Metaphysician's page

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 1,644 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,644 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It sounds like that isn't a system problem, but a "My GM throws too many foes of too high a CR" problem. Remember, Starfinder does *not* use the same difficulty curve as Pathfinder. When it says a CR +4 fight is a Deadly encounter, it means it.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

OTOH, multiclassing already sacrifices a lot. It probably wouldn't break the game is a given character has only one caster level, based on the sum of his caster classes.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, since I haven't said it already: uplifted crows. Because if we don't uplift them first, they will uplift themselves. And they will remember the slight.

*caw!* :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Opsylum wrote:
Broccolihead wrote:
Its weird to me that they have so many races that are humanoid earth animals. Why would space otters even exist? It would be more concise if they just had an uplifted template and stopped making anthropomorphic versions of everything to add to their race quota.

“Convergent evolution” seems to be the in-canon explanation. Imagine being from Aballon and seeing an off-color Sharpwing in the Nejeor system (Dead Suns #4), which is supposed to have had no prior contact with Pact Worlds space. Redundancy is a weird phenomenon happening with every planet’s native species. Side effect of having to populate an entire galaxy of near infinite planets and stars and other celestial objects, many with their own unique ecosystems, with 160-page books of about a hundred aliens each. :p

That’s probably the best possible solution to this problem, honestly.

Simple explanation: the gods are efficient. Even immortal cosmic beings have only so much patience, so why create an infinity of completely distinct species when you can just do 99% of the work with palette swaps? *eg*


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think, in retrospect, Paizo should have been a *lot* more conservative with the poison/disease effects. Not only are the new rules much nastier than Pathfinder, but they are so qualitatively different that no one has the experience or instincts for how to handle it. Deadly combination.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So, my own thoughts on the various matters mentioned. . .

1. I actually do like XP, because not all adventures or sessions or encounters are created equal. As long as you don't only give XP for winning fights, it can serve as a way to make sure a given encounter or session or adventure has sufficient challenge. I am not averse to a milestone system, mind. Its just a matter of preference and GM attention.

2. As a general rule, the best way to assign XP for encounters where the PCs have a meaningful circumstance advantage or disadvantage is to treat this as if the opponents are higher or lower CR, since effectively they are. If the PCs have a fortified position or heavy fixed artillery, such that they can kill the incoming mob of CR 1 enemies as easy as if they were CR 1/2? Calculate the XP for the encounter as if they were CR 1/2. Likewise, if those enemies are twice as hard to kill because of a magical power field that heals them constantly, treat them as if they were CR 2.

3. That said, did the PCs gain this advantage or disadvantage because of their choices and efforts? Or is it just something they found to be the case as a part of the scenario? If the former, then they probably should *not* have the XP rewards lowered, because they earned that advantageous circumstance. Sure, the actual fighting might have been easier, but this is because they made decisions, rolled skill checks, and expended time and resources earlier. Care and attention should be rewarded.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ability modifiers don't apply separately to skill scores on any other NPC. Why would they apply here?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Especially since the official intent is almost certainly that most dreadful of things: "At the GM's discretion". Which is to say, its not that you can't have a mount carry cargo. Its that the ability of your mount to carry cargo is *at the GM's discretion*. You are not forbidden from doing so, you are just limited to what the GM finds as reasonable.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My own judgement, after having run for a while now, is that if the players legitimately have to worry about running out of Resolve all the time, you are probably overtuning your combat encounters, either in difficulty or number. The "average" fight should be costing the PCs little or nothing in the way of Resolve. If it is, you are putting the PCs through a grinder of overly-hard battles. This is not necessarily a bad thing, if the plot justifies it, but it is not always justified. If the players are learning survival methods adapted for a non-stop stream of CR +3 fights, these are not going to be useful or indicative of the larger game.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Laendra Silverleaf wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:
Unless I missed something in the companion rules, I think the intent is that companions can't carry *any* meaningful bulk, irrespective of their size and strength. If they are rideable ( and thus saddleable ) this might change, but otherwise the intent is to have a partner, not a pack mule. Or at least, their ability to provide extra carrying capacity is at GM's Discretion Only.

