Any of that force that encounters the force of a neighboring grenade would end up being dissipated or at least reduced significantly, which means only the explosive power actually directed outwards would cause damage. The more grenades, the more damage, but definitely not 1:1. Yes. I like this idea a lot.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Snatch Arrows

That's not Starfinder - so obviously the GM would need to allow that feat into the game... I'm pretty wary of allowing Pathfinder stuff in because what balance actually existed in Pathfinder just isn't the same at all with how it's done in Starfinder. Bounded Accuracy... love it or hate it, PF didn't have it and Starfinder does so you have to be really careful what you just bring over.

Unless it's been published in some 3rd party book, Shadowcasting isn't a feature of Starfinder at all. You'd have to homebrew that. The only PF > SF conversion right now is for races and a sort of basic framework explaining how skills work differently...

Well, maybe - what kind of homebrew solution might work is really a question for another forum. I guess the answer is there's not really any official rule, one way or the other, that covers the modification of an existing item outside of weapon fusions and armor upgrades (which isn't really modifying the actual item).

SkitterShot wrote:

So - this particular item is informative for this question. Again, though, I maintain that Skittermanders really don't have a straightforward alignment. They adapt to the situation and whoever their current "boss" is. If he needs help destroying the universe, and that includes slaughter in village full of helpless nuns by dropping nukes on them... well, that's just what they need to do!

They don't seem to have a tendancy to leave one task undone in favor of another task, in fact quite the opposite:

SkitterShot wrote:

This tells me they will take on a task and fraking see it through to the end. So, if evil bob needs them to torture someone's family until they tell them where the secret orb of power is, they'll do that. They won't necessarily enjoy it, and they will certainly stop (and perhaps even help the prisoners escape if they ask) once they get the information - but I see nothing that would preclude them from actually committing the torture.

Not because they're evil, necessarily - but because they really don't have a firm alignment at all, it shifts around constantly as they adapt to the current situation.

The Azlanti armors comes with a special aeon stone mount that allows the stones to be mounted in the armor rather than floating around. Is there any rule that would prevent a character from use his/her Engineering skills to create such a mount on another suit of armor? This would assume they already have a suit of Aeon Battle Dress or SpecOps armor that they can disassemble to create a schematic from. Not transplanting the mount, but rather reverse engineering it and replicating the same sort of thing on another suit of armor (one that, for example, doesn't have an ACP in the case of SpecOps).

Cost and time are a consideration of course, but those are just logistics. I'm talking about feasibility and "legality" here based on RAW.

Are there rules in the CRB around maximum throwing capacity for improvised weapons? As in, if I have a Strength of X, I can throw Y bulk a max of Z feet. I haven't found any rules that addresses that sort of thing.

As an example, if a PC with a STR of 18 (or more) wants to pick up the corpse of a dead goblin and throw it at an enemy - assume a bulk of 8 and assume that's within it's max limit (encumbrance is irrelevant since he's not "carrying" the load, mearly picking it up).

I'm not worried about the damage for this question, just whether the PC could throw the dead goblin, and if so, how far can it be thrown. I'm sure I can homebrew a rule, but I'm trying to determine if there's already a rule somewhere that I've overlooked...

(to add some credibility to this scenario, let's also say the goblin is packed with explosives with someone readying their action to detonate the explosive as soon as the goblin lands... or something)

Just target the ground next to you as with a thrown weapon. IIRC that's an AC 5 attack roll. If you miss for some reason, you'd use the same rules as missed thrown weapon attack. The "thrower" would be origin point of telekinetic projectile, of course, as opposed to you. Need to keep in mind the hardness of course or the object might break. Also, if your GM rules it's possible, a "miss" might mean you end up hitting yourself, which would be funny, but unless you're very low level, ultimately harmless.

Missing with a Thrown Weapon

If you miss on a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, the weapon lands in a random square or grid intersection as appropriate near your target. To determine where it lands, roll 1d8. This determines the initial misdirection of the throw, with 1 falling short (off-target in a straight line toward the thrower), and 2 through 8 rotating around the target creature or grid intersection in a clockwise direction, as illustrated in the diagram above. After you've determined the misdirection of the throw, roll 1d4. The result is how many squares away in that direction the weapon lands.

pithica42 wrote:

...and some UPB's (which can only be bought in lots of 1000 for some reason).

Just to note, this is just for Society play.

It's not in the CRB. All the CRB says about UPB value is: "The value of the credit is based on the economic utility of a single UPB." So in other words, you can buy UPBs at a 1:1 ratio with credits, depending on the economic situation of where you are. Your GM may rule that credits are less valuable in a less populous area. But at a place like Absalom Station, you shouldn't have much problem converting credits to UPBs directly.

The only question you should be asking is to yourself: Did you have fun?

If the answer is yes - who cares whether the GM is following the adventure as written? If the answer is no, it's not because he's going off the reservation, it's because he needs a little more work in being a GM.

Ravingdork wrote:
I hate it when GMs change things up too much. It's like, why did we even bother buying a module?
Ravingdork wrote:


Any GM who goes way off the rails without informing his play group in advance (thereby modifying the social contract as it were) is cheating and is not likely to last long.

There's one important point to RPGs in general that you are missing: The GM cannot cheat. All rules, every single line, in every single book and module is merely a guideline. A GM can, and should, change anything or everything if he or she feels like it would make the group's experience more fun. The only rule a GM needs to follow is: Make it fun. A GM shouldn't act as if they're in competition with the players not because that's cheating but because it's generally not fun. But if they want to change up the modules, and the result is a fun gaming experience for everyone... then they absolutely can and should do that.

Dracomicron wrote:

1. disregard the needs of people who they are not currently helping.
2. help people who are also evil
3. don't really care about the actual needs of the people they're "helping," just about what they think they need.

I would suggest this is actually normal Skittermander behavior and that the reality is they don't really have an alignment per se, or perhaps more accurately they are alignmorphic (so to speak). That is, their alignment will shift seamlessly based on the needs or whoever they're currently helping meaning they could be evil today, good tomorrow, then evil again by dinner and generally neutral the next day.

This is a great idea, I really like it and I'll ask my group whether they'd like to implement it in our games. I would suggest, though, that the damage scale. 1 point of damage is basically nothing even for level 1 characters, and once you get beyond level 5 or so, 1d4 is nothing and 2D6 is basically irrelevant as well as long as it only happens a couple times.

I suggest the damage scale based on the ship's tier - that would reflect the increased mass tossing the players around more when it shifts, or more sophisticated systems that blow up in more spectacular ways when they pop. Plus it makes it all the more important to have a medical officer designated (even if it's an NPC for smaller groups).

Also, based on the new DC scales in the Starfinder FAQ, probably you should adjust the action DCs to be X + 1.5 x tier instead.

Just thought I'd point out: there are no critical failures or critical fumbles in Starfinder. RAW, rolling 1 a just a 1. Natural 20 is only a critical hit, not an automatic it. The attack STILL has to beat their AC for you to do double damage. There are no automatic success or failures, and except in the case of a natural 20 that actually hits doing double damage, there is nothing special about natural 20s or natural 1s, RAW.

The original post is a bit old of course - it should also be noted that some of these items (magboots for example) have been added in the official rules at this point.

Claxon wrote:
Kvetchus wrote:
If they do alter that feat, I'd guess they'll simply remove the DR 5/- (kinetic) and keep it otherwise as is. I hope they don't touch it, I think it's just fine as is to be honest... but a Ryphorian summerborn mystic with kinetic resistance (DR 5/- + 5 fire resistance at first level, and longarms feat as well) on top of any other resistance items it might stack later on is a surprisingly tanky character. (yes, I know this is a solarian thread, but had to go off on a little tangent... the keyboard made me, it's no my fault!)

Am I missing something...that's not what the feat does.

It gives you an option to have DR kinetic or Energy Resistance to one of 5 energy types, equal to your BAB.

