Jarl Ceszac

Link2000's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma 457 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 29 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I've had great fun with my Melee Mystic (Mind Breaker). Pumped up STR and WIS, will be upping those two as well as CON every Ability Boost interval. Got my first enhancer towards CON to thicken my skin and my feats at 5th level are:
Advanced Melee Proficiency
Versatile Weapon Spec
Extra Resolve

So far, I haven't made a character in Starfinder that I didn't enjoy! If you have a nifty idea, I'd say go for it!

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Thanks for the official clarification! Much appreciated!

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Thanks for the insight everyone! Until we get some more "official" word, the GM is just going to mark on our Chronicles that we have a missing eye, with the intent on hopefully everything being a little more clear in a week or two.

We will check up on this thread in case any updates occur.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

You sure?

If the wound effect gave "severed limb", would that also not be a condition?

I just want to be clear, because that's what brought all this on anyways when we searched through rules on how to get back an eye. People were saying that a lost limb would need a prosthetic, and a lost eye would just suck until you can buy "eyes". That was for non SFS play though.

I would greatly appreciate your version, I also just don't want to run into this in the future and have lots of variance.

Do you by chance have a section in the rulebook that I may reference?

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

So in yesterday's session two of us received a critical hit from a weapon with the wound critical effect. We coincidentally both lost an eye. My character just hit level 2 and has effectively burned all credits on improving gear. The cheapest replacement "eyes" (dark vision capacitors) will take my weapon, armor, and the scenario reward. And the other player doesn't even have the option as he just doesn't have enough credits even after selling gear.

According to the Guide, all conditions with a mechanical effect have to be cleared by the end of the scenario or the character is effectively "dead". Since a lost eye imparts a -2 on perception, does this mean that the other player's character is dead? Does this mean that my character (a soldier) is running into the next scenario equipped with no weapons or armor?

How does this work? The GM is holding off on any final calls until we see what the community thinks on this. Seems strange that if we had lost a limb instead, this wouldn't be much of an issue as the scenario rewards could pay the 100 credits to buy a prosthetic, yet the same critical effect hitting an eye is now drawing problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RocMeAsmodeus wrote:

Conjectures! (possible spoiler alert)

** spoiler omitted **

and

** spoiler omitted **

3/4 Correct!

By the way, the puzzles were amazing this year, and there would have been no way for me or the wife to have solved the "secret puzzled" without Jason's and Joe's help.

I'm super excited that this has been made public!


I'd assume just about any grenade would do. Data recovery is quite difficult when you are just dealing with scrap. Would that change in a sci-fi setting? Who knows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My Envoy in an AP is going for a computer to place into the Datajack he has installed in his head.

<<Steward>>
Tier 3 Computer (Total Cost = 2135 credits)
-Modules-
Complex Control (Shirren-Eye Rifle)
Average Secure Data (Stewards)
-Upgrades-
Artificial Personality
Miniaturization x4 (Negligible Bulk)
Range II (1 Mile)
Self-Charging

He was eventually going to load it all up with some Library Chips as well to sort of act like a walking infosphere. He can control a Shirren-Eye rifle from up to a mile away with it as well. I thought it was all pretty cool.


"Handsome" Twik wrote:
Robert Gooding wrote:
Pantshaandshake has it, read the bold text you add your move and swift actions to its standard to hack as a full action, still allowing you to hack from a distance and use your standard action

This may be how you would rule it. (How I would likely rule it myself.) However, as Pantshaandshake pointed out. Starfinder does not have the "combining action types together" to make a full-action stated as a general rule. Instead, it allows for that when specifically called out as part of a specific class feature.

As such, as written, the cortex can only do a standard action itself... Unless you spend full-actions yourself, you can't hack the system. It DOES, however, allow the cortex to do actions once the system is hacked into. At which point you could combine your own standard actions to do the other Computers checks faster.

But based off what it says:

Wireless Hack wrote:

Wireless Hack (Ex) 5th Level

Instead of combat tracking, your exocortex can access another computer system within 20 feet, allowing it to attempt a Computers check against that computer each round, using your skill bonus. This counts as a standard action for the purpose of the Computers skill. You must remain within 20 feet of the computer system for the entire time your exocortex is interacting with the computer. If the task requires multiple actions (or even rounds) to accomplish, you can spend your actions to work in concert with your exocortex, counting both your action and the exocortex’s effective standard action toward the total time required. If you don’t have the remote hack class feature, you must be adjacent to the computer to attempt your checks.

It says you can spend your actions to work in concert with your exocortex. Meaning you can spend a Move and a Swift, and use the "Exocortex's effective standard action" toward the total time required.

And since the rule on how actions can work, you can trade your standard for a move or a swift. Or you can trade your move for a swift. So in the end, you have multiple combination of actions on how you can wirelessly hack using an exocortex.

My only "question" would be can you break down the duration of the full round per tier? For example:
Tier 3 Computer requires 3 Full Round Actions. Full Round Action is defined as "Standard+Move+Swift" Actions, so 3 Full Round Actions would be equal to: "Standard+Standard+Standard+Move+Move+Move+Swift+Swift+Swift" Actions

The exocortex can have one standard per round (which can be traded as a move or a swift, per rules on actions) to attempt a hack. If we gave it nine rounds, could it attempt to hack a Tier 3 computer? I currently don't think so, but I am curious if I could be pleasantly surprised.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Darrell Impey UK wrote:

Ignoring the fact that 30 firearm bullets would sell for 15 gp, whereas creating them will cost a 15 gp wand charge plus 2 gp worth of lead...