There are mounted companion rules in there (pg 140 AA3). Specifically,

Bulk: You can mount your creature companion as long as
the total amount of bulk you’re carrying doesn’t exceed your
carrying capacity. If you have the encumbered condition (or
gain the overburdened condition) while mounted, your creature
companion gains the same condition while you are riding it.

That implies that they can carry meaningful bulk, since if I am carrying 15 bulk without encumbrance due to my strength, my (at least one size larger) companion can carry 15 + me (which I would have much more bulk than 15).

So to the point of the rest of you, even if my mount has the max strength of 20, and is one size larger than myself, the rules would say that it would only be able to carry 10 bulk before being encumbered, which is overriden by the mounted rules above, suggesting there are other (undefined) rules at play here. But, that is a level 20 companion with strength as the best stat. It is just as likely to have a 10 strength and 5 bulk (PC rules) limit while carrying a 10 or more bulk unencumbered PC and itself remaining unencumbered.

Also, if a companion has a saddle and a field collar that could already, in and of itself add up to 8 bulk to the companion BEFORE you got on.

TIA

That's pretty much how I remember the rules being, and is precisely *why* I say the intent is "no, the companion is not supposed to carry meaningful bulk for you". Its ability to carry stuff, as a mount, is defined purely in terms of whether *you*, the rider, are encumbered. Its not connected to the mount's own strength in any way.

Yes, this is an abstraction clearly. However, I think its a worthwhile abstraction to prevent the issue of "players using rideable critters to transport incredibly large quantities of stuff by exploiting the Bulk abstraction as applied to PCs". The Bulk rules are intended to facilitate PCs carrying PC equipment in reasonable amounts with reasonable limits, without requiring pound-by-pound accounting. The tradeoff for this is that you are not allowed to convert 250 pounds of PC into 250 pounds of gear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

I think a lot of the "too comedy" comes from players playing kitchen sink characters. If you look at the actual scenarios, they range from pretty dark to pretty lighthearted.

So basically, you want to sit your friends down on a couch and ask "hey guys, what kind of campaign do we want to play, cuz we can take it in many directions. But it's on all of us to make it work."

This. It is incumbent upon the GM to talk with their players and determine what kind of campaign they will be running, *before* anyone actually creates their characters. Player John may want to play a ruthless jokester mercenary, or a cerebral scientist investigating the ethical boundaries of transhumanism. If the campaign is supposed to be a grand crusade of powered armor space knights fighting the good fight against a literal invasion from Hell? Player John needs to make a different character.

( And if *nobody* wants to play heroic armored space knights? Then you need a different campaign premise. )


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Unless I missed something in the companion rules, I think the intent is that companions can't carry *any* meaningful bulk, irrespective of their size and strength. If they are rideable ( and thus saddleable ) this might change, but otherwise the intent is to have a partner, not a pack mule. Or at least, their ability to provide extra carrying capacity is at GM's Discretion Only.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly, it sounds like the real advantage Starfinder has is that it uses *one* unified power mechanic ( Resolve ), rather than multiple separate ones. I know some people hate Resolve, but it neatly avoids the issue of proliferating power pools. Consider how many of the "new" classes added to Pathfinder over time had some form of power pool.

If I were designing Starfinder from scratch, I'd almost be inclined to go even further, and get rid of *spell slots*. Have the caster classes divide their spells into a "At Will", "Per Short Rest", and "Per Long Rest" arrangement. Higher levels don't give you more spells per se, they upgrade spell levels along that continuum. Maybe have a "Per Long Rest + Resolve Cost" level at the top, and/or a "Cast A Spell An Extra Time By Spending Resolve" mechanic.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Unless the GM is requiring you to pick every single one of your languages in advance ( which they really shouldn't, if you have a decently high Culture rating ), part of the value of such is being the party member who can *learn* languages quickly.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would be leery about "best of its ability". While it is true that a Confused character should not deliberately whiff its attack against an ally, "to the best of its ability" has a *lot* of ceiling for being equally absurd. Should a character have to use its most damaging attack, a one-shot missile, at melee range? Or expend a sixth level spell slot nuking a low level mook?

