Old-Mage Jatembe

LotsOfLore's page

Organized Play Member. 125 posts. 9 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2.0 Updated test conversion Starfinder >> 3 action economy

Everyone gets 3 actions in their turn. Enemies too of course.
The keyword or tag system is amazing and would need to be implemented in order to define what an "attack", or a "move" etc. is.

1. ATTACKS = a single attack is now a 1 action activity. Attacks after the first, during your turn, suffer a penalty: "M.A.P." 0/-5/-10 (0/-4/-8 for operative weapons)
2. COMBAT MANEUVERS are considered attacks for the purpose of the MAP
3. FULL ATTACK does not exist anymore. As a general rule, substitute every "full attack" equivalent action into a 2 action activity that is always considered as counting for 2 attacks for the purposes of the MAP (see above)
4. STANDARD ACTION = 2 action activity (single attacks are now 1 action activities)
5. MOVE ACTION = 1 action
6. SWIFT ACTION = 1 action, but should normally only be allowed once per turn, unless specified otherwise.
7. REACTION = stays the same.
8. FREE ACTION = stays a free action
9. SPELLS = casting time now goes according to points 4, 5 and 6. Every spell that involves an attack counts for the purposes of MAP
10. FULL ACTION = does not exist anymore. Easier to adjust case by case, with the principle of: should become a 2 action activity that generally would not allow for the 3rd action to be used for an attack action.
11. MOVEMENT SPEED: 5 ft less for everybody. Wherever says 30 ft, in terms of the basic movement speed of a creature, it's now 25. If it was 20, is now 15. Same for every basic movement that a creature has (e.g.: fly 60, now becomes fly 55).

Special Cases:

FEATS that allow attacking and moving freely: such as Spring Attack and Shot on The Run are no longer useful. However, they could be replaced by 1 feat that improves the effects of Mobility, giving more resources to deal with AOOs (such as, make an enemy re-roll their AOO, or things of this nature)

AUTOMATIC FIRE: the penalty for all the attacks is now -4 (same as it was before when we had the full attack). Everything else stays the same, only difference: you don't consume your entire magazine, the ammo used is still double the normal amount for each target, but nothing more. (sorry I had to add that, I hate how it currently is!)

UNWIELDY: these weapons take 2 actions to attack with, and they count as 2 attacks for the purposes of MAP. Everything else stays the same (you still can't make AOOs with them)

BLAST: every attack with a blast weapon has an additional -2 to the attack roll (same as before). However, blast weapons can never be fired more than twice per turn. Everything else stays the same

MULTI-WEAPON FIGHTING: your multiple attack penality is now 0/-4/-8 with small arms. Your operative weapons now have 0/-3/-6 multiple attack penalty. This affects the triple/quad attack ability: your penalty is now -3 for all three/four attacks, in that case

MULTIATTACK for monsters: now a 2 action activity, but all attacks are done at -6.

TRICK ATTACK: stays the same (you can move and attack with this new 2 action activity), but it counts as 2 attacks for the purposes of multiple attack penalty. Furthermore, the enemy stays flat-footed for rest of your turn even in the basic version of trick attack (allowing you to use the 3rd action to attack again, with a -10 or -8 as per the general rule).

TRIPLE/QUAD ATTACKS: they are 2 action activities that let you make 3 and 4 attacks, respectively. In both cases the penalty is -4 for all three or four attacks. In a turn where you used these abilities you cannot use your 3rd action to attack (or you cannot perform Triple/Quad attack if you have already attacked once during this turn).

HASTE Spell: you can now move up to your speed during any 2 action activity (before and after the activity if you want), for free. The rest stays the same.

FEATS/ABILITIES that convert move to switf actions: in this case, generally the swift action could be turned into a FREE action, but make it so it can't be done more than once per turn.

CHARGE: is now a 2 action activity. So you can move up to double your movement and 1 attack with the listed penalties, within this activity. However, if you then don't take any other attack action, or you don't move anymore (move-equivalent actions such as making a skill roll don't count), you can wave the -2 AC penalty. Otherwise, it applies as before.
E.g. you could move, then charge (which will effectively let you start the charge from the angle you want), in this case you will end up having the -2 to CA penalty as well.

COUP DE GRACE: is now a 3 action activity. Everything else stays the same

FIGHT DEFENSIVELY: is now a 3 action activity that lets you trade one of the actions for a guarded step at any time during the activity. If you attack, the penalty for each attack (1, 2 or 3) is -8. Everything else stays the same

TOTAL DEFENSE: is now a 2 action activity. Same restrictions apply. Furthermore, you cannot take any attack action in a ROUND where you used this activity (this includes combat maneuvers, of course), cast any spells or use any spell-like or special ability. You can only use your remaining action to move or to take a guarded step.

RUN: is now a 3 action activity, where you can only move up to four times your speed with all the same restrictions as before.