Money making schemes are pretty much a no-go in PFS; it's a day job roll, and that's about it.

Maybe he was thinking that he could buy a wand of Fabricate Bullets with Prestige? He would still be incorrect of course as that costs 850gp and not 750gp, but I know many players who forget that the material components can and will up the cost of a wand if applicable.


I would like to thank the GMs I had this weekend. I only know one's name, as he was staff, but they all were amazing!

To the gentleman that ran Oath of the Overwatched for our group Friday morning, thank you for completely destroying us! It was frustrating at the time, but looking back, I had a great time. Thank you for your time and dedication.

To the gentleman that ran Star Sugar Heartlove!!! at an ungodly hour of the morning Sunday, thank you for providing such a fun game! I got to play my character the way I had hoped, and I appreciate that!

And to Cosmo, me and the wife loved your railroad game! She is still talking about how much fun she had, and I cannot deny that I enjoyed our tables shenanigans just as much!

Thank you everyone!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I've finally got it! Thank you Joe and Jason for all the help both at the con and away! The wife and I enjoyed the puzzles immensely! We can't wait to see what's brewed up next year!

Spoiler:
Down with Thrune!


Joe Pasini wrote:
Link2000 wrote:

I'm still scratching my head at this, I got an extra hint before I left, but I'm still not understanding

** spoiler omitted **

First off, congrats on making it this far! We made this super hidden and obscure; it's a wonder anyone found it (and attempted it once they did). In the spirit of keeping the thing more fun than frustrating, here are some guideposts based on the contents of your spoiler.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Thank you so much! I will hopefully be able to finish it using the first two of the three hints you gave me! I'll look at the third if I still feel stuck.

Thank you again! I'll definitely post back later!


Jason Keeley wrote:
Grim Ranger wrote:
Haladir wrote:

I am usually pretty good at puzzle-hunts. Heck, I have a Games magazine t-shirt from playing one back in the early aughts.

But I am really getting stumped by this one!

It's pretty difficult; I had to enlist help from my wife (who loves word games). And I had forgotten that there were more instructions and a final puzzle in the program book (just remembered that last night, and was able to finish it).

** spoiler omitted **

Well...

** spoiler omitted **

I'm still scratching my head at this, I got an extra hint before I left, but I'm still not understanding

Secret Puzzle Spoiler:
THE DIAMONDS! I was told that the poems reference paizo products (big hint, so I'm thankful as I would have never thought of it). Which I want to say references the adventure paths (pretty sure I got them all). I've then tried using the diamonds as hints. Like, each page has between 2-6 diamonds. The diamonds never land on the same "space" twice on the entire twenty one line.
I've tried seeing if maybe the number references a specific book of an AP (as 6 is the highest).
I've tried using it to count words, letters, and even noticed that the diamonds were the same shape as some of the cities in the booklet, and tried cross referencing that (might have been reading too much into it for that last one).
I feel like I'm missing something important.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

I've found the Alchemist to be a pretty flexible class overall. So a level dip (or a few levels) in another class shouldn't be too much of a problem. The only big downside is the loss of time on the mutagen. I've seen STR get pretty crazy with a barbarian (maybe bloodrager), alchemist, dragon disciple build once.

Although natural attacks are good, they are not necessary. If you'd prefer to swing a blade or a spear around, I'd say go for it. I was just mentioning that the Feral Mutagen is pretty common for mutagen based alchemists.

And those discoveries with Alchemical Allocation are great, especially if given time to pre-buff (potion of heroism anyone?). The biggest problem I had building alchemists is that they have so many good discoveries. There really is no "bad" way to build an alchemist, in my opinion, unless you intentionally do so.

I think that as long as you have a concept in mind, you're going to have a great time playing the alchemist regardless of the choices you end up making. My alchemists typically evolve around what I feel has been needed between level.

My first alchemist started as a punch-you-in-face ragechemist, but ended up taking a bunch of discoveries and feats that allow her to close into melee quickly and be able to stay there for the majority of the fight. (Dragon Style and Iron Will were definitely on her list of feats, and Spontaneous healing, Preserve Organs, Mummification, and Elemental Mutagen were a few of her discoveries) If you feel that your character is missing something at given levels, I can safely say that there's a discovery/extract for that.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Going for the Master Chymist prestige class will net you a few extra transformations a day. But then you would have 2 personalities, and I'm not sure if that's something you'd like.

I would also like to mention that although occasionally the timing of the mutagen is limiting, I mostly only experienced it at low levels. Any scenario I played often either had the encounters throughout numerous days or within a relatively short span. And on the rare occasion it wasn't, I usually had an hour to prep another one. If it's really concerning though, you could pick up the Infuse Mutagen Discovery and drop 1000gp to have a backup mutagen.

It's pretty common to go for the Feral Mutagen. My alchemist ultimately went for the Mummification discovery and didn't regret it one bit. The two preserve organ discoveries had saved my character from a possibly deadly crit more than once.

Also, I can't think of any feat being more valuable than Extra Discovery. So many of the Alchemist's discoveries are just better than feats.

My Tumor Familiar used to be a Protector, but since the reprinting, I've switched to Valet personally. I've heard good things about making it a Mauler as well.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

My first PFS character was an alchemist. I intended on her being the whole "Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde" kind of persona. In order to add some flavor to the character I wanted her to be really short roughly the height of a female dwarf. Then, after she drank her mutagen, she would grow into this monstrous physique that was roughly the height of a male half-orc. None of this provided me any mechanical benefits, so I never had any real problems.