Basically, I see two possible interpretations to use here. First option, is that the Confused character simply attacks with its "standard" attack. If they have a gun in hand, they shoot it, if they have a sword, they stab, etc. They don't typically/ever use limited resource attacks, anymore than they would unthinkingly use such at random normally. Second option, they practice their normal tactical sensibilities, just with a particular chosen target. So, melee range targets get melee attacks preferentially and not area attacks; limited use attacks are only used against powerful foes; etc. The character fights as intelligently as they normally would, just against a designated "foe".


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am not a fan of PF2, but not for mechanical reasons. The mechanics are largely fine, its the setting decisions that are borked. I left Forgotten Realms for Pathfinder due to FR's overwhelming hatred for the concept of Lawful Good, I am not pleased at all to see it leaking into Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why does this need any more elucidation than "Ask your GM?" If its an NPC, then the GM decides what constitutes an attack. If its a PC, the GM approves or rejects whether something constitutes an attack, or an undue attempt to wiggle out of the intent.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nimor Starseeker wrote:

Yeah, I can see that muddies the understanding. I would argue that it means hit point damage, otherwise they could have simply said damage. Then again the spell reflecting armor also has this problem as well. Do you take hit point damage or damage to your SP before the spell takes effect?

If it’s actual hit point damage, then the spell becomes weak and possibly not as intended.

This position requires assuming that the Starfinder rules are exact, precise, and unambiguous, like a legal text. Which they are not, on their face, and were never trying to be.

Bypassing the stamina system, a *huge* part of the defense for PCs and something only PCs theoretically have, is the kind of extraordinary ability that would require extraordinary evidence that it actually exists and works that way. *Especially* since it would be an ability that is 100% useless for PCs.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hmm, does this mean that, if you are somehow riding a drone that *doesn't* have the Riding Saddle mod, you do have to make Survival checks to fight from their back?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yakman wrote:
Soulkeeper wrote:

OK, and that's kind of why I'm asking, and making obvious assumptions. It appears to simply double the HP value (so to speak).

Now, you said only the Envoy, but doesn't the book say you can use 1 resolve + short rest to restore your SP (core p251) or are you speaking of in combat?

That said, if the SP goes as fast as you state, and it is expected to do so, by this it seems that I should let the monsters shine (so to speak) and not normally pull any punches.

yes, you can get your stamina back during a rest. which gives everyone a self-healing ability.

BUT it's only ~ half of your total hit points. So if you went into your HP, unless you get HP healing, you are going to be sub 100 % in a future combat despite spending the resolve point.

And yes, one of the side effects of SP is that a DM doesn't have to pull punches on PCs during a combat. As long as a PC doesn't die (hard to do in Starfinder, but certainly far from impossible) and has 1 Resolve Point, they can keep going when a fight ends. So a DM doesn't have to excessively worry about accidentally tpk'ing everyone if he really lets his monsters loose.

Of course, this is factored into the CR chart and the rating of NPCs. Which, for any new GM or player, I *highly recommend* they read and take seriously. If you go into Starfinder assuming that you can take on a fight of CR = APL +5? *You and your entire party will die*. It doesn't matter that you could do this in Pathfinder. Starfinder has taken the mechanical glitches that allowed such exploits and fixed them.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Stamina is basically Paizo going "No, the ubiquitous Wand of Cure Light Wounds is not how the setting is supposed to be". So they gave every class the ability to refresh itself between encounters when given a chance to catch their breath.

Also, as a premise, your assumption flounders on that, in Starfinder? Damage *absolutely* scales with level. . . and in practice, it did back in Pathfinder, too. If PCs don't gain more HP/SP as they level, they *will die*.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Something one should note: if a character with 10+ Resolve is down to their last two points, it means they've had one hell of a day, and are on their last leg. This should probably factor into the RP for the character, the GM/scenario, or both. This is not a thing that should happen during a "typical" business day, so to speak, but during a long and grueling endeavor that has stretched you and your friends to the utmost, with the highest of stakes. Because if you've got yourself down to that little Resolve in an adventure that *doesn't* have high stakes, it means you've basically pushed yourself close to death for no good reason.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I imagine pocket editions won't happen for quite a while. They may be more convenient, yes, but ultimately they do compete with the full sized releases. It'd be silly for Paizo to release them both in close proximity. And while I can see arguments for just doing pocket paperback versions, I can also see arguments against ( harder to read, less durable ).