WITHDRAW: is now a 3 action activity. Everything else stays the same


Nathan Monson wrote:

I would probably have Standard actions be 2 acts, with the exceptions of attacks which are 1; this keeps the value of the feats/class features that reduce the action cost.

I might just make unwieldy weapons take 2 acts to fire, bc its much cleaner than 1 act but cant fire more than twice a round.

Hmmmm I like this! That gets rid of a lot of problems in a more elegant way! I'm gonna change the list, thank you!

Although the augmented damage overall problem pointed out by Cellion still remains. But let's go a step at a time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disgustingly beautiful. ;)


Cellion wrote:

Its the opposite - Envoy is much stronger in a 3 action economy.

IE - Can they now improved get'em at 0 MAP, clever attack at -5 MAP, then inspiring boost an ally? That's three abilities that all used to be standard actions. The envoy ends up being at least twice as strong!

Right, I see what you mean. But that can be fixed on a per ability case. For instance one could make Inspiring boost a 2 action activity... But yeah the whole thing requires a more in-depth analysis of each class.

I am fine with them being able to improved get 'em at 0 MAP and the clever attack at -5, though. At the end of the day there's also the RP pool to check how much stuff they can do.

When I said "buff up", I was thinking of the fact they make a high use of feats that change standard with move actions and the like, and those are now useless. But that's probably not warranted because they already gain in flexibility with their special abilities.


Cellion wrote:

I haven't done a "from the ground up" conversion. It'd be a very very serious project. I just played with it long enough to realize that careful attention was going to need to be paid to the math, and that some classes (Envoy is a big offender) are going to have to require scrutiny.

If you'd like to make the damage output a bit more balanced with normal Starfinder, one low impact way to do so is to increase the AC of all NPCs by 2 and decrease their attack rolls by 2. This makes it so that full attacks are about on par between Starfinder's system and the 3action economy. 2 action attacks are still going to be about 25% stronger than a standard action attack in Starfinder, but I think that's doable.

Got it, thank you. And yes the Envoy might then need buffing up to compensate.


Cellion wrote:

As someone who spent some time trying to work out how to port 3-action into Starfinder, this is even trickier than it looks. Some thoughts:

  • Going from Starfinder's full attack rules and penalties to the Multiple attack penalty is actually a big boost in lethality. I've done the math on this before. Just slapping in MAP is about a 65% boost in damage output assuming a creature spends 1 action / 1 move action on moving before attacking, and about a 50% boost in damage output on full attacks / 3 actions spent on attacking.
  • Starfinder has been carefully balanced around action scarcity and the exclusivity of actions. Many standard action abilities are balanced around doing them only once per round. Furthermore, many standard action abilities are ALSO balanced around not being able to attack on rounds where you use them.
  • Both caster classes have 3/4 BAB in Starfinder, and currently their abilities are balanced around not being able to mix attacks and spells. The system's underlying math allows most any character to deal good damage by nothing more than two feats (weapon proficiency, weapon specialization) and picking up an appropriate weapon. A mystic with a longarm and specialization that fires once and casts a spell is contributing WAY more in Starfinder than a cleric with a longbow firing once and casting a spell in PF2E.
  • Spellcasting should probably be 2 actions, just like PF2E.

    Its clear after you start digging into class changes that building from the ground up for the 3-action system is likely easier than trying to convert.

  • Understood! Thank you very much for these pointers. I'm surprised at such an augment in average damage, but I haven't done the math and I was expecting some general boost to damage. Nevertheless, in my mind that basically means every combat will resolve a bit quicker and be more lethal (for both parties). Maybe that's not a bad thing?

    Regarding spells, I went with 1 action, because I wanted to give casters the opportunity to do more in their round, however I forgot to mention that every spell cast in a turn should count as an attack for the purposes of the MAP.
    (Not that that would solve the underlying problem that you are bringing up, of course).

    Are you working at a "from the ground up" approach to this problem? Could you point me to your proposal (if you made it public), please? I would be very curious.

    In general, I agree that the problems you raised do exist and even though I haven't done the math, I have no problem agreeing that all this results in more damage output. It needs to be tested, to see the full extent of the unbalancing, I guess.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    more:

    CHARGE: is now a 2 action activity. So you can move up to double your movement and 1 attack with the listed penalties, within this activity. However, if you then don't take any other attack action, or you don't move anymore (move-equivalent actions such as making a skill roll don't count), you can wave the -2 AC penalty. Otherwise, it applies as before.
    E.g. you could move, then charge (which will effectively let you start the charge from the angle you want), in this case you will end up having the -2 to CA penalty as well.