In fact, only once did a GM question whether or not it was legal. I just told him that for all ruling purposes, my character is a medium character and if height plays a part in a ruling, I'll be more than happy to assume my character was as tall as an average human female for that purpose. We just moved on from there.

Most of her ruling problems was that she combined unarmed strikes with natural attacks and many believed I was attempting to "flurry" with unarmed strikes.


I'm not saying it's without use, I just find it disappointing for a level 3 Fusion.


That's a little disappointing for a once a day ability...


It says to declare an area of up 1000 cubic feet. I'm no expert at math, but isn't that just a "10 foot cube"?

A cubic foot is defined as "the volume of a cube with sides of one foot in length", meaning 1ft x 1ft x 1ft = 1 cu ft

10ft x 10ft x 10ft = 1000 cu ft

Am I mathing this wrong? Does the Sentinel Fusion only cover a 10 foot cube?


Thanks for all the responses! I will talk with my GM as to what he feels the limiting factors of the computer should be. I just thought about how cool it would be for my character to have a miniaturized computer in his data jack to control a bunch of functions remotely.
I then started feeling like I was in "GM territory" and made a full stop wondering if players were supposed to have access to these things.

I appreciate all the ideas as well!


First off, I understand that this seems a preposterous question, but bear with me.

So I was thinking of getting my character a Tier 3 Computer with a few upgrades and started wondering if I would just be wasting the hard earned credits we are making.

In the beginning of the section, it talks about giving tools for the GMs to use. Does this mean that the computers weren't designed to give players options so much as challenges? (Which I'm okay with, just curious)

I know that the players have access to computers in general, but could I (as a player) purchase a computer that could remotely fire a weapon or start our starship? What about store secure data to have access to when not in range of an infosphere? Or even to have an AI for those lonely nights out in the drift?

I'm just curious what other people thoughts are on this? I just want some ideas to take to my GM about it, and to have hopefully a better understanding of what I could do.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Glad to hear! Thanks you two!

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

I know that this thread is a couple of weeks old, but I have a question about the faction boons as well.

When we purchase a faction boon, is that boon permanently available to us? Example, I purchase the "Collector and Examiner" ally boon from the Exo-Guardians (meeting the Tier prerequisites of course), can I slot that boon whenever I want without paying the cost again? Or do I have to make the purchase each time?


Turmoil wrote:
Link2000 wrote:
...
I'm not talking about a single level 1 fighter.

Fine. Phil brought 6 (or even 10) of his buddies from the academy. I still think that Bob should be able to handily take them all down with a dagger.

Just my opinion though, not attempting to sway yours. We all have our rights to feel how we want to feel about such a subject.


So far, I'm all for the "level" bonus to skills. I hated being a level 16 Cleric who actually just barely knew religion. (+7 total if I recall)

My character went across seas and mountains and faced off against monster after monster, threat after threat, and still could not make swim check naturally to save her life. At least I had spells unlike my Fighter friend. Like, did my character learn nothing except to keep her eyes peeled? (I tossed the other 1 skill rank at anything to give me a bonus)

And more skill ranks doesn't feel like enough. That's still saying that even though I've experienced just about everything, I still suck at most things except for those I work really hard on (what kind of "hero" is that?)

I do think it's weird with perform/profession/craft stuff... Mayhaps you fake it better?

Just my opinion thus far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually okay with a Level 20 Wizard being able to tear apart a Level 1 Fighter with nothing but a dagger.

That level 20 Wizard (Bob from hence forward), has seen things. Experienced things. Bob has had to face down Dragons, Demons, Devils, and gods knows what other horrors.
Bob has created entire planes of existence simply because he desired it. He has terra-morphed entire landscapes because he did not feel like teleporting around a mountain this morning.

Then this Level 1 Fighter (Phil) want's to raise a blade against him? Who is this Phil anyways? A once upon a time farmer who picked up his grandfather's sword? He's been "training for months" on how to wield it. Like that's supposed to mean something to Bob.

The more you've experienced, the better you are. Bob has experienced ALOT (19 levels worth of crap), Phil may not have even seen a zombie in his life, and is supposed to be a challenge to Bob simply because Bob is only armed with a knife and decided it would be nice to leave the spell book in his tower within the demi-plane "Bobbiton"? I don't think so.

Just my feel on it. If you think a level 1 should be able to compete with a level 20 simply because circumstance is against the level 20, that's okay. I just so happen to disagree with the sentiment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:

what people seem to be missing is that in pf1 it is a *choice* to be better at climbing. You spent a *limited* resource and decide to be better at climbing but not better at swimming. And that resource, it goes up per level, I don't see anyone in this thread complaining that high level characters should improve.

Now instead we have *no choice* you *must* be better at not just climbing, but swimming, and bluffing, and perform dance, and all sorts of things that probably never even came for the character during the campaign.

And for people who propose, just ignore the rules, just house rule, just refuse to roll and say you fail, sure people can do that, but why are we even playing pf2 then? And let me ask, if you're at a pathfinder 2 society game and everyone decides they are going to sneak past the guards and one person suddenly says, my fighter, lord Berneer was always a clumsy fellow, i don't roll, i fail my stealth check, what you think will happen at that table? The player likely to be tossed for being disruptive or get collective gasp from fellow players. People are proposing a non solution.