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
soulnova wrote:

I'm worried because all the party will be fresh lvl 1 with players to Starfinder that might not prioritize doing the first aid as soon as possible and try to finish the enemies first.

At level 1, what are the feats/abilities that might consume RP so I can keep an eye on the characters that have it to remind them to keep at least 2rp for stabilizing and staying in the fight?

Why would you think your character would need an ability in order for you, the player, to remind another player of something they should know?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A third level spell is a fairly hefty investment. Note that you have to be at least 7th level to cast Entropic Grasp. Also, picking this spell means not picking other spells, when your spell selection is relatively finite.

Therefore, I don't really see a problem with it allowing you to blow a hole in most barriers that are less than three feet thick. If something really needs to be secure, than the GM can always just say that the walls are more than three feet thick, and/or important portions are shielded with force effects. Otherwise, its no different than any other case where a spell lets you bypass certain encounters. Teleport, Charm Person, and Summon _____ also let you bypass various kinds of encounters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Especially if you use the tools from: https://sfrpgtools.com/


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I imagine an Envoy bounty hunter would probably emphasize use of social skills, since that is what the class is best at. Less with the shooting people down, more with the tracking people's location via talking with people. An Envoy may not be able to beat a mark down as well, or sneak up on a mark, or hack a mark's computer. . . but if you ever talked with another person in your hiding away from justice, they should be able to cajole that information out of someone.

So, build with that in mind.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would tend to figure that, for a Mystic who worships a pantheon of deities, they'd probably choose a suitable Connection that represents how they relate to that pantheon, and how that pantheon relates to each other.

So, if you revere Desna and Weydan together, you probably are a Star Shaman. If you worship various local deities like Hylax or Iomedae or Abadar, as representative of the Primal Order, you probably are an Overlord. If you "honor" the most war-like deity within reach by offering ritual symbolic challenge, blade against blade, you are probably a Mindbreaker. Etc.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One of my old rules of thumb is that, if you have a relevant Profession skill, you can roll it to "aid another" yourself for a +2 bonus. So, you could use Profession ( Con Artist ) to supplement skill rolls to perform con games on marks, spot police or other criminals, design fradulent schemes, and launder their earnings. Similarly, you could use Profession ( Bounty Hunter ) to supplement rolls to track marks, interact with law enforcement before and after, plan takedowns, search and restrain bounties, etc.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would tend to assume that, if you wanted to get rid of the light blindness, it would cost another 100 credits or so, same as a basic replacement limb.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You know, I'd actually see this as a good reason for why an army wouldn't want to outfit its basic infantry with vastly more expensive gear. Lets say you have grunts with Azimuth Laser Rifles as their standard ( lvl 1 ). You *could* pay to get each grunt a Corona Laser Rifle instead ( lvl 6 ), which would give them moderately higher damage ( 2d6 vs 1d8 ), and double the shots per clip. However, it would cost more than 4000 credits extra per soldier. And if you have that much budget per soldier, which would actually increase the utility of your army more? Those upgraded laser rifles. . . or an extra 4000 credits of miscellaneous gear per soldier? Hell, even cut that in half, and you'd still probably be better off requisitioning an extra 2000 credits worth of supplemental gear ( survival equipment, medical equipment, extra ammo, sensors, cyberware ), versus the upgraded laser rifles.

Now, granted, this still begs questions of realism, involving how much soldiers cost to recruit and train versus the cost of their equipment. However, I am more than willing to handwave that with the simple explanation: the kind of soldiers, produced by a good quality training program, who'd logically have the equipment funding to easily afford higher level weapons/armor as their baseline? Are not actually level 1 NPCs in the first place, but higher level. . . more or less in line with the level requirement for their gear. A first rate army doesn't produce or field vast hoards of Level 1 Soldiers under normal circumstances, but highly trained and disciplined Level 5 Soldiers. Level 1 Soldiers are either recruits not yet finished with their training, soldiers for second rate armies with lesser standards of training, or conscripts inducted en mass during desperate situations; all of which serve as good reasons for them not having first rate gear.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Maxilla Dragonspite wrote:
thecursor wrote:
Maxilla Dragonspite wrote:
"Kobold Workers Interstellar Unite!"