    COUP DE GRACE: is now a 3 action activity. Everything else stays the same

    FIGHT DEFENSIVELY: is now a 3 action activity that lets you trade one of the actions for a guarded step at any time during the activity. If you attack, the penalty for each attack (1, 2 or 3) is -8. Everything else stays the same

    TOTAL DEFENSE: is now a 2 action activity. Same restrictions apply. Furthermore, you cannot take any attack action in a ROUND where you used this activity (this includes combat maneuvers, of course), cast any spells or use any spell-like or special ability. You can only use your remaining action to move or to take a guarded step.

    RUN: is now a 3 action activity, where you can only move up to four times your speed with all the same restrictions as before.

    WITHDRAW: is now a 3 action activity. Everything else stays the same


    This is a proposal to implement Pathfinder 2e AWESOME action economy into Starfinder. It's a rough WORK IN PROGRESS, so I would love to hear your thoughts/input, thank you.

    TEST conversion Starfinder >> 3 action economy

    Everyone gets 3 actions in their turn. Enemies too of course

    1. Attacks after the first: 0/-5/-10 (0/-4/-8 for operative weapons)
    2. COMBAT MANEUVERS are considered attacks for the purpose of the multiple attack penalty
    3. FULL ATTACK does not exist anymore. As a general rule, substitute every "full attack" or equivalent action into a 2 action activity that is always considered as counting for 2 attacks for the purposes of the multiple attacks penality (see above)
    4. STANDARD ACTION = 1 action
    5. MOVE ACTION = 1 action
    6. SWIFT ACTION = 1 action, but should normally only be allowed once per turn, unless specified otherwise.
    7. FREE ACTION = stays a free action
    8. SPELLS >> you can NEVER cast more than one 1 action spell per turn. Spells that were cast as "swift actions", or "move actions" can now be cast as many times as one can in a turn
    9. FULL ACTION = 2 action activity
    10. MOVEMENT SPEED: 5 ft less for everybody. Wherever says 30 ft, in terms of the basic movement speed of a creature, it's now 25. If it was 20, is now 15. Same for every basic movement that a creature has (e.g.: fly 60, now becomes fly 55).

    Special Cases:

    AUTOMATIC FIRE: the penalty for all the attacks is now -4 (same as it was before when we had the full attack). Everything else stays the same, only difference: you don't consume your entire magazine, the ammo used is still double the normal amount for each target, but nothing more. (sorry I had to add that, I hate how it currently is!)

    UNWIELDY: these weapons can never be fired more than twice per turn. Everything else stays the same

    BLAST: every attack with a blast weapon has an additional -2 to the attack roll (same as before). However, blast weapons can never be fired more than twice per turn. Everything else stays the same

    MULTI-WEAPON FIGHTING: your multiple attack penality is now 0/-4/-8 with small arms. Your operative weapons now have 0/-3/-6 multiple attack penalty. This affects the triple/quad attack ability: your penalty is now -3 for all three/four attacks, in that case

    MULTIATTACK for monsters: now a 2 action activity, but all attacks are done at -6.

    TRICK ATTACK: stays the same (you can move and attack with this new 2 action activity), but it counts as 2 attacks for the purposes of multiple attack penalty. Furthermore, the enemy stays flat-footed for rest of your turn even in the basic version of trick attack (allowing you to use the 3rd action to attack again, with a -10 or -8 as per the general rule).

    TRIPLE/QUAD ATTACKS: they are 2 action activities that let you make 3 and 4 attacks, respectively. In both cases the penalty is -4 for all three or four attacks.

    HASTE Spell: you can now move up to your speed during any 2 action activity (before and after the activity if you want), for free. The rest stays the same.

    THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS:
    >> all of the feats and abilities that had to do with converting standard actions into move or swift actions are now USELESS (including spring attack and the like... The easiest solution is just to: IGNORE every effect that does that (this doesn't mean throw away every feat that has that as part of its effect, just ignore the action type conversion part). In the case of effects that turn a move into a swift action, turn that swift action into a FREE action, but make it so it can't be done more than once per turn.

    ... more to come


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Vanessa Hoskins wrote:


    There's going to be so much packed into this book! My prediction is that even with all of the new material added, it's still not going to feel like enough. Starfinder has this sort of curse where the more amazing stuff Paizo releases for it, the more we want.

    We hunger... HUNGER!

    I find this characterization entirely accurate.

    :D


    UBER-excited for this one !!!!


    11 people marked this as a favorite.

    Want, nay, NEED a Starfinder Tales line of novels!! :D


    I LOVE YOU FOR THIS !!!


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    The Vein wrote:
    I'm playing Age of Ashes with my long time group and we LOVE 2nd Edition Pathfinder. I've been playing PF since it was released way back in 2009, and had played 3.5 for years before that and I'm so happy to see a new take on the rules. I know there's a lot of negativity around new editions and people complain a lot, but just know at least one group of long-time players are totally down for second edition and everything to come with it!

    Your group is not alone, we are loving it as well! :)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    This was the best yet, for me! Fantastic stuff!