I want variety, I don't all my level 10 characters to essentially be within a -/+3 margin in every single untrained skill, that feels so incredibly boring to me. And worse, completely destroys my agency as a player playing a character.

I don't know about the campaigns you've played in, but even at low levels, most if not all of my characters have had the opportunity to use all the skills on the character sheet. Some of which I could not perform because I was not trained in them even at the mid to high level games where one would think that I should have learned something by then.

I like to build flaws into my characters just like everyone else, but I expect my character to learn to grow around those flaws. I don't expect my character to adventure for months or years or whatnot and never be able to learn to at least grow in most areas of their adventurous life.

A socially inept Wizard is great idea at level 1. But to forever be socially inept after being in countless social situations seems more farfetched at level 20.

As for your final paragraph, Mark has mentioned numerous times in this thread about the gaps being much larger than just -/+3.

I am not without concerns of this new system, most of the blog post was vague and didn't necessarily say anything other than "The system is going to be totally different and great". Right now, I'm hoping that at least the last part is true. But before accusing Paizo (seeming to specialize in the field of character options) of removing options off the table, I think it would be most fair to wait until we have more information.

Please don't take this as an attempt of me silencing your or anyone else's concerns. Voices from all sides matter, I just wanted to point my view on this system and your post looked like a great building block for me to speak mine. Thank you.


Thanks for all the information!


Due in early July.


So, I have been playing PFS for quite a while now, and have moved to the stage of my life where I would rather play AP's over the scenarios provided. I have fun with them, but I just feel that I never really get to see my characters progress.

I always need to change characters to fit tiers, to make parties more balanced, or just feel that the character would better fit the description of the scenario. Overall, I just feel like I'm jumping all over the place and don't even know who my characters really are any more.

To the task at hand, is PbP right for me? I live a pretty busy life in general. I have a 40hr/week job (with 7.5hr/week commute), am a Venture Agent for a Thursday game taking up another 4-5hrs/week, am in a bi-weekly AP (6hrs/2 weeks), bi-weekly games of Starfinder (10ish hrs/2 weeks), am happily married (24hrs/day technically, but only requires genuine effort for roughly 16-18hrs/week), and I sleep, eat, etc... Also, I'm expecting the first little one in a few months, so time will be even tighter. So although I want another game, I don't know where to find the time.

That's where I'm hoping PbP will be of help. Is it perfectly acceptable to make 2-5 posts a day around my work schedule? I almost always have my computer with me, so I should be able to make a post or two around the same timeframe daily.

If so, then how do I start? Like, I've read the Guide on the discussion... But I don't know how to make a "character sheet" for PbP. Is it just my PFS character listings? If so, what if I desire to play in a non-PFS game? I may have a couple more questions arise after these, and I thank you all in advance for any help you provide.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, this will be my final post on the matter, because I will probably make better use of my time teaching my cat how to play a proper game of chess than to explain how an amulet of mighty fists works to you.

The flaming weapon property gives all the attacks of the enhanced weapon the effect. Spell storing gives one attack of the enhanced weapon the effect. Same goes for the amulet... like every other enhancement works. The only difference is that the amulet can apply the effect to your unarmed strikes and natural attacks.


The amulet is spell storing. The amulet holds one spell of 3rd level or lower. When a natural attack or unarmed strike makes contact, you may discharge the spell that the amulet has stored.

Also, the Magi's ability tells you exactly what happens, so I'm still not seeing the relevance here. Are you looking for help as to what it's ability does? Does a part of it confuse you? I'd love to give my interpretation, if you point out the part that doesn't make much sense.

Where are you getting the idea that every attack gains the spell storing property? If I can attack with my spell storing sword 3 times, can I put 3 spells into it? If the answer is no, guess what? It's the same with the Amulet, since when does a weapon special ability work differently on an amulet compared to a sword unless specifically stated otherwise?


Gallant Armor wrote:

Not sure what you are saying. So the amulet grants special abilities to natural weapons but the natural weapons don't actually have the special abilities?

"At 1st level, a magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as a swift action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute. For every four levels beyond 1st, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves."

By this logic since grant doesn't mean give, Magi only get the +1 to attack and damage and don't overcome DR with the enhancement bonuses they get from their pool.

How does that "logic" equal what I had said?

Amulet is enhanced. Not natural attacks. Not unarmed strikes. Amulet.
Amulet grants enhancement bonus to unarmed attacks.

Magi grants enhancement bonus to weapon wielded. If weapon already has enhancement bonus, increase appropriately.

Like, I don't see the confusion here. The ability says exactly what it does.


Gallant Armor wrote:
Link2000 wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF.

I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.

Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet.

By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?

By the rules an AoMF grants weapon abilities to the wearers natural attacks. If the ability is flaming each of the natural weapons is flaming, it doesn't say that the AoMF is flaming and confers the effect in some limited way to natural attacks. It doesn't say that it can only apply to one attack, they are all flaming.

You are making the effect communally shared when there is nothing to say that would be the case. If you store the spell in your left claw, it can only be expended from that claw.

Did you give your claw or bite spell storing? Or did you give the amulet spell storing?

That's where this trickles down to. Your Amulet has the effects, not your natural weapons or unarmed strikes. Your natural weapons and unarmed strikes are just benefiting from the effects.

"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. "

Nowhere does it say that it grants the effects to natural weapons and not the actual weapon ability.