Their demands are as follows:

Death to all the dwarves
Death to all the elves
You can hang them humans too
Death to anyone who isn't a kobold generally
The Paizo developers must finally recognize them as the draconic subtype (it's just so obvious!)
A flamethrower, just one. To be shared.
Fried goblin. Not for eating, they just like it when goblins get fried.
Oh, and dental insurance.

That was the initial draft, in part due to Droskar-worshipping scabs and mistreatment by elves who were a bit too into the Savored Sting.

Second draft adjusted that to 'never hire dwarves or elves'. In addition, Humans being hung in space is just silly, so that just got cut.

Other races will be tolerated as long as Kobold Workers Interstellar are employed in good Faith.

Honestly, I've heard of worse union negotiations. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Its more the absurdly high hit point totals I am trying to work around. By current rules as written, you need to do *2400* points of damage to destroy one single 10x10 square of starship hull metal. Even granting that this is supposed to be a solid 10x10 cube, and most actual structures would be smaller/thinner, that's still absurd. Starfinder isn't GURPS, and it shouldn't try to be GURPS.

So, winging this off my head: currently rules say hull metal has 60 HP per inch, and 35 intrinsic hardness. Lets keep these values, only say that 60 HP is just a flat value, not per inch. The external hull of a typical starship has 60 HP by default. If you deal 60 HP worth of damage, you breach a 5x5 foot cube, with the typical effects ( ability to enter through breach, whatever function that 5x5 cube normally does his damaged/disabled, etc ). If you do double this, the 5x5 foot cube is destroyed instead ( completely gone, unrepairable, etc ). To do this, however, someone would need to hit it with 95 points of damage to breach it in one hit, or 155 damage to vaporize it in one hit. If its a special attack that ignores hardness, this is easier, but still very difficult. Level 1 PCs are certainly still going to have better luck fast talking the pilot than shooting the hull with their weapons. If they can pull out attacks that do an average of 50 damage per shot ( which means they are far and away from level 1 ), they can breach the hull with four shots, and vaporize a chunk of the ship with eight.

However, how does this effect the overall ship? Well, it depends on the size of the ship. If the ship is a fighter ( Size Tiny ), by my rule it would have Scale Resistance 10, and 35 hit points ( I will, for simplicity, keep the RAW ship HP, they are more or less in the right range IMO anyway ). A 30 point damage attack would bounce off the ship and do damage to neither the ship as a whole, nor to the 5x5 cube struck specifically. A 40 damage attack would not damage the ship's overall functionality. . . but it *would* do 5 points of damage to the specific spot hit. Enough of those hits and you could have a hull breach and system damage, even though the ship has not taken any HP loss overall; IOW, you'd better avoid too many of those golden BBs. A 50 point hit would inflict 5 points of damage to the overall ship, as well as 15 points to the specific spot. Consider the effects: seven such hits would disable the fighter as a whole. . . and would also, if they all landed on the same spot, mean a 5x5 cube of the ship is all but vaporized. That kind of makes sense and fits together.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

Armor provides none of the circumstance bonuses that clothing provides you, though. Damage reduction, skill bonuses, saving throw bonuses. All for very little cost.

At the very least, go with Zero-G Environmental Clothing. The +2 will either cancel out your Armor Check penalty, increase a high skill bonus to the point of not needing to roll, or give someone with a +0 a very much needed bump.

Well, yes, they don't provide the bonuses ( except possibly the one type of AbadarCorp armor whose name evades me right now ), but they also don't prevent you from getting those bonuses from your *clothing*, either. So spend the money on the fancy business attire, and wear it *with* suitable light armor.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly, professional soldiers should probably have considerably more than that as basic equipment. At the very least: rations, basic first aid gear, and binoculars or the equivalent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*cough* The reason my suggested idea *might* solve the issues with starship scale combat, potentially? It would allow for starship combat to be reworked to a similar number scale as infantry combat. Starships wouldn't need a categorical separate rules set, they would just get an appropriately large chunk of Scale Damage Resistance, and weapons that do enough damage to penetrate it.