    Dammit I want Starfinder Tales XD


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
    Ah, my last Starfinder baby. I am so looking forward to seeing it out in the world!

    As if people hadn't said it enough already, it was so sad to see you go!

    However, thank you so much for contributing to the creation of my new favourite rpg, and I can't wait to see what's in store for the future of Starfinder :D

    (I'm litterly biting my nails in wait for this manual to come out, and so is my Biohacker player xD)


    Boy these look REALLY really good. I'm at least wishlisting this, maybe I'll be able to buy it soon!


    AAAARGHHH Can't wait for this anymore! :D


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Please Please Please I cannot call more loudly for a Starfinder Tales line of books!!

    Seriously, just write up and take my money! :D


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Starfinder fiction coming up?! YEEEESS!! :D


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    swoosh wrote:

    Clicked this thread interested to see what people had to say about the way the game was played and the mechanics described in the blog.

    Did not expect five pages of people arguing over how long a week is. Or that and darkvision is too confusing of a phrase for the average group.

    This fanbase. I think I finally get why so many people say screw it and just go play 5e instead.

    This, exactly. Which makes me sad, being a hardcore fan of Paizo games.

    The extremely good idea of introducing tools(rules) to further integrating exploration and downtime into pathfinder clearly enriches the system AS WELL as the value of the core rule book. Also given that these expansions are not even forced on GMs and players, they're there for your benefit, if you want to use them. That's pretty good value for money (something that similar very famous games seem to have failed to deliver so far!)

    To take this and turn it into an arid discussion just to complain about a non-existing issues... well that's just a self inflicted wound, people.


    My favourite region!! Give some love to the jungle, AWESOME! :D


    captain yesterday wrote:
    For what it's worth, I love Starfinder, it's probably my single favorite RPG I've played in my 42 years.

    Seconded! My new favourite sci fi rpg, period!

    Also this is the manual I am most excited for, it hits every spot for me, and now knowing about the expanded playability around starship action.. that's just GOLDEN.


    Looking reeeeeeeeal good!!! thank you!!


    Belafon wrote:

    With the understanding that Starfinder is not Pathfinder...

    If you hunt around on the boards you can find advice from actual Paizo designers on what usually makes a good rules mechanic. Most of it is in the form of "Don't do this!" I think Sean K. Reynolds was probably the most prolific poster among the designers.

    One of the many no-nos is "No item or feat should duplicate a class feature."

    There are examples of Paizo breaking this rule in their own published material, of course. But the general idea is that class features are what makes classes unique. If you add a Remote Hack feat, why not a Trick Attack feat? Or a feat that gives anyone a single Envoy Improvisation.

    That's not to say you can't do this in your game. If it is necessary in your game, absolutely do it. If it's not necessary but is desired, you can still add it but you probably want to make it more expensive. I'd probably do something like this

    Remote Interface wrote:

    Prerequisites: Computers 5 ranks, Amplified Glitch

    Benefit: Once per day, you may attempt to hack into a computer wirelessly from a distance of up to 20 feet. You must use a computer with a Range I (or higher) upgrade module to attempt the hack. Interface protocols vary from device to device, so the time required to perform this hack is doubled. If the hack attempt is interrupted, it still counts as your use of this ability for the day. The hack attempt otherwise functions as a regular attempt.

    Improved Remote Interface wrote:

    Prerequisites: Computers 7 ranks, Amplified Glitch, Remote Interface

    Benefit: You may use the Remote Interface feat up to three times per day and your range improves to 30 feet.

    This is fantastic, thank you, exactly what I was looking for. I will be happy to add your two feats to my game.

    I understand the general principle but I just happen to think that wireless hack is a ludicrously basic thing in a futuristic game and should not be locked behind a class to begin with. Still, that version of the feat does not touch the remote ENGINEERING capability of the Mechanic which is a completely different concept and well warranted to be a class-only feature, in my opinion.

    Cheers!


    Hmm, how about on top of the aforementioned restrictions (only hacking, no engineering) I slap a "once a day" on the feat?

    Would that make it better?


    Interesting, thank you both for your insight.


    Hello,
    I have a operative player with the Hacker specialization who asks why can't she ever gain a "remote hacking" ability similar to that of the mechanic, even if for the computer skill only.

    Do you think it would be bad for game balance if I basically just added a feat for her to take that would let:
    >> someone with 5 ranks in Computers hack remotely (only for use of hacking with the computers skill) at a distance of, say, 5 x Computers ranks, in feet?

    Thank you :)


    Got it, thanks!


    Pogiforce wrote:
    So what he's trying to do is full attsck with combat maneuvers. He is allowed to do this, but there are only a few combat maneuvers that can be used as part of an attack or full attack action. That is trips, disarms, and sunders. Everything else is either it's own standard action or has other special rules

    Hmm I think you might be thinking about Pathfinder. If I'm not mistaken, that's no longer a thing in Starfinder.