It says it right in the line you quoted, "this AMULET can GRANT melee weapon special abilities". The AMULET, the necklace itself, has the enhancement that's being GRANTED.


Gallant Armor wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:

By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?

Because you didn't pay a cost equal to what it would cost if you had 3 or more spell storing weapons.

Just because something doesn't prevent you from making sub par choices doesn't mean those choices should now be enhanced.

Amulet is designed for flaming, agile, and other things like that. There will be times like spell storing and speed where it isn't the best design.

By that logic players should be required to have a +1 for each natural attack they want to have flaming. If you have 2 swords you have to enchant them with flaming and pay the cost twice. If you have 5 natural attacks you only have to pay it once. There is no reason why spell storing should be treated differently by the rules.

The Amulet has +1 Flaming, and passes that benefit to unarmed strikes and natural attacks. Spell Storing is no different.

Sword with Spell Storing:
1) Put spell in sword.
2) Hit enemy with sword.
3) Decide if spell is expended with attack.
3a) If spell is expended, repeat steps 1-3.
3b) If spell is not expended, repeat steps 2-3.

Amulet of Mighty Fists with Spell Storing:
1) Put spell in amulet.
2) Hit enemy with attack affected by amulet.
3) Decide if spell is expended with attack.
3a) If spell is expended, repeat steps 1-3.
3b) If spell is not expended, repeat steps 2-3.

Just to show it has the same build as a "Flaming"

Sword with Flaming:
1) Activate Flaming on sword.
2) Hit enemy with sword.
3) Deal 1d6 Fire damage in addition to weapons damage.

Amulet of Mighty Fists with Flaming:
1) Activate Flaming on amulet.
2) Hit enemy with attack affected by amulet.
3) Deal 1d6 Fire damage in addition to attacks damage.

The amulet has the enhancements, and passes those bonuses to your attacks. Your attacks don't have enhancements themselves. Drop a sword, sword is still enhanced. Drop an amulet, your attacks are not enhanced any more.


Gallant Armor wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Either a natural attack is spell storing or not, there is no middle ground and there is nothing that says spell storing should only apply to one natural weapon with an AoMF.

I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept.

Each weapon is spell storing. You can add a spell from your unarmed strike and you can expend that spell via a gore attack. Once expended, you would not get a second one. Nor could you add 5 spells if you had 5 weapons, as you only paid for one spell storing amulet.

By what rule? If a claw is a spell storing claw and a bite is a spell storing bite, why shouldn't they both be able to hold a spell?

By the rules an AoMF grants weapon abilities to the wearers natural attacks. If the ability is flaming each of the natural weapons is flaming, it doesn't say that the AoMF is flaming and confers the effect in some limited way to natural attacks. It doesn't say that it can only apply to one attack, they are all flaming.

You are making the effect communally shared when there is nothing to say that would be the case. If you store the spell in your left claw, it can only be expended from that claw.

Did you give your claw or bite spell storing? Or did you give the amulet spell storing?

That's where this trickles down to. Your Amulet has the effects, not your natural weapons or unarmed strikes. Your natural weapons and unarmed strikes are just benefiting from the effects.


Kali Nassim wrote:
Thanks, Link. Do you have a preferred source for spell cards? Printing isn't an issue, though flexibility on layout would be helpful.

For customization purposes, I sort of made my own for the Druid I have been doing this for. I use Word's custom page size (5" width, 3" height) and margins (.2 around) and have access to a pretty decent printer. Otherwise I was considering using PRJ's solution for my upcoming Arcanist, as it took a pretty decent amount of time to get everything looking how I wanted with word for nearly all of the druids spells up to spell level 6.


Oh! 1 more beneficial thing about the spell cards! If the game has to end mid adventuring day/battle, you can just take the cards you haven't used and shove them off to the side until next session.


I've personally used spell cards and I think they work out pretty well. The 2 "big" issues that I have come across:

1) I need a way to organize the cards for switching them out. I use one of those index card cases with index card tabs to keep them in order alphabetically.

2) I had to make a couple of "extras" for spells that I frequently prep multiple times a day. I suppose it's not needed because I could just have a sticky note or something telling me what I've used, but I prefer to have the thought "it's in my hand, so I can use it". If it's a spontaneous spell (like clerics with Cure spells), I have them on different colored cards and just put down another card of the same spell level to represent the loss of the prepared spell.

Neither of these are really big problems, but they added an extra cost on my end, so not the most budget friendly solution. I would also like to warn that it didn't cut down much on spell prep time, but it definitely keeps the game moving, especially if you have all the key info of the spells on each card (target, duration, saves, etc.).


Lady-J wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:

Well, assuming NPC wealth guidelines the orcs where each CR 5 and the monk was CR 19. With a glance at the table that means the group of orcs was CR 10.

If you treat it as two encounters they get the following experience values(each).