It doesn't give you 5 DR at level 1. In fact you have to have a BAB of 4 before you can take it.

Enhanced Resistance

You have trained your body to resist a particular type of damage.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: Choose either kinetic damage or one of acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. If you choose kinetic damage, you gain damage reduction equal to your base attack bonus. If you choose acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic, you gain energy resistance against that type of energy equal to your base attack bonus.


So, yes, you're right of course that you have to have a BAB of 4 to take it - but the OP has a level 6 Solarian which means this could be his lvl 5 feat selection or his next one at 7 (etc). You're right about my comment about first level though, that isn't correct, I had just pregen'd a lvl 7 ryphorian for a new player coming to my group with that exact combo... shouldn't have said "at first level") -- still, early levels with pretty good Fire resistance for a low level character, then later scaling physical resistance is pretty solid, especially for a full BAB character (Solarians and Soldiers). To bad Ryphorians aren't really the best race for Solarians if you're really trying to optimize your stats. They make excellent mystics though!

Claxon wrote:

Of course, operatives also get an ability to shoot small arms 3 times so it mitigates the benefits there with longarms.

4 actually, at 13th level (Quad Attack), but your point holds.

Claxon wrote:

However, ultimately we're not talking about Operatives and a case of whether long arms ever become optimal over small arms for them. We should be talking about "Should a Solarion that is going to focus on ranged combat use small arms instead of long arms?" And the answer is no.

No doubt about it - for any character other than Operatives, longarms will be superior to small arms except maybe in some very narrow edge cases (dual weilding - but not attacking as a full action) with a Solarian sword where you need melee/range flexibility, or perhaps a Opening Volley attack with Blitz Soldier who shoots, uses his swift action to holster and moves in for a melee attack next round with the Doshko he had in his other hand.... but yes, as I said, narrow edge cases. On the whole, and for the case of this post: longarms FTW.

If they do alter that feat, I'd guess they'll simply remove the DR 5/- (kinetic) and keep it otherwise as is. I hope they don't touch it, I think it's just fine as is to be honest... but a Ryphorian summerborn mystic with kinetic resistance (DR 5/- + 5 fire resistance at first level, and longarms feat as well) on top of any other resistance items it might stack later on is a surprisingly tanky character. (yes, I know this is a solarian thread, but had to go off on a little tangent... the keyboard made me, it's no my fault!)

With lots of players it can get really hard to balance for sure. They have more chances to hit and therefore more likely will smash your monsters faster than they should - more importantly, with higher APL it means the CR overall is lower, and therefore you need to scale the XP down.... the players won't like that since they're already dividing it 6 ways.

I understand many fights in DS aren't easy to add extra monsters too... but I'd go that way anyway. Just tweak the story as needed. Remember, it's aimed (and balanced) for four players... you can't just make the monsters tougher the scaling doesn't work like that unfortunately. Not when you need to increase challenge by 50% or more.

I would try and figure out a way to add several less powerful creatures as enemies. The anklebiters may go down easy, but they still have to go down - causing your players to expend resource and time. At the same time the real enemies in the encounter are still fighting. If you add too many, just handwave it and have them run away - if you add too few and the fight seems to be going way to easy, have a few more show up until the challenge feels about right. Maybe increase their AC by 1 and give them a +1 to hit and a plus CR to damage as well but I'd be very careful going beyond that, especially if the party is still low level (< 6).

You need to be careful not to overwhelm the party, getting wiped is no fun, and at the end of the day, keeping things fun is the GM's one and only responsibility. That said, a challenging fight that was actually a little chancy there at the end when those random cyborg space goblins showed up and started attacking everyone? That's a lot of fun. :)

huh - you're right, it does list damage. When the player mentioned that, I looked it up on an online source since I didn't have the PW book in front of me. Clearly that source was in error. Hm, too bad. We'd talked about homebrewing a feat that requires a Medicine check as well as an attack roll and the target to have a reaction available to make themselves temporarily flatfooted for the purposes of this attack, that would allow a needler to do no damage. I guess we'll have to fall back on that.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>