    But maybe I'm wrong.


    Hi,
    I hope I'm not opening a whole new can of worms, but I have been asked this by a player and I said no, however, I would like confirmation if you would be so kind.

    Can one use a Full Action to perform two combat maneuvers (with the -4 or corresponding penalty) ?

    I am inclined to think no... as Combat Maneuvers are Standard Actions, and a Full Action is a different thing. Correct?


    Pogiforce wrote:


    Though I did mispeak when I said distracting hack as an example. That is a mechanic trick. I was actually speaking about the feat Amplified Glitch and I've corrected my previous post.

    That's right, that's the one


    Pogiforce wrote:
    LotsOfLore wrote:

    Hi, I have a follow-up question:

    Doesn't the hacker trick attack flavour suggest, in practice, that the operative is performing a hack at a distance? As in, making a nearby display flash and using it as a distraction, for example.

    Doesn't that create a problem with how hacking works? I thought that ONLY a 5th level Mechanic can perform a hack at a distance... I am asking because this question comes up with every new level player with 1 rank in Computers: "Can I hack the surveillance camera from across the room"?

    I usually say, there's no wifi... but then how can they use the computers skill to justify trick attacking somebody across the room...

    ... What would be the answer?
    Thank you

    The distracting hack feat presents that same issue. Though it serves a similar purpose. So it could be said that hacking in this way is doing little more than causing displays and indicators to misbehave, but doesn't do enough to be a meaningful hack. The way I see it, the idea that you're hacking to cause a distraction is just flavor. The mechanical rules behind it is all that really matters, and the operative could just as easily say he's hacking his HUD/scope/whatever to highlight a spot on the enemy where you could attack that would catch him off guard. Or, if you lack tech equipment but your enemy has something, maybe causing a short in the armor's subroutines creating a temporary opening.

    Basically, it's whatever you want it to be, and as long as the mechanical specifications are met, I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you get a player who tries to weasel that ability into getting to hack in ways they shouldn't be able to, tell them it's a trick attack combat subroutine in their hacking kit that let's them create immediate tactical combat advantages, but that to write and insert hostile code via Bluetooth signal it can't be long lasting.

    Or, a simpler answer, "because I said so."

    Got it, thank you. I like the example about highlighting a spot on the enemy to cath them off-guard, that's very clever.

    And if all else fails there's the ever green "bcs I said so", indeed xD


    Claxon wrote:


    Outside of very specific critical effects your current design is weak, but for certain ones is exceptionally overpowered. So what is needed is to design it in a way that it is (mostly) level for all effects.

    Have you at all considered that you might simply be overestimating the effectiveness of some and underestimating others?

    I think it's ok, overall. But I will let you know after testing.

    Claxon wrote:
    I think your current version has the serious problem of encouraging an operative to pick up quad weapons with the Stunned critical hit effect and to simply make 4 attacks each round hoping to crit fish. Because causing the stunned condition with no save is going to be better than double damage. It's a super strong effect because it flat out denies the enemy the ability to do anything.

    You have already brought this up. I have already replied that, in my opinion, there is no problem with "encouraging" anything. This isn't an MMO with an extremely tight balancing math and scripted events.

    It's way more fun to let that operative take advantage of that if they want! Let them stun, they paid good credits for it! If I as GM think that it might ruin an important boss fight, I will simply give the boss immunity to stun. I generally believe in dealing with outlier situations on a case by case, from the GM side, and let the players have fun otherwise.

    Claxon wrote:

    The way it should work in my opinion is:

    Nat 20 functions like normal
    17 - 19 don't get double damage, but can have crit effects. These all get saves (even if the normally wouldn't have one for that crit effect) and have increasing penalty to the save DC.

    This does not work, in my opinion. It would take away a significant drawback at low levels. At higher levels, the penalties to DC feel punitive, and in general adding saves where they shouldn't be seems even more punitive. I don't think that would be fun. You would end up with a situation where you spent money and time to make a weapon that stuns or bleeds, only to find out that your enemies will be very likely to resist the effect.

    Whereas in my version, you make a choice at the start to forefit something, so you are aware/more in control of what you are trading off.


    Ascalaphus wrote:


    Actually, damage over time doesn't inhibit spellcasting. The CRB states (p. 331): Normally, you can concentrate even in a distracting situation, but if you’re casting a spell and you take damage from either a successful attack that targeted your AC or from an effect that you failed a saving throw against, the spell fails. Ongoing damage is not an attack that targets your AC, and the saving throw against them doesn't happen until the end of your turn.

    That's correct, apologies.


    Hi, I have a follow-up question:

    Doesn't the hacker trick attack flavour suggest, in practice, that the operative is performing a hack at a distance? As in, making a nearby display flash and using it as a distraction, for example.

    Doesn't that create a problem with how hacking works? I thought that ONLY a 5th level Mechanic can perform a hack at a distance... I am asking because this question comes up with every new level player with 1 rank in Computers: "Can I hack the surveillance camera from across the room"?

    I usually say, there's no wifi... but then how can they use the computers skill to justify trick attacking somebody across the room...

    ... What would be the answer?
    Thank you


    Ascalaphus wrote:

    Putting this separate for emphasis.

    I think the change should be:
    * Nobody does double damage on crits anymore
    * Everyone can crit on a 17+ (assuming it hits AC)
    * NPCs without a crit effect have as fallback crit effect +2 damage per CR, so that NPC crits always do something

    This weakens crits, for everyone. 1d6 burn over a couple of rounds is not as strong as another 10 damage right now. And so on at higher levels: the damage from attacks generally goes up faster than the effects of crits. So it's an overall nerf on everyone.

    However, it makes weapons with crit effects relatively more attractive than weapons without them. And for weapons without crit effects, it makes the crit fusions more relevant that they were before.

    Interesting idea, however as I said before in other posts, I am not interested in discussing changes to the core rules of the game, here. This post is to discuss the new fusions that I would like to add to the game.

    You seem to think they are too weak. Noted, thanks.


    Ascalaphus wrote:


    The rules for adding multiple fusions to weapons say that the sum of fusions on a level cannot exceed the item's level. So a level 3 weapon can hold at most a level 2 and a level 1, or three level 1 fusions. So that's the opportunity cost: levels spent on a crit-extending fusion can't be spend on other fusions.

    Yep, we both understand how the rules work. That's how fusions are balanced in the game. There are more useful fusions and less useful fusions, it's up to you to decide if the opportunity cost is worth the price. In the case of my fusions, I think it is. Although, If I see that it's too much, I can just lower the levels.

    Ascalaphus wrote:


    What would be really powerful is extending the range at which you get double crit damage.

    Yes, that's why I'm not doing that.

    Ascalaphus wrote:


    What is rather weak though, is paying credits and fusion opportunity to raise the chance of extra crit effects (which are usually in the 1d6 damage range) by 5-15% at the cost of the much larger damage bonus of a regular crit.

    Again, no. I don't think it's weak. I could consider lowering the level of the fusions even more, but not before I test them the way they are.

    Ascalaphus wrote:


    If I deal someone 30 damage with a hit, and I can can either do double damage and 1d6 burn 5% of the time, or 1d6 damage 20% of the time, the former is much stronger. Doing an extra 30 damage at once might just kill the enemy, which is better than waiting for a slow sizzle.

    Now if we're talking about a "stun-stick" weapon: I don't think I'd use a weapon just because it does something useful on a 17+. I'd rather pick a weapon that does something useful every time I hit, or that does lots of damage.

    I disagree. I can think of many situations where it would be fun and effective to bring an "effect stick" along, moreover you might be underestimating how useful it can be to deal DoT against a caster in this game where you can't roll concentration to keep a spell. But if you don't see these as useful, then just don't use them. They are there, just another option.

    Also, you are calling crits "double damage", but they are not that. You roll damage an extra time; not the same thing. You wouldn't necessarily deal 60 damage in your example.


    Ascalaphus wrote:
    Would you really pay (in credits to buy the fusion, and in opportunity cost because you can't apply other fusions) to gain more crit effects but give up the double damage on a "classic" crit?

    What? Of course you can put other fusions on that weapon (as per normal rules). You can only have 1 OF THOSE THREE specifically, but you can have any other fusion on as you want.

    So no, I don't think they are too weak at all. Also... ppl make up your mind, they can't be too powerful and too weak at the same time, lol.
    That decent drawback is necessary to avoid making them "must haves".

    Ascalaphus wrote:

    I wouldn't use this, except for really hardcore crit effects. Getting 1d6 Burn on a 19-20 isn't as good as doing double regular damage on a 20.

    Exactly, of course you wouldn't use it for damage, that's not the point. And fusions in this game are not designed to be stuff that makes your weapon a lot more powerful, they mostly have a situational/utility flavour. These ones are for you to make a reliable "stun stick", or a "knockback blast whatever", or a whip that more reliably bleeds making it impossible for mystics to cast spells. Specifcally built weapons, not your everyday damage dealer, but your OTHER weapon. You don't need damage there, you need a higher chance of your effect happening. Exactly what the fusion does.

    :)


    Claxon wrote:


    There isn't a trade off in damage like you seem to think, since generally speaking that aren't any weapon fusions that add flat-damage. And you're not taking away double damage on a natural 20. You're just not allowing double damage on the expanded range, it just expands when critical effects happen.

    Nope. I AM taking away normal crit damage, even on a 20. There's no exception in this version, read carefully.