Orcs
Four PCs: 3,200
Five PCs: 2,400
Six+ PCs: 1,600

Monk
Four PCs: 68,300
Five PCs: 51,200
Six+ PCs: 34,100

The encountered and survived the monk, so they get full experience for the encounter.

the monk wasn't actively trying to kill them tho and thus should only be about half exp

Just because he wasn't trying to kill them doesn't make the encounter any easier. A monk can choose to do lethal or non-lethal freely with no penalties. The OP even said that outside of that, the monk went all out. It was surely a tough encounter. The only thing that made it "easier" was that they didn't actually have to take down a CR 19 creature to win.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Iziah Gile wrote:
Iziah Gile wrote:
Tyler Reid wrote:
Iziah Gile wrote:


So, I feel it's less "SF encourages you to spread out your attribute points", more "SF FORCES you to spread out your attribute points as you go up in level". Not that I think this is bad, just that it's required, not agency of the player.
It's also required to increase ability scores in Pathfinder, but in Pathfinder you kind of have to keep raising that main ability score or you're going to fall behind when it comes to the enemies, making your character even more "shoeboxed" into it's role. I personally think it's great that at higher levels the character can grow into a smarter, wiser, version of themselves from adventures ago, where as Pathfinder we're kind of the same guy except better at what we were already good at.
I can agree with that! I only disagree with it being a player choice, when it's a system choice =) It's a system decision I'm 100% behind, though

Coming back to this after a night of sleep, Pathfinder, via overall game balance, encourages players to Min-Max attributes to a point. Like you said, if you don't continue investment, you risk falling behind.

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out in Starfinder. With less bonuses available overall, Hitting opponents is already less guaranteed, ect ect. Will this act as a reason to diversify mechanically, or will it encourage ppl to hyperfocus their builds to gain any little scrap of advantage they can? If you've only got a 25% chance at hitting, for example, even gaining a +1 is a 20% increase in your chance to hit. But that's wandering from the concept of attributes specifically.

The "hitting" portion doesn't seem like it will be too much an issue later on as it looks like 1 attack turns are going to be a staple for the majority of combats, even at high levels. Armor has so far seemed like a pretty twisted joke. All classes are at least 3/4 BAB, and many offer something to increase the ability to hit. Weapon focus is even a thing, and in this version, once one of those 3/4 BAB classes hit level 12, they get an additional increase in ability to hit.

I'm really interested in seeing how mid to late levels play out in this game with the whole "no iterative attacks" thing that's going on. Will the days of ending a boss fight in first round of combat end? I can only hope.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Fred Strauss wrote:

I'm thinking of going with an 8 Con. Would never do that in PFS, but thinking the effect is not as bad in SFS.

Lashunta Pilot Mystic S10 D15 Cn8 I12 W16 Ch12. Healer. S5/HP9/R4 Specializing in Pilot and Diplomacy, so can work as Pilot or Captain in Ship Combat.

Any other thoughts of going with 8 Con?

Thanks!

With the loss being less stamina and fort saves, I don't think it's horrible overall, although the fort save penalty will hurt down the line. I say nothing ventured nothing learned!

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Iziah Gile wrote:
Tyler Reid wrote:
Iziah Gile 288 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Starfinder definitely encourages spreading points out more than Pathfinder does.
This is flat out incorrect. *math and reasoning above*
And at 1st level, that's true. What about 5th level (Easily within reason for SFS as time goes forward)? *math and examples above*

Well, at 5th level, SF start forcing you to spread out your points more. You are required to select 4 stats and give them bumps based on their current value. Even a hyperfocused character is going to get +7 (+1 to his best stat, +2 to 3 others of his choice, presumably one of them his secondary focus) to his stats, divided up. A less focused character will get 8 instead.

So, I feel it's less "SF encourages you to spread out your attribute points", more "SF FORCES you to spread out your attribute points as you go up in level". Not that I think this is bad, just that it's required, not agency of the player.

It's also required to increase ability scores in Pathfinder, but in Pathfinder you kind of have to keep raising that main ability score or you're going to fall behind when it comes to the enemies, making your character even more "shoeboxed" into it's role. I personally think it's great that at higher levels the character can grow into a smarter, wiser, version of themselves from adventures ago, where as Pathfinder we're kind of the same guy except better at what we were already good at.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Disk Elemental wrote:

I think you've just proven my point... despite the fact I explicitly mentioned Mechanics as the exception to the rule, because of drone customization, all of the Mechanics had points in the exact same stats, with little variation between them. You all played the 2 races compatible with the class, and all took the obvious specializations, because, again, you kinda had to to be relevant. In the end, the characters all did the exact same things; they were a little shooty, and a little skill-y.

Starfinder has taken a system whose biggest selling point was choice, and have compacted it down to 2-3 obvious choices.

They were very different... I'm not sure if you read my post correctly, but I was VERY skilly, little shooty. The "Ace Pilot" was very shooty, had Minor Psychic powers and outside of a small handful of skills wasn't very skill based. He used his drone for recon. The lady playing the "Combat Medic/Engineer" used the drone for her main combat capabilities, spending her actions on using her Medic feat. I don't see how those did "the exact same thing".

Disk Elemental wrote:


It very much is. Just going out of the core rules, I can make at least 3 different Bards, with different stat arrays, that all handle significantly different from one another, and bring different skill sets to the table. That's to say nothing of the ludicrous options from any of the full-casters.

Really? The big difference between bards is the same big difference between fighters, what skills you pick, what feats you pick, and are you melee or ranged. They have benefit of a different spell selection.

But I'm game, what Starfinder Class would you like me to make significantly different builds with? I'm willing to bet I can make 4 significantly different builds at level 1 for any Stardfinder Class. Assuming of course you interpret significantly different builds in the same fashion or more as your "significantly" different bards.

Disk Elemental wrote:


CMD is KAC+8, with the feat it goes down to KAC+4. Characters already have problems hitting, adding 4 to the enemy AC, only to not deal damage, is overly punishing.

