Hi, looking at Table 1, page 17, it seems that house prices are a little off.
A wooden cottage costs 300 gp, but they rent it out at 20 gp per month. This means that a family living in that house and paying rent would be able to match the entire cost of the house in just 1 year and three months. That cannot be right. Either the house costs waaaaay to little, or the rent is waaaaay too high. In real life the price of a house is roughly equal to 15 years of rent, at least.
Am I missing something? Also, what does the "10 year period" in parenthesis mean? The price is for "buying it outright", as the text says, so I don't understand the 10 year thing. It would make sense if the prices in the table were annual payments over a 10 year period. This would mean that the cottage would actually cost 3000 gp.
Hi, I'm asking because I'm running a small naval battle and the ships have levels and HP / AC values dependant on it, and they scale in line with npcs/hazards, which means the damage they receive and deal should also scale with level in a similar way.
Before Guns and Gears I made custom giant crossbows to put on ships, however now that we have official ballistas I would like to use those, but their damage output doesn't seem to match the math that we are used to with normal wepaons/npcs, so I don't know how to scale them. Can I just slap striking runes on them, or does that skew it all off in your opinion?
These four fixes of mine make the game work a LOT better for me.
1) NPCs saving throw bonuses are way too high. I lower them across the board by default, before changing them if necessary: -1 to the highest saves and -2 to the lowest one. Also, I change the "Expert" array into having high Reflex saves, and low Will and Fort. This makes it so that PCs abilities, items, grenades and spells can actually go through once in a while, instead of frustrating them to the point of wanting to quit.
2) Combat maneuvers go against KAC + 4. With related adjustments: KAC + 10 to achive "pinned". The DC to Escape grapple is KAC + 8, and KAC + 10 against pinned. For monsters, the Grab capacity works with KAC + 2. This makes maneuvers actually fun and usable for normal characters, instead of being barely achievable only to the most specialized ones. Of course enemies also become more dangerous, and that's very good!
3) Grenades should should go boom, not poof. The ones that deal damage get a bonus to damage = to half their item level (just to base damage, not crit effects). Also, after the latest errata I don't have to apply the "half the price" fix anymore. Thanks for listeing, Paizo!
4) To self-stabilize you need 1/3 of your max RPs (instead of 1/4), minimum 1 and with no maximum cap. Then, when you do "Staying in the fight" you are then Staggered for 1 round. Also, every time you go down after the first, in one combat, you need 1 more RP in order to do "Staying in the fight".
Rule number 1 saved me and my friends from shelving the game due to frustration. Defeating the bad guys is not nearly as important as pulling off the cool abilities that you created your character for, regardless of whether you actually win the fight!
Data from Roll20's Orr report, Fantasy Grounds, sales from ICv2, amazon sales, views and engagement in general from shows, liveplays etc. all point to it. Even if those datasets have questionable statistical value and each fails to paint a full picture on it's own, taken altogether they seem to point to a decline in popularity.
And this pains me, as Starfinder is my favourite sci-fi rpg!
What do you think Paizo should do, if anything?
Personally, I said before that a Starfinder 2nd edition would be madness, but honestly I don't know for how long that can be stalled. Looking at the near future, I am changing my mind and I find myself yearning for a complete, radical, overhaul of the game on the level of what they did with PF2e (the absolute BEST fantasy rpg system currently out there, in my opinion, even if personal taste is often just as, if not more, important than objevtive quality in the rpg world).
Also, since PF2 is a modern rpg that is still built on solid "somewhat classical" d20 system foundations... How about a new completely different system for Starfinder 2? Maybe one based on a more narrative system. Something along the lines of the Year Zero engine, or Savage Worlds, or a PbtA, or some other, but developed by Paizo as a brand new Starfinder 2 system. Is that something that would even be conceivable or feasable (or advisable?).
Let me know what you think.
Hey there, I love Starfinder and I would LOVE to give my money to the wonderful people at Paizo in order to have proper standalone adventures to play!
I'm not talking about the free skittermander ones, which sure are great, I mean proper full-fledged standalone badass space ass-kicking adventures! Am I the only one that finds it annoying that these things have always existed for Pathfinder (and being published for Pathfinder 2), but for Starfinder, my favourite game, no joy?!
The "encumbered" and "overburdened" conditions can't be easily (or at all) applied to NPCs, so how do I apply the effects of this spell?
Can we please have a F.A.Q. on all of this? Thank you.
Yesterday we had a big cool fight against a vampire and I later realized that one of my players had a silver dagger that wasn't magical...
Could anyone clarify this for me please, does that mean except damage that is BOTH magical AND silver in nature, or does that mean EITHER magical OR silver would bypass?
I can't see any big downside to doing this! I want players to think that Maneuvers are actually doable with luck and equipment even if you are not the expert on them, given the right situation. I want to see more manuevers done form PCs and from the bad guys as well. I like the idea that if you are an expert (have the feat), and have the right tool, you should actually have a decent chance of pulling one off, even without help from external factors.
Anyone finds this game-breaking?
Writing here to please ask Paizo to publish a Starfinder GM guide (meaning a full badass hardcover rulebook, obviously). I would buy that in a heartbeat.