    The only damage that remains is the normal hit (not critical) + any crit effect damage (e.g. 1d4 corrosion, and similar stuff).

    These fusions let you create a sort of "effect stick", a weapon that you bring around not to do damage, but to inflict fun and useful debuffs to enemies in a more reliable way. These become trapping, versatile weapons made with purpose.

    To be honest, all considered, I think it's a fair trade-off.


    Xenocrat wrote:

    Yeah, the stunned critical with no save is a big problem with changing crit frequency, no actions for one round is bad, flatfooted is annoying, but also dropping your weapons (which can usually be scooped up during your no action turn) is a death sentence for many enemies.

    Methods to get stunned criticals:

    1. Mark 4+ bone blade necrograft.
    2. Junksword 4+
    3. Bane fusion (fixed to specific subtype)
    4. Svartalfar racial bane trait, which can be customized daily

    So this is mainly a problem for high level Technomancers (who can't add fusions to their weapon), high level Operatives/Soldiers with bone blades (who arguably can), level 13 Arcane Assailant Soldiers granting themselves Bane, Svartalfars who fight a lot of similar creatures in 1 hour blocks per day, and low to mid level people who receive a Polymorph 2+ spell that grants them the Svartalfar bane trait.

    The last is the easiest, and note that a Mass Polymorph 5 can grant Bane to a party of four. If you're all full attacking after you receive and activate the buff that's 8-10 chances per round (assuming some 3 full attack classes) to roll a 20, or a 32.6-40.1% chance per round to stun a single boss you're focusing.

    These examples are very well thought out, calculated and situation-specific. So I don't think they represent a problem for the average player in more generic situations and with less min-maxed characters.

    Also, the boss can have immunity to stun.


    Claxon wrote:

    The two things I would add are:

    1) If the critical effect does not normally have a save (such as the Stunned critical effect) it gains one that negates the effect on non-natural 20 rolls.
    2) Perhaps a penalty to save DCs should be applied on rolls of 17 or 18.

    Because your version is still really strong, becoming virtual must haves for almost anyone.

    A weapon with the Stunned critical effect becomes a no save debuff with your current version of your rules. With a quad attack or even 3 attacks in a round, you have a relatively significant chance of stunning an enemy every round once you reach a 17-20 range.

    I'll take it into consideration if I see that it's too powerful, thanks.

    However, for now I still think the 17-20 stun example is strong, but adequate for a high level character that spent quite a bit of money on the weapon, and is constantly forefeitting a lot of damage. In general, I prefer giving the enemy (probably only if it's a boss) immunity to stun, and letting the players have fun in the other situations.

    Also, at least for now I don't think the low level ones are a must have, because of the trade-off with damage. The last one, maybe... but I want to see it in action first. :)


    Claxon wrote:


    I think the answer there is don't extend the crit range that far, or as I proposed before (or mayeb that post got eaten by the forum monster) that you could:
    Expand the critical effect range to 19, no penalties.
    Expand the critical effect range to 18, but on rolls of 18 the DC of the effect takes a -2 penalty.
    Expand the critical effect range to 17, but on rolls of 17 the DC of the effect takes a -4 penalty.

    The penalty value might need tweaking, but I think you probably balance the expanded threat range for critical effects by having a penalty on the effect. In the case of the staggered critical effect, this would completely negate it.

    That's not a bad solution, however I wouldn't want to be punitive with the DCs of the effects, given that they are not very hard to surpass by enemies, already. My final solution is quite different from previous iterations, I published it in a new post on the Homebrew section called "final version" or something.

    Thanks everyone for the feedback :)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Thanks to everyone for their feedback in previous posts. This is the definitive version I came up with. It's an attempt to make crit effect fusions (specifically) more palatable to players, especially at low levels, (and fun for monsters and NPCs to have) by extending crit range. The drawback is that you forfeit crit damage, which also helps avoiding them becoming "must have" fusions.

    HAZARDOUS (lvl. 2)
    DANGEROUS (lvl. 5)
    DIRE (lvl. 8)

    HAZARDOUS:
    a weapon with this fusion has it's critical hit range increases by 1 number. This means that with this weapon you can score a critical hit (as per the normal rules on page 245 of the Core Rulebook) on a natural 19 or a 20, with the exception that the attack does not benefit from the extra damage normally rolled as a result of a critical hit. You apply damage normally, as if it were a simple hit. Damage related to critical hit effects such as "burning" or , however, still applies. You can only have one crit range enhancing fusions such as this one installed on a weapon at any given time.

    DANGEROUS:
    a weapon with this fusion has it's critical hit range increases by 2 number. This means that with this weapon you can score a critical hit (as per the normal rules on page 245 of the Core Rulebook) on an natural 18, 19 or a 20, with the exception that the attack does not benefit from the extra damage normally rolled as a result of a critical hit. You apply damage normally, as if it were a simple hit. Damage related to critical hit effects such as "burning" or , however, still applies. You can only have one crit range enhancing fusions such as this one installed on a weapon at any given time.