Compared to pathfinder that says in order to do a SINGLE combat maneuver without risking getting knocked out, requires two feats with ability prerequisites. I'll take it. At level 1 it stinks, but I'm willing to see what mid level brings, because that's when Combat Maneuvers start to fail in Pathfinder without min-maxing the build.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Iziah Gile 288 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Starfinder definitely encourages spreading points out more than Pathfinder does.

This is flat out incorrect. To start, there is no "pre-racial" in Starfinder. You get 10s, you apply Racials, then Theme, then spend points. And In Pathfinder, the fact that lower values were cheaper makes buying multiple good stats way more economical than in Starfinder.

In Pathfinder, using a race with 2 +2s and a -2, the best spread-out/balanced stat array you can get is 16, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10. You could also do 14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 11, if that's your bag. Two 16s a 14 and a 12, or four 14s and a 12

In Starfinder, the best spread out array you could get is 14, 14, 14, 11, 10, 10. Three 14s is the best you can hope for.

In Pathfinder, the best focused/unbalanced array you can do is 20, 15, 10, 10, 10, 8. Versus Starfinder, the best focused array you could build is 18, 17, 10, 10, 10, 8.

Starfinder's focused array is equal to or better than Pathfinder's (harder comparison, since there's no 20 stat in SF at first level), Pathfinder's balanced arrays blows Starfinder's out of the water. There's no question.

And at 1st level, that's true. What about 5th level (Easily within reason for SFS as time goes forward)?

In Pathfinder, using a race with 2 +2s and a -2, the best spread-out/balanced stat array one can get is 16, 16, 14, 12, 12, 10. You could also do 14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 12, if that's your bag. Two 16s, a 14 and two 12s (assuming modifier increase > score), or four 14s and two 12s

In Starfinder, the best spread out array you could get is 16, 16, 15, 14, 10, 10 (Including buying out the negative). Two 16s, a 15, and a 14 (better than the same in PF) is pretty good. They could also go for 15, 14, 14, 14, 12, 12 and have a positive modifier for all stats.

In Pathfinder, the best focused/unbalanced array you can do is 20, 16, 10, 10, 10, 8 (Assuming you're aiming for modifier increases). Versus Starfinder, the best focused array one could build is 18, 18, 12, 12, 12, 8 (Once again, assuming you're aiming for modifier increases).

I don't feel it's that different in the beginning, but mid levels, everything has much more opportunity to spread.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Iziah Gile 288 wrote:

No worries, I don't feel attacked. And I agree, it's ~almost~ to where it could work. It is 1 point away (which might as well be 2, with how Stats function). Working, mind you, is still behind what you can get from building to your race's strength. This character is upwards of 6 stat points behind a character built the same way, but using a race that fits the attributes better. I feel like if it had 2 (or, like you said, even 1) more stat points I could shuffle, it'd work. It'd fit the image in my head, and not be so gimped as to be drag on the party.

I probably shouldn't have used the term ideal; what I meant was "This is the minimum statline I could see working with the concept." I'd love if I could get one of the 14s to a 16, or maybe the int to a 14 (more skills = more choices, right?).

As to the question of "your character is less <X>, that doesn't mean he's more <Y>"... Not necessarily, no. But that's the entire premise of the rest of the point buy system. My character is less <X>, because I chose not to allocate points, and as a result, more <Y>. And if you are playing to your race's strengths, you don't need the extra points. It only matters if you are trying to play off-type.

Considering the Ability score increases every 5 levels... *shrugs* it affects all characters equally, and it's still possible, if maybe not wise, to have a weak stat. Still, even if you put points towards you weak stat, it can still be the weakest of your stats, the thing that holds you back compared to others with your level of worldly experience. Or, based on RP, maybe you outgrow that weakness, and a different stat becomes your weakpoint. Or maybe, if it floats your boat, you just become incredibly well rounded, with only 1 or 2 exceptional stats.

But, considering how much of the game is spent at low levels (so many games die before reaching those higher levels. for society play, death and leveling out of mods ensures a constant rate of low level play), I feel like the start is where a lot of the focus needs to be.

But your 6 points behind because of a choice you made (reducing CON and WIS).

And of course if you made a race choice that better fit the class it would be better. I'm going to make an Orc Wizard in Pathfinder with 20 pt buy:

STR 11 - -4 pts
DEX 14 - 5 pts
CON 12 - 2 pts
INT 16 - 17 pts
WIS 8 - 0 pts
CHA 8 - 0 pts

That's a pretty poor Wizard by most standards, if I had an Elf Wizard it would look more like:

STR 10 - 0 pts
DEX 16 - 5 pts
CON 12 - 5 pts
INT 18 - 10 pts
WIS 10 - 0 pts
CHA 10 - 0 pts

Much better, but of course I picked a class that had a boost to INT over a penalty to it, which is exactly what you are doing with the Shirren. Notice that I sacrificed the Orcs STR to try and achieve a better intelligence, and didn't even get the "best" score possible for the Elf. The smartest Orc possible at level 1 is still less intelligent than a moderately educated Elf. Just because your character has less <X>, it doesn't mean he's more <Y>. The system isn't that different. If, for flavor reasons, pick a poor race/class combination, it's going to show. And that's okay.

The main reason why they can't do the "reduce" a stat gain a stat method is basically because in Starfinder, everything is 1 to 1 for point buy, where in Pathfinder, everything exponentially increases in point value as you try to buy into a higher score. Reduced a 10 to a 9 in PF? Still not enough to turn that 13 into a 14... In SF, it is. That would mean that racial modifiers would be worthless, as a player can shift the points how they please. Might as well make it a 12 pt buy instead.

