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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes, that's why I'm not doing that.
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.
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.
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.
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.:)
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.
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.
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. :)
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 :)
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)
I will add them to my homebrew and let you know if they're good and fun, or if they make the game explode!
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.
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)
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".
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...
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.
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.
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.
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. Also, the fact that it is there means that at least augmenting crits DCs is meant to be allowed. And with an enhanced crit range it would make it better.
If it were up to me it would add a higher level version with a +2 and an even higher one with a +3.
Ok, well number 3) is precisely why I made the fusions. Despite you saying no to the proposal, you actually seem to agree with me that extended range is needed.For number 1) there already is a solution: the Potent fusion (Armory, page 64).
For 2): yes, that's because of 1).
Come over to continue the discussion on my heavily modified version posted in the homebrew forum, if you like.
In general I can see that quite clearly it was a design decision to not ever include extended range... one that I don't understand, and therefore want to change in my homebrews.
If those are the main reason, then my problem is that they have taken the fun out of being able to use those nice crit effect by making them never happen. I would much rather risk having the PC deal disproportioned damage sometimes and keeping the fun. Besides enemies could use those fusions as well, I would slap one such fusion on a monster's jaw if I had to, and let the dice roll.
Thanks to Garretmander and Windblaze for their feedback.
I am a bit underwhelmed by critical effects and weapon fusions with crit effects in this game, mainly because of the fact that they never happen (you need a 20, and even then, often there are saving throws attached), while the added cost is pretty high, especially for fusions.
THREATENING (lvl. 2)
Let me know what you think. I think the item levels are on par, if you consider that the highest level of fusion in any published manual is 10. Also, note that there's the added trade off that if you fail the conf. roll on a 20 you give up your crit effect that you would otherwise have had, such is the price of the extended range.
Yeah those non crit based are good. It the crit based that I don't find appealing, as well as the fact that weapons' crit effects very rarely occur because of the lack of extended ranges. Even more so in Starfider when PCs and NPCs don't have a gazillion attacks per round.Anyway, I'll give it another go and post it in the homebrew this time .
You might be right. All I can say is that my players, and new players I introduce to the game, always complain that the weapon situation leaves them quite underwhelmed. The feel that there are too few choices at low levels (even counting Armory), and those that are there feel quite weak. They generally don't bother with fusions because they don't see them as impacting, mainly because most of the times unless they get a 20 on their roll, their money is wasted...
Maybe you can help me see it differently?
Very interesting, yes I see your point. I will rethink it. Maybe it would be better leaving the damage alone, and letting the crit range affect every other fusion properties normally.I originally discarded this option because I thought it would be too strong.
I am generally underwhelmed by weapon fusions in this game, so I want to add a bunch that could help bring back a little of that crit range that I miss:
THREATENING (lvl. 2)
What do you ppl think? Please read carefully before commenting.
Sam Phelan wrote:
Got it, thank you very much for the reply!
Page 72, Alien Archive
The Kyokor creature has a trait under "other abilites" which is called "massive". This trait does not exist in the traits list or anywhere in the Alien Archive, or in the Core Rulebook.
What is that?
(by the way, I hope you can confirm that it was an attempt to give the creature some sort of DR, because as it is it doesn't have any kinetic DR. And that's absolutely ridiculous for what a Kyokor is supposed to be. My quick way of fixing it would be giving it the Enhanced Resistance feat, which will grant it an appropriate DR 35/-)
In all my games grenades cost HALF their price as written and have a +1 x grenade level bonus to its base damage (not touching effects).
Example: Frag Grenade II: 2d6+4 damage, cost 350 credits.
That's the only way to make them useful, and give them more of a feel for something dangerous. I want PGs and enemies to scream for cover when they see grenades flying, not laugh it off for not even making it through their DR.
I can agree about the general need for a lot of new aliens to fill the Starfinder world. But we already have:> 2 Alien Archives,
> Pact Worlds
> 36 I think Starfinder Scenarios
> 18 Adventure Paths (which I love and can't wait to play)
... all of these books are full of aliens !
While we still haven't got a book dedicated to starships and starship combat/exploration, magic and all the rest that I have already listed.
I am firmly convinced that AA3 is not a priority (for the customers) at this moment. Or at least it certainly isn't for me.
Diego Valdez wrote:
Hello,I was wondering how this got developed in the meantime. Devir has already finished many starfinder products and they are already on sale in Spain.