Example: a starfighter wouldn't be immune to infantry fire because of target type rules. It would just have something like Scale Damage Resistance 10 from its size, which would make it very hard to damage with personal weapons until you've got a good number of levels on you. In turn, its guns would be statted for its scale, and so its Laser Blasters would do something like 2d4+10 damage, thus dealing modest hits on other starfighters, and considerably more painful blows if some poor infantryman gets shot.

A destroyer, meanwhile, would have Scale Damage Resistance 40 from its size, making manportable attacks upon it laughably useless unless you've got something exceptionally high level or specialized. And its Heavy Laser Blasters would do 8d4+40 damage, making avoidance highly recommended if you aren't also a destroyer.

( I would probably still want to discourage the use of spaceship weapons on small non-ship targets, probably with some kind of scaled attack penalty: -2 if the target is one size category smaller, -4 for two, -6 for three, and simply disallowing attack rolls at all for any greater difference. Also adds to the survivability of smaller ships versus larger ones, and opens up interesting tactical dynamics of "specialized anti-capship weapons on fighters the capships can't hit" versus "specialized anti-fighter weapons to keep fighters from being invulnerable to capships". )


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bare in mind that the actual intended in-setting solution to this problem is "Wear light armor of some variety". Its technically possible to make ordinary clothing that also provides broad spectrum environmental protection, but people are going to look at you really funny for spending far more money on such than on ordinary business grade light armor.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Let me give even more emphasis to that: the wealth per encounter is the amount PCs *should* get. If, for whatever reason, the PCs don't actually get that? Its the responsibility of the GM to make it up to them later. If they don't explore the armory in the abandoned space station and miss half the total wealth in that adventure? Give them a suitable cash payment later, or something.

I would generally recommend including an excess of wealth when designing an adventure, well more than the amount the PCs require for Wealth By Level. Partly this is because the PCs will never actually get all the available loot in practice, either because they don't follow every branch and search every room, or because they don't actually use stuff that is theoretically useful ( and thus kill 90% of its value ). Partly, though? Its because inadequate wealth can break the game, but an excess of wealth generally won't. Level requirements keep players from buying gear too far in advance of their means, and the 10% resale value means even the most valuable of gear eventually loses its worth. A windfall is, at most, a temporary boon for the PCs, unless its truly absurd. And even an absurd windfall can't really break the game for more than a level.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

57. A large file contained within exceptionally strong encryption. Attached to it is a warning file in plain text: "Whoever you are, wherever you are, whatever you do. Do *not* open this file! Inside this file is doom, for all who touch it. Spare yourself and the world. Don't open it."

If the players attempt to crack the encryption, it is a DC 50 Computer Science check. On opening it, they find. . . a note: "Your crime has been reported", as well as a beacon program of supernatural sophistication. If they trace this beacon, they find it sent a full report of their location to a server in Axis.

Within ten minutes, a gate opens, and several inevitables "summon" the perpetrator to return with them to Axis. If they go, the PCs find themselves before a Rokyamut, explaining why they decided that opening something clearly labeled as a great, existential danger was a good idea. If they don't, they will be subject to periodic pursuit and attack by inevitables for the foreseeable future.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thecursor wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I feel like a Rust Monster companion would be a pretty serious hazard on anything but a Xenowarden ship...they ARE cute, though...I wonder if they kept that bit of lore from the old 3.5 Pathfinder days where the dwarven word for them originated as a cuss-word!
I know that it could be cheesey but I've wanted a pet rusty ever since I played an "Monster Welfare" druid.

One problem with space rust monsters? Its the sci-fi future, and its *much* less clear whether any given piece of equipment is made of metal of any kind, let alone iron. It would be incredibly cumbersome and arbitrary to go back and designate each piece of gear as "metal" or "not metal", especially given that its pretty explicit that equipment does not need to be manufactured the same way. It would be equally cumbersome and arbitrary for the GM to make judgement calls on which gear needs to make saves vs not, on the fly.