Another interesting tidbit, if we were to theoretically use the PF point buy system to make your Shirren vs the Ysoki version it would look like this:
Shirren:
STR 10 - 0 pts
DEX 14 - 5 pts
CON 10 - -2pts
INT 12 - 2 pts
WIS 9 (8 not possible in PF with +2 racial) - -4
CHA 14 - 10 pts

Ysoki: (With 11 pt buy, same as Shirren above)
STR 10 - 2 pts
DEX 14 - 2 pts
CON 10 - 0 pts
INT 12 - 0 pts
WIS 9 - -1 pts
CHA 14 - 5 pts
Remaining Points (3)

What above means, that the Ysoki is always going to win out on the Shirren as an Envoy, emphasizing the same stats. Just like the Orc and the Elf, that's just the way the game plays when a race/class combo isn't good.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Disk Elemental wrote:
Darkling36 wrote:
I feel confident in saying that the classes are far less homogeneous in SF than they are in PF, particularly at the start of he system. Each class has a lot of very different builds that are very viable instead o one or maybe two. The attribute system in general seems to encourage a balance instead of the peaks and valleys of PF, but that's just a feature of a different system to me, not an overwhelming push to be the same.

I think you've misunderstood my statement. One could argue that the classes themselves aren't strongly differentiated from each other (as I do below), however my assertion was in reference to the stat arrays. Given the incredibly limited number of points, and the way the Resolve system works almost every character that has a set class is going to look identical stat-wise, with their Resolve stat and an offensive stat pumped, with everything else hovering near 10. This is not balanced!

In fact it's very difficult to make a truly "balanced" character in Starfinder, and much easier to create the min-maxed SAD classes that everyone b+++$es about in PF. Don't believe me? Look at the math, in Pathfinder on a 20 PB, you can have 2 stats at 14, one stat at 16 pre-racial, with no dump stats. In Starfinder, you can have one at 16, and one at 14. The latter array has more peaks and valleys, than the former.

As for the classes, they're all very samey, at least up through level 5.

Almost every class has been pushed towards the same baseline of being a bit shooty/stabby, being a bit skill-y, and having a utility class feature. The only builds that really break this mold are the Drone Mechanic by adding a pet, and the Soldier by not having much out of combat utility.

The Envoy has no where near the buffing/utility of the bard, thus they're encouraged to attack in combat. The Mystic and Technomancer don't have the spell power to be wholly effective without a weapon (and even then some of their best spells are just buffs). The Operative's entire purpose is just...

I feel like I have had very different experiences than you thus far. I've played at a table with 3 Mechanics, myself included, and none of us played the same. Two had Drones, and I had an Exocortex. The 1st drone mechanic was an "Ace Pilot" and had a stealth drone, the other was a "Combat Medic/Engineer" who had a Glammered "wrench" that was actually a laser pistol using a Combat Drone, and I was a "Hactivist" that used my Exocortex to help me stay relevant in combat.

And although we all invested in DEX and INT, the "Ace Pilot" had significantly invested in DEX (16 or 17) and INT was hovering around 12, the "Combat Medic/Engineer" had a more even stat array (15 being the highest, if I recall), and I had a 14 DEX and 18 INT. The other two were Yoski and I was playing an Android.

I'm not stating your observations are incorrect, all characters are going to look similar based off class sets (especially with only 2 archetypes and 10 themes), but is that different than Pathfinder?

I wouldn't say combat maneuvers got "nerfed" yet either, though they are much more difficult to perform so far without the feat. I like that now they don't provoke. Want to try and trip someone? Go Ahead! May not work just like it may not work in Pathfinder, but at least you don't have to worry about being punished for not taking a bunch of feats.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

By the looks of it, you would only be truly one point behind your ideal statline.

STR 10 - 0 pts
DEX 14 - 4 pts
CON 10 (adjusted from 12) - 0 pts
INT 12 - 2 pts
WIS 8 (adjusted from 12) - 0 pts
CHA 14 (adjusted from 8) - 6 pts

When you factor in Theme, you are only 1 pt short, and you are choosing to take a hit to WIS and CON, stats that are typically better than the average individual for your race. Not only that you are choosing to increase stats that are not typically associated with your race. Those choices are fine, but the idea of that you should be "rewarded" (I am using the term loosely here) for them isn't something that I personally agree with.

Essentially you are making a Shirren fit into a role that the typical Shirren wouldn't be able to fill, and that's fine... But it shouldn't be expected that since your Shirren is less wise than the typical Shirren that yours is suddenly more charming.

In any case, we should also be considering the Ability Score Increase that occurs every 5 levels... Increase four stats by +2 (if base stat is 16 or lower) or by +1 (if base stat is 17 or higher). That is a huge boon to all characters that's going to make it tough to keep a "weakness" for 20 levels. And I like it, because really, all characters would ideally develop upon their "weaknesses" as they grow.

Note: I promise I'm not "attacking" you. I'm just stating my opinion on the matter and your post is currently the most relevant. I truly like the idea of your Shirren, and although he is one pt shy of your ideal stat array, I think he would be an excellent character to play with.

**** Venture-Agent, Washington—Tacoma aka Link2000

Oh! I guess it is listed as an optional rule... The Primary SFS coordinator in our area was talking about his character dumping a stat. I wonder if he knows this. Thanks!

1 to 50 of 457 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>