Old-Mage Jatembe

LotsOfLore's page

Organized Play Member. 127 posts. 9 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disgustingly beautiful. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.


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.

>> 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.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

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

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)

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.

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)

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.

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.

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!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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/-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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 think my modification does not make them overpowered, considering you still have to make a ranged attack (a very easy one, but fumbles do happen, and cover is a thing thankfully) AND the DCs are redunkulously easy to pass, even considering that there are many ways to buff up reflex saves.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

I don’t really play Starfinder, so at the moment I have no interest in Starship rules, let alone the tech (I skipped over Armory).

But more monsters and creatures from all over the universe? Yes please :3

You should play Starfinder then, It's a terrific game!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

I can understand the desire for more, but disagree that it's too soon for another Alien Archive. (And they said at the Starfinder launch that the plan was always for an Alien Archive every year until further notice.)

While you can convert Pathfinder monsters to Starfinder, many of them are tied to Golarion and require a bit of mental gymanstics to justify putting them on an alien planet with a different evolutionary history and, one hopes, only limited cross pollination from other planets. With exploration of the unknown being such a big campaign space for Starfinder, and with such a wide variety of ecosystems being available given armor environmental abilities, Alien Archives fill a real need.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anxa wrote:

I saw an old thread about this, but it didn't really conclude on one side or the other... Most of it talked about impact-triggered grenades.

Here's my thought. A harness with standard pin-pull/throw grenades on it, each pin is tied to the harness with high-tensile thread/string. Telekinetic Projectile (TKP) is the used to "throw" the grenade. String pulls the pin. Grenade sails to target, hits dealing B damage per spell, then explosive shenanigans ensue. A relatively simple low-level grenade launcher. Slightly cost prohibitive, but gives a caster some flexibility and a few high damage rounds of combat if needed.


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.
But in your home game? Go ahead!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

What % of this book is actually information on the planes?

An expansive bestiary, is that at least 20 pages?

I'm deep in the book's development, but I can answer these.

Each major plane gets a six page section to themselves. That, combined with an additional dozen pages devoted to demiplanes, sets up about 130 pages of the book's 256 pages to be specifically focused on the planes. And there's more info scattered here and there on the other pages. SO... what percentage is "actually information on the planes"? I'd say over half. Maybe as much as 60%.

The bestiary section is looking like it's gonna be about 30 pages long, and it's got stuff from all over the planes. Outsiders are certainly represented, but there's other things as well.

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!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would buy such a game faster than you can say: "MINE!!!!"
100% want it. I am a big fan of the isometric style and I think this could come out better than Kingmaker (which isn't bad at all!) because the ruleset for Starfinder is lighter and better, which would make for a less convoluted and more approachable game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you and to the players for your hard work!
I am sorry I could do very little during this playtest, and I also apologise for having done a superficial job (imagine I initially even ignored resonance because I forgot it was there, so I'm happy you are taking it out xD).
From what I've seen, it looks like the system needs those big changes you have already mentioned, but not much more than that! If you keep the process more or less transparent and keep people in the forums in the loop, I'm sure you will be able to put it together in a way that would satisfy the majority of us players!
I have friends who don't play Pathfinder anymore (have moved to D&D 5e) which I would love to propose the game to (they don't have the patience to playtest, unfortunately).
I believe you will be able to put together an rpg that is easy to learn AND master, without compromising too much of the depth that people expect from a Paizo game.
Keep up the good work, and may Desna smile on us all!

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wanna say, I was waiting for a game like this for sooooooooooooo much time.
Thank you Paizo for making it, me and my friends are having a super-massive blast!

Sorry just that, had to say it out loud xD

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nullpunkt wrote:

Just watched the demonstration video and I had stop by and say that it sounds amazing! I especially like the little news snippets. Way to crank up the atmosphere!

Unfortunately, I GM exclusively on roll20 these days, but if I ever get to run in an in-person campaign again, I will definitely give this a try!

Same here, it sounds AMAZING! Good work there!

If you manage to integrate it in Roll20 somehow I will defintely buy it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Voss wrote:

Hmm. I don't really agree with the premise at all. In their playtest form, I'd happily fold all the other martial classes into sub-classes (or feat-chains) or archetypes for fighters.

They bring nothing to the table beyond a meaningless coat of paint, and separate out fairly generic things (crossbows, shielding allies, punching, being able to use small damage die weapons in a functional way) and try (and fail) to build an entire class around them.

In my view, fighter is one of the few playtest classes in good shape.

You could boil it all down to 4 classes I guess; Fighting Guy, Skill Guy, Holy Guy and Magic Guy. Then use Archetypes for all the fine details.

which might not be a bad idea. You could then break all the class feats down into Combat, Skill, Holy and Arcane. With Ancestry and General feats as side options.

Paladin Archetype for the Holy guy gives you access to the Combat feats. Ranger Archetype for the Fighting Guy gives you access to skill feats, etc....

That wasn't really where I was aiming. The problem is the playtest ranger, paladin, monk and barbarian are far too specific and narrow concepts mostly focused on what you can do with tiny bonuses to one piece of kit (big weapons, crossbows, shields or none). There isn't a class there. Classes need to be broader ideas, like the fighter.