If you did want to introduce rust monsters to space, I lean towards reworking them into a broader form of "matter eater". Make their consumptive touch able to work on any non-living matter ( thus only rendering rare and fairly obvious gear immune ), but also make it weaker and less save or suck. Perhaps it "merely" does a decent chunk of damage that bypasses hardness, with a saving throw for half damage; magical gear instead takes half or none.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I will say that, having run an adventure which involved a bunch of vehicle combat, I do agree, the Full Movement attack penalty should *only* be applied to targets that are on "foot" or otherwise not moving at vehicular chase speed. It otherwise results in fights where nobody can ever hit anybody else. Logical as a balance factor to prevent an excess of drive-by shootings versus helpless infantry. Counterproductive and illogical when you have two cars driving next to each other and trying to attack each other.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A lot of the issues vis a vis creature/vehicle/ship, are IMO the result of a legacy problem: inanimate objects and structures being given *waaaaay* too many hit points. This dates back at least to 3e, and probably earlier.

My own idea for a solution is to stop treating objects and structures as having ever increasing HP counts based on their size. A wall of brick and a castle of brick have the same HP. The castle of brick, however, has vastly greater *damage resistance*, based on its size; maybe something on the order of +5 or +10 damage resistance for every factor of ten bigger than the base unit ( presumably a 5 foot square of brick wall or whatever ).

You can attack a building with whatever weapon you want. However, if it doesn't exceed this "scale damage resistance", it has no effect on the building HP whatsoever. All you can do is damage the bit of wall right in front of you; reducing that 5 foot cube of wall to zero HP has no effect on the overall structure's HP. In order to actually damage the overall building, you either need:

1. Enough overkill to overcome the scale damage resistance

2. A sufficiently big area attack weapon ( an area weapon encompassing the whole structure ignores scale damage resistance, and a smaller area would still reduce it )

3. Some kind of special weapon with a "Siege" trait or whatnot, whose effect is to ignore scale damage resistance in some or all circumstances

This way, you could have buildings which are not subject to being destroyed by shooting them repeatedly with a handgun, but which can't also shrug off nuclear blasts because they have five digit hit points.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If its such a big deal, why not just get rid of spell interruption entirely? That way, you could have triggered actions all day without breaking the game. You'd still have the time travel problem, potentially, but at least you wouldn't need to come up with elaborate exceptions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kishmo wrote:

Echoing what others have said, I'm a big fan of new weirdo PC races. My appetite for those is basically infinite, but I'm starting to agree with others who say, given the number of playable races already available (HMM said in the other thread that there's 100 now?) it would be nice going forwards to get fewer new PC races, but more info and lore per species. Like if AA3 has 20 new PC races with 2 pages each = 40 pages total, I'd love to see the next AA (or whatever) provide 10 new races with 4 pages each.

Here's a thought, though it might violate the established practice for organizing Alien Archive: have grouped sections centered around a given theme. Instead of each four page segment covering one species, have a whole "chapter" labeled, say. . . 'Castrovel', or 'The Drift', which includes several species of different types ( sentient, monstrous, animal, etc ), and has a degree of collective fluff that puts them all in context relative to each other. It wouldn't even need more word-count necessarily; just having multiple guaranteed species with their background interrelated would probably help.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I disagree with a bunch of your underpinning premises, especially regarding time intervals. Nonetheless, kudos, you've done a lot of interesting work here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sauce987654321 wrote:

Got to go over it again, but some of it is very "meh," to me.

Just sort a pet peeve of mine, but I'm not a fan of how they correlate the monster's actual dimensions on board with its described size. I forget the name of the robot colossi monster, but just because it's 150' long doesn't mean it should take up a 150' square space. A monster's square space is just a representation, not actually meant to simulate the monster's actual size. All it does is make the monster much more difficult to use. This is something I'd expect in a 3rd party product or in the homebrew section.

I still find it annoying that powerful monsters like the Tzitzimitl that are primarily found in space are devoid of having starship statistics, despite having a precedence in the first alien archive. I guess we're still clinging on to this outdated idea that monsters with creature scale statistics can't fight starships in this sci-fi fantasy game, and basically just shapes up to be a less interesting monster with less abilities than its Pathfinder counterpart.

Here's a thought: standardized "space combat" rules similar to the monster builder rules in AA 1, with a chart of standardized stat lines by tier. A monster takes "space capable" as a special ability, and gains ship stats from the chart of ( say ) Tier = CR -5. Maybe have three separate charