Old-Mage Jatembe

LotsOfLore's page

Organized Play Member. 97 posts. 7 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

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.


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. 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.


Claxon wrote:

I'm going to have to so no in general.

I do agree that currently critical hit effects are in a bad spot since:
1) They can be resisted
2) Enemies that are critically hit usually die too quickly for the effect to matter
3) And last because they only happen on a 20 they're too rare to be worth building.

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 I had to guess reasons why there's no extended range: 1) they eliminated confirmation rolls, 2) PCs deal more crit damage, and more damage in general, with respect to Pathfinder1?

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.
So I want to add some fusions that could help bring back a little of that crit range that I miss and also make crit effects (especially fusion based) more palatable to players:

THREATENING (lvl. 2)
DANGEROUS (lvl. 5)
DEADLY (lvl. 8)

THREATENING:
the critical range of this weapon is increased to 19-20. This means that you can score a critical hit on a natural 19 or 20 with this weapon (as per normal rules, pag. 245 of the Core Rulebook). However, you need to confirm the critical hit in order to gain any critical effect and damage that the weapon might have. To confirm, you must roll the attack again, with the same bonuses, against the target's EAC. If you fail the confirmation roll, you treat the attack as a normal hit. This fusion is not compatible with weapons that naturally deal non-lethal damage, and you cannot benefit from the enhanced range if your attack is dealing non-lethal damage.
You can only have 1 critical range enhancement fusion installed in a weapon at any given time.

DANGEROUS:
the critical range of this weapon is increased to 19-20. This means that you can score a critical hit on a natural 19 or 20 with this weapon (as per normal rules, pag. 245 of the Core Rulebook). However, you need to confirm the critical hit in order to gain any critical effect and damage that the weapon might have. To confirm, you must roll the attack again, but with a +2 bonus on top of any other bonuses the original roll had, against the target's EAC. If you fail the confirmation roll, you treat the attack as a normal hit. This fusion is not compatible with weapons that naturally deal non-lethal damage, and you cannot benefit from the enhanced range if your attack is dealing non-lethal damage.
You can only have 1 critical range enhancement fusion installed in a weapon at any given time.

DEADLY:
the critical range of this weapon is increased to 19-20. This means that you can score a critical hit on a natural 19 or 20 with this weapon (as per normal rules, pag. 245 of the Core Rulebook). However, you need to confirm the critical hit in order to gain any critical effect and damage that the weapon might have. To confirm, you must roll the attack again, but with a +4 bonus on top of any other bonuses the original roll had, against the target's EAC. If you fail the confirmation roll, you treat the attack as a normal hit. This fusion is not compatible with weapons that naturally deal non-lethal damage, and you cannot benefit from the enhanced range if your attack is dealing non-lethal damage.
You can only have 1 critical range enhancement fusion installed in a weapon at any given time.

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.


Garretmander wrote:

Crit fusions are currently something you never buy, they're just simple effects added to found guns.

There are more than crit fusions.

Holy/axiomatic/etc. - bypass DR and ER of aligned dragons, outsiders and undead.

Corrosive/Frost/Flaming - splitting damage types can hurt you vs. some monsters, but it can really help vs. others, a swift action to turn it on/off isn't too bad either.

Called and returning - must haves for expensive thrown weapons.

Seeking - negate concealment miss chance.

Spellthrower - lets non-spellcasters use spell gems as a full action.

Even more in the armory. Once per day launch a grenade without using the grenade loaded into the weapon, sicken a demoralized foe, and many more.

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 .


Wingblaze wrote:

This really sounds more appropriate for the Homebrew forum.

My overall impression is that if it makes you happy, that's great. Personally, when I noticed the lack of critical-enhancement abilities, I concluded it was likely a deliberate choice of the designers. So personally I'd be hesitant to tinker with it. The risk is that this becomes practically mandatory, and encounter balance has to change across the board to compensate.

Whether that's a real risk is up to you. I think the item levels might be somewhat low regardless.

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?


Garretmander wrote:

The increased crit range is weird if it can't apply crit effects from other fusions, but can from the weapon. A stun weapon and a weapon with a stun fusion are both weapons with the stun crit effect property after all. This bit just seems like additional unnecessary bookkeeping.

Critical hits already do a lot of damage. The question you need to ask yourself is: Is this an item every character that uses weapons will buy because it's better than other options? I think the answer is yes here. Some utility fusions may compete, but no crit fusions would be used compared to this one, especially as this fusion renders them useless.

An effect that is more in line with starfinder's current design is one that increase the range that a weapon's critical effect is applied rather than just increasing the range at which double damage happens.

Also, this thread should probably have been in the homebrew forum.

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.
Thanks


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)
SEVERE (lvl. 4)
DANGEROUS (lvl. 7)
DEADLY (lvl. 9)

THREATENING:
the critical range of this weapon is increased to 19-20. This means that you can score a critical hit (as per normal rules, pag.xx) on a natural 19 or 20 with this weapon. However, the amount of extra damage rolled as a result of the critical hit, is halved. Divide the total damage of the extra roll by 2, rounding down as usual, with a minimum of 1. This fusion is not compatible with weapons that naturally deal non-lethal damage, and you cannot benefit from the enhanced range if your attack is dealing non lethal damage. Furthermore, critical range enhancing fusions such as this one do not allow you to use the expanded range with any other critical effect the weapon might have as a result of other fusions. It does, however, work for natural critical properties of the weapon, such as "burning", or those granted by attachments. On a natural 20, you can decide to apply the critical effects of other fusions, instead of this. You can only ever have 1 critical range enhancement fusion installed in a weapon at a given time.

SEVERE:
the critical range of this weapon is increased to 19-20. This means that you can score a critical hit (as per normal rules, pag.xx) on a natural 19 or 20 with this weapon. This fusion is not compatible with weapons that naturally deal non-lethal damage, and you cannot benefit from the enhanced range if your attack is dealing non lethal damage. Furthermore, critical range enhancing fusions such as this one do not allow you to use the expanded range with any other critical effect the weapon might have as a result of other fusions. It does, however, work for natural critical properties of the weapon, such as "burning", or those granted by attachments. On a natural 20, you can decide to apply the critical effects of other fusions, instead of this. You can only ever have 1 critical range enhancement fusion installed in a weapon at a given time.

DANGEROUS:
the critical range of this weapon is increased to 19-20. This means that you can score a critical hit (as per normal rules, pag.xx) on a natural 19 or 20 with this weapon. However, the amount of extra damage rolled as a result of the critical hit, is multiplied by a half. Take the total damage of the extra roll and multiply it by 1.5, rounding down as usual. This fusion is not compatible with weapons that naturally deal non-lethal damage, and you cannot benefit from the enhanced range if your attack is dealing non lethal damage. Furthermore, critical range enhancing fusions such as this one do not allow you to use the expanded range with any other critical effect the weapon might have as a result of other fusions. It does, however, work for natural critical properties of the weapon, such as "burning", or those granted by attachments. On a natural 20, you can decide to apply the critical effects of other fusions, instead of this.
You can only ever have 1 critical range enhancement fusion installed in a weapon at a given time.

DEADLY:
Each time you attack with this weapon you can choose to enhance the critical range of this weapon to 18-20, or to 19-20. In the first case this means that you could score a critical hit (as per normal rules, pag.xx) on a natural 18, 19 or 20, rolling extra damage as normal. Instead, in the other case you could score a critical hit on a natural 19 or 20, but this time rolling the extra critical damage twice. This fusion is not compatible with weapons that naturally deal non-lethal damage, and you cannot benefit from the enhanced range if your attack is dealing non lethal damage. Furthermore, critical range enhancing fusions such as this one do not allow you to use the expanded range with any other critical effect the weapon might have as a result of other fusions. It does, however, work for natural critical properties of the weapon, such as "burning", or those granted by attachments. On a natural 20, you can decide to apply the critical effects of other fusions, instead of this. You can only ever have 1 critical range enhancement fusion installed in a weapon at a given time.