Alchemists have a similar problem, they can just be replaced by anyone with gold and access to an alchemy shop.

Rogues actually have a different problem (that I glossed over by lumping them in with the above)- they're buried in a deluge garbage in the form of skill increases and (especially) skill feats. Too many non-interesting things to keep track off.

I disagree. All of the other classes you mentioned actually DO have strong flavours to them and a solid idea behind their objectives, progression and sense of purpose.

Generally speaking, in every d20 rpg like this I have tried the fighter feels as generic as they get. Given the way in which it is usually implemented, I personally wouldn't even consider it a class. It's more akin to a "heavy armored soldier npc". That's why it has never really piqued my interst (as a PC choice).
I would give it clear themes to chose from when you build it (gladiator, mercenary, commander-strategist leader, etc.), maybe then I will be interested in playing one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think in particular for low level monks (who do not get armor unlike other people who are expected to hang out in punching range) they really need some sort of defensive reaction like everybody else has access to.

I mean, if Barbarians and Fighters both get Sudden Charge, why can't Monks and Rogues both get Nimble Dodge?

Yes to Nimble Dodge to monks, would make perfect sense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I do have to wonder why monk only has 3 skill ranks while the paladin gets 4 and the ranger gets 6. It seems extremely limiting to put a class that was at the 4+ skill point level in PF1 to only 3 skill ranks while elevating Paladin from 2 to 4 and leaving Ranger at 6 in PF2.

I can't imagine it's an issue of balance since the Ranger (another full martial class) was left at 6 just like in PF1.

But maybe I'm missing something here. Thoughts?

I agree, add this to the list of stuff I really don't like about this iteration of the monk. Unfortunately, as it has always been my favourite class.

In the "monk feedback" thread there are other suggestions and stuff that I don't agree with. The biggest being a lack of structure with respect to even the other classes here in P2e, as well as the absolute cringe of the idea of a flapping "crane attack", "tiger claws" ... embarrassing B-movie crap.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
DEX-to-damage is all you need for me to NEVER play PF2E again.

Preach it Wizz!

Dex is already too powerful and important, and every time I see people requesting Finesse adding Dex to Damage I get aggravated beyond reason. As it stands there is only 1 type of PC that would ever put their Dex at anything less than 16, and those are the Heaviest of Heavy Armor focused Characters, if we took Damage away from Str for Finesse weapons we would INSTANTLY see a drastic disappearance of Heavy Armor and Two Handed Weapon Characters in favor of a flood of Rapier wielding Paladins, Fighters, and Barbarians all with 18 Dex.

No and no. Paladins can't have it, Barbarians can't have it, Fighters can't have it etc.

It is an extraordinary feature of characters who are trained to fight in an exotic and unusual way. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for the monk to have it.
Right now the rogue has it... If the rogue has it, then the monk must have it. Or take it away for everyone. Or better still, leave it and find another way to make STR more relevant for the STR users, for instance make it so you have to use STR to resist the athletics uses instead of acrobatics, or add more ways to cirumvent DEX from AC (surprise attacks, flat footed which used to make you loose your DEX mod, feint, you name it).
Or what about give STR based fighters a "break defense" feature, which gives them the ability to ignore the DEX to the AC of your hated DEX lovers.
They ways to make this work are countless.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi all, so far I am loving the new pathfinder edition. I'll start giving feedback here since this is the first thing I really didn't find as good as the rest of the game: the monk class.

1) It feels poorly fleshed out, just by reading through the class description you get a sense that there's just a bunch of class features in a list, without an organic structuring and you are supposed to pick some. A bit underwhelming.
>> Proposed solution: why not structure it like the druid with the "orders" feature, where you select a school of monastic tradition and bundle up many of the gazilion choices (e.g. stances, ki powers) clearly INSIDE those categories.

2) The key ability choice doesn't seem to stand on its own two legs. The idea might have been good, but it's not structured into anything concrete inside the class mechanics. As a player, I can't clearly understand the flavour of what it means to choose one or the other, as it is not presented to me in a compelling way. Plus, I fear statistics-wise it makes the monk weak in combat (if you choose STR, you will lack too much in AC, if you pick DEX, you won't hit and you won't deal damage...)
>> Proposed solution: the unarmed attack could have the finesse trait built-in, and it should also be possible for the monk to obtain a "finesse striker" like feature, maybe as a class feat, in order to bring the DEX monks on par with damage. For STR monks you may let them add their STR mod to the AC, similarly to what we used to do with WIS in previous editions. It may also be necessary to have them start as experts in unarmed attacks (same as the fighter after all), instead of simply trained.

3) ki strike feels underwhelming to use, and ki powers in general lack a structuring. Also stances, especially their description, sound a bit silly... that's just personal preference of course, but I would have appreciated a much more serious approach rather than "you make yourself look like a crane so you bat your arms around". That level of 70's chinese martial arts B movie stuff doesn't hold up very much in 2018 I think. I haven't got a detailed argument for this point, sorry, they just don't click for me. Disregard this if you want.

Number 1 and 2 are the big bad things in my opinion. I hope this helps steering this class towards a good place!