>> When can we purchase the pdf versions here on your website? <<
Lias kb22c wrote:
After having read all that I could find on forums, manual, and faq I am pretty sure that you can indeed make trick attacks at a distance with small arms, and the range limit is the same as with normal ranged attacks. You take the normal range increment penalties etc.
If you want to take advantage of the high range of sniper rifles you need to have "debilitating sniper" and then it works this way as per the faqs:
I'm sorry if this sounds obnoxious, but this is the first Starfinder book that I am NOT excited about.
I have 2 alien archives with a ton of playable races and aliens, I am sorry but I have NO NEED for an AA 3 now.
I really wish Paizo would push out almost anything else, instead of this. There's a galaxy of room for expanding: magic, technology, planets, corporations, weird space phenomena, starships, starship combats... like literally ANYTHING would be more useful than a AA 3.
Again, apologies, but I had to say it out loud.
This is AMAZING! I was just about to write a post asking why on earth this talent wasn't included in the Core Rule Book, as it makes perfect sense!
I am so happy to find out it formally exists, I am going to give it to a PC of mine even though I don't have Signal of Screams yet.
Steve Geddes wrote:
They might include some abridged rules for starship combat plus a couple of ships but not the rules for actually building ships. That'd save some page count.
That would be perfectly appropriate, I really hope they included at least this.
Can we have a reply from a dev please?
Marco Massoudi wrote:
Very excited for the Beginner Box.Although, I disagree with the idea that starship combat would be a "minor" part of the game. It is one of the most distinguishing features of this rpg, it's what makes it different from being "just Pathfinder in space" and I really wish they included this!
Furthermore, Mystics can make perfectly good captains (Bluff, Diplomacy), as well as Solarians (Intimidate, Diplomacy) and Technomancers are just as good at Piloting and Gunnery as anyone else, plus they are naturally perfect science officers. So saying that starship combat is inconsistent in what it offers to players is absolutely wrong.
Actually this is correct, Telekinetic Proj. only targets creatures. But you could use Psychokinetic hand instead to separate the grenade from the harness (which activates it) then drop it wherever you want, or use the spell action to propel it up to 15 ft.If I was the GM I would make you pay or use engineering with UPBs to adapt each grenade to the harness though.
It's still obviously not ok for anything outside your home game, but pretty cool xD
Love it. It would absolutely work. None of the counterpoints I have read would prevent this from working, and the grenade is not intended to be triggered by the damage, obviously, why would anyone think that?
The only problem is that it's a clear attempt to circumvent the RAW and especially the balance of grenades in game, making them more powerful than they are supposed to, so I would certainly not allow it for anything that isn't your home brew game.
Jimbles the Mediocre wrote:
I would wager they simply forgot to include: "Your target cannot be more than two sizes larger than you" in the description.
Pathfinder 2 has the same line in the description of grapple.
I don't think such a restriction causes ANY problem to the "cinematic" vs realistc feel of the game. No one in their right mind can say their combat would be ruined if their tiny character cannot stop (because that's what grapple does, it HOLDS A CREATURE IN PLACE) an Elicoth with their bare hands.
I am suggesting this be added to the errata, please.
James Jacobs wrote:
I was just about to write a post in the general discussion suggesting a book more or less like this!! I am glad I did one last search. Thank you so much. Buying it now!
Very interesting discussion.
But identifying a creature is different in my opinion. Here you are trying to understand what something is and does. The way it's presented on page 133 is not helpful at all, because again it uses the "recall a piece of info" language which is confusing at this point. Regardless, I think that task requires a little bit more concentration.
As a side note, I don't like the idea of non-actions. I think everything that is considered not an action, in combat, should actually be a swift action instead!
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I think that the material is good. However I do not feel it is adequate as a core monster book. Too small. Take the section on demons for example. I don’t think that we need a dozen to start with, but the alien archive only gives us one. I think that A few more would have been better. Ditto for angels, devils, dragons. Maybe it’s the grognard in me, but why are there space goblins and no space orcs? Were they exterminated on golarion?
Angels, devils, dragons, goblins and orcs are fantasy. This is a sci-fantasy game, sure, but priority should be given to new original stuff, alien stuff. So I don't particularly mind the lack of those things.I agree though that monster numbers-wise is a bit on the thin side, compared to the Bestiary.