What do you ppl think? Please read carefully before commenting.
Thank you!


I love it ! :D


I am so happy to see really good presentation and advertisement for Starfinder and Paizo products! Well done, spread the love :D


Sam Phelan wrote:

Hello,

We have supported Devir with a process that should allow Devir to make their translations available in PDF form on Paizo.com. To the best of our knowledge this process is now in working order.

I'm sorry about the inconvenience of these not being available. We do not have an estimated time for when or if this process will be completed.

Got it, thank you very much for the reply!


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.


1 person 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!

:3


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.


Diego Valdez wrote:

Hola Damicus,

DeVir has not translated Starfinder yet. I spoke to our licensing team and they told me that DeVir is working on the translation, but we don't have an estimated date for when it will be available yet.

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? <<

Thank you!


Lias kb22c wrote:

Hi All

I have a question regarding range of trick attack, does it have any range ?
Example if you have a sniper that shoot at a distance of 360 ft (sniper weapon 2 increment distance), it seems far to do a trick attack as the target may not even see him ?

Second (really not sure about this one), does the trickk attack damage also double when you make a critical or it only adds to the critical damage at the end ?

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:
"If you have debilitating sniper, or any other special ability that specifically allows you to use trick attack with a sniper weapon, using trick attack with a sniper rifle counts as taking a move action to aim the weapon to use the range increment listed in the sniper weapon special ability. You can do this even with unwieldy sniper weapons."


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.


Xenocrat wrote:

3. Feats

...

Improved Demoralize - You can demoralize with Intimidate as a move action. No prerequisites! Good for all those Mystics who have connection bonuses to Intimidate.
...

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.

Thank you!!


Rysky wrote:
I do not believe that is the final cover atm.

I certainly hope so. Not to be obnoxious, but the current image is a bit underwhelming. (this goes for both)


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?
Thank you


Marco Massoudi wrote:
Lord Kakabel wrote:
Will rules for starship combat be included in the box?

A good question, but judging from the description i would lean towards a no.

It would be too complex to include and starship combat is only a minor (yet exciting) part of the game, which doesn't offer as much for the Mystic, Solarian & Technomancer as for the other classes.

There aren't even all seven base classes included.

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.


I like the new Pathfinder logo!
It's less elaborate, but clearer, more legible. I like the sandy texture, the colour combination better and I like the subtle shine towards the middle, I think it conveys the idea of being a guiding light ("path finder").
Well done!


Damanta wrote:

Grenades have the explode special quality. This means they need to be aimed at a grid intersection.

Telekinetic Projectile targets a creature, which is not a grid intersection.

Grenades cannot be used in the way you want, unless your GM houserules it okay.

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


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.

Thoughts?

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!


Jimbles the Mediocre wrote:
Battledwarf wrote:
This seems ridiculous, so am I missing something?
Nope! Starfinder does not use size modifiers for combat maneuvers (or armor class, or skill checks, or many other things). It does seem a bit strange if you're coming from a Pathfinder background, but it's just one of the many rules changes between systems.

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 think it's a huge stretch to try and justify a no size limit to this. I think far more likely they simply missed this one error.

I am suggesting this be added to the errata, please.
Thank you


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!


Very interesting discussion.
I would say, provided you are not taking 20, "recall knowledge" should not be an action. This is because I think of it as a mental reaction of sorts that should really be semi-instantaneous. For example, identifying a spell being cast is not an action as per the rules explicitly (page 143), and that is the same thought process: you see something happening, it rings a bell if you know it already.

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.
So, I would make it at least a swift action.
This makes it so that it takes a second or two because you are giving it your full attention, even for just a moment, and at the same time limits the task to once per turn, which makes sense to me!
Or, it could be a move action if you interpret it in the same way that you do "sense motive" as an active task (page 146, combat banter, or move action), or "perception" as an effort to see or become aware of something like finding an invisible creature that you know is there, which is a move action (page 144).

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.

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>