    DIRE:
    a weapon with this fusion has it's critical hit range increases by 3 numbers. This means that with this weapon you can score a critical hit (as per the normal rules on page 245 of the Core Rulebook) on a natural 17, 18, 19 or a 20, with the exception that the attack does not benefit from the extra damage normally rolled as a result of a critical hit. You apply damage normally, as if it were a simple hit. Damage related to critical hit effects such as "burning" or , however, still applies. You can only have one crit range enhancing fusions such as this one installed on a weapon at any given time.

    I will add them to my homebrew and let you know if they're good and fun, or if they make the game explode!


    HammerJack wrote:


    Someone quad attacking with a Stun critical and a 17-20 crit range is where I would worry about those fusions having a serious chance of negating what should be a threatening enemy.

    Personally, I can see that that particular situation is powerful and I am ok with that. As a player you spent quite a bit of money on that weapon overall, and you are a high level operative. It's fine if you can stun something frequently! Furthermore, I am sure a number of enemies are immune to stun, and if your boss isn't one of them and you don't want your players neutralising it that way, NOTHING prevents you as a GM to give it that immunity, in whatever way you want.

    Problem solved.


    Ascalaphus wrote:

    Removing 2x damage from crits, but widening the range at which extra effects pop up, would definitely change the game.

    I don't think you need to do anything for players - if they have a weapon with a crit effect they're good, if not that's exactly the incentive to buy crit fusions that was missing.

    I think you need a fallback option for monsters that would be left with nothing. The thrill of "oh crap the boss just rolled a 20" needs to be there. It's good that you can't quite count out "he did this much damage with a normal hit, so I can survive for X more hits" or "I can provoke from him, he can't drop me in one hit". The risk of the occasional damage spike throwing your calculations into chaos should be there, otherwise combat becomes too plannable.

    So for monsters without a crit effect on their weapon, maybe add their CR again to the damage? Not as much as a full crit, but then again they're critting more often.

    Having much more common crit effects would definitely change the tone of combat a it - more people running around on fire. I would like to see that in action

    Cool. How about: extended range 19-20, and then 18-20 at the highest, no confirmation roll, but:

    >> if you hit nat. 20, you can deal your normal crit with everything legal (no change)
    >> if you hit nat. 19 or 18, instead you can apply the crit effect/s, but you DON'T get the extra damage.

    How about something like that? :)


    Ok, thanks for the feedback.

    So far I can see we don't seem to agree on much, basically.

    There's a camp that says "don't extend range of crit effects", and 1 that says: "do extend effect range, but don't extend damage range".
    However, almost everyone agrees that crit effects are underwhelming, and that crits are rare.
    Also, since Xenocrat's math is correct, apologies for that (I was trying to say that it might be oversimplifying by not accounting for any other factor occurring during combat), it also appears that extending to 19-20 would do very little. So how could it be a massive boost?
    ...

    Now, out of curiosity, I would like to understand what is so enormous about crit damage in this game (compared say to Pathfinder 1) that if it happened more often here it would completely break the game. Keeping in mind that the increase rate would be more or less symmetrical across PCs and opponents...


    Ascalaphus wrote:
    Potent's main use would seem to be raising the DCs of saves that would happen on every successful hit, not just crits; like weapons with the Ignite or Deconstruct properties.

    Right, there's also that! And as I said, simply adding a +2 and maybe +3 version at progressively higher levels might be enough.


    Ascalaphus wrote:

    I kinda like that we're not rolling confirmation rolls on crits anymore. But I agree we don't see enough of fancy crit effects.

    My preferred solution would not be using more fusions, because they eat up money and room for other fusions on your weapon.

    Thanks for the feedback. Personally I am not a fan of confirmation rolls either, but that was 1 easy way of balancing the fusions without making them too powerful. I also don't feel like changing how crits work in the entire game, as it would be to difficult for me to understand the broad repercussions.


    Xenocrat wrote:
    LotsOfLore wrote:
    Xenocrat wrote:
    The Potent fusion is very bad as a solution to crit effects - it has a 1/400 chance per shot of doing anything (1/20 for a crit, 1/20 that the save result is determined by that DC booster)
    I'm not sure that math makes sense, but regardless, it may not be powerful enough, but it's not "a very bad solution". It's actually a pretty ok one.
    No one who understand probability, which by your own admission doesn't appear to include you, would think it worth the cost of a fusion to have one out of 1/400 of their shots trigger a crit effect they wouldn't have otherwise had. It's an absolutely absurd allocation of resources compared to all the better things you could do with that money.

    You are mixing together the crit roll and a bonus to a DC, I think your 1/400 is a pretty big oversimplification of what actually happens.

    1 to 50 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>