The need for such a rulebook shoud extremely evident. Starfinder has a vast, varied setting that is just the best fertile ground for subsystem expansion and complex scenario building.
A few examples:
Is there any chance that we can see a core book such as this one day (soon)?
Please and thank you!
I have realized that the paragraph on the rules for creating adequate crew modifiers for NPC starships (page 326 CRB) is incomplete. It doesn't tell you how to create the Gunnery modifier (as if that was a small detail). :/
So I think I figured out how they make it in their example stat blocks, and therefore what you should do to make your NPC gunners.
1) decide the level of the gunner, as if it was a PC, generally it should be close to the average party level
2) apply the Ability Score Modifier as it appears in the Array tables starting at page 129 of the Alien Archive. Choose the one that fits, for instance the high score if the gunner is supposed to be a good shooter, or pick a lower one if that's not usually their main occupation.
And it's done!
For example a Tier 2 starship with crew members who have 2 ranks in their skills shoud have level 2 gunners that could have a: +6 (most commonly); +4 (if they are not good at it); or +3 (if they are not gunners at all, maybe they are a replacement) modifier.
Does this make sense? Correct me if I'm wrong, please. This should largely reflect what you see in the existing stat blocks, and allow you to safely create your space baddies!
There's nothing about this in the FAQs, even thought Alien Archive 3 came out adding new rules for companions, while not addressing what happens to Squoxes and the fact that, at least to me, they seem to function by a completely different set of rules!
>> If my player wants a Squox companion, what stats am I supposed to use? The AA3 ones, the 1/3 CR AA2 ones, or the 1 CR AA2 one??
>> How does having the Squox Companion Feat work with the new AA3 rules? Does Creature Companion Adept replace Squox Companion? Does it integrate it? How do I let them use the Squox Tricks? What checks/actions does the player need to use to command the Squox to use Squox Tricks?
I am quite surprised that I couldn't see a single thread on this in the forum as well (or at least it didn't show up in my searches)
Thank you for your help!
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)
AUTOMATIC FIRE: the penalty for all the attacks is now -4 (same as it was before when we had the full attack). Everything else stays the same, only difference: you don't consume your entire magazine, the ammo used is still double the normal amount for each target, but nothing more. (sorry I had to add that, I hate how it currently is!)
UNWIELDY: these weapons can never be fired more than twice per turn. Everything else stays the same
BLAST: every attack with a blast weapon has an additional -2 to the attack roll (same as before). However, blast weapons can never be fired more than twice per turn. Everything else stays the same
MULTI-WEAPON FIGHTING: your multiple attack penality is now 0/-4/-8 with small arms. Your operative weapons now have 0/-3/-6 multiple attack penalty. This affects the triple/quad attack ability: your penalty is now -3 for all three/four attacks, in that case
MULTIATTACK for monsters: now a 2 action activity, but all attacks are done at -6.
TRICK ATTACK: stays the same (you can move and attack with this new 2 action activity), but it counts as 2 attacks for the purposes of multiple attack penalty. Furthermore, the enemy stays flat-footed for rest of your turn even in the basic version of trick attack (allowing you to use the 3rd action to attack again, with a -10 or -8 as per the general rule).
TRIPLE/QUAD ATTACKS: they are 2 action activities that let you make 3 and 4 attacks, respectively. In both cases the penalty is -4 for all three or four attacks.
HASTE Spell: you can now move up to your speed during any 2 action activity (before and after the activity if you want), for free. The rest stays the same.
THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS:
... more to come
Do you think it would be bad for game balance if I basically just added a feat for her to take that would let:
Thank you :)
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?
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!
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.
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.
As far as I know, aligning a shield as described in the playtest rules is a move action. However, it isn't specified whether this can be treated in the same way as with drawing a weapon and, therefore, have it being a free action if performed as part of a movement (provided you have at least +1 bab, and you were already wielding the shield, of course).
Is this something that has been contemplated and decided it wasn't wanted (that would be the reason why it isn't noted) or is this something you devs might not have thought about yet? I would like to propose adding this, what do you think?
In the same way this would help the bull rush maneuver being a bit more useful. (let alone the fact the I would have made the bull-rush bonus a +2 to hit, instead of +1, but that's another discussion!)
In my opinion, the way an alchemist (for instance) uses bombs to deal aoe damage is limited, needlessly rigid and counterproductive.
The way things are now, throwing a bomb has more chances of hurting your companions, which are almost always close to the enemies, rather than their intended targets. This is because when throwing I can only select a target enemy, instead of a target AREA.
>>> PROPOSAL: If there's a need to keep the current cap on the damage output of such items (i.e. main damage to 1 creature only, the rest splash), one solution could be making it so that one can aim an acid flask bomb to a chosen 3x3 5 ft. area (which is the same as a choosen target's square + the splash damage reach), rather than to a specific creature, and then having the bomb damage dealt to only 1 selected creature inside that area (if you hit, or 1 random target if you miss), and have all the other 8 squares filled with splash damage. For example, it might be that the target sits on the upper left corner square and only has splash damage to its right and below, nothing to its left. The advantage of this is pretty clear: keep the same damage as before, but the player can distribute it in a way that minimises friendly fire as much as possible, finally making it NOT a pain in the ass for the party.
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.
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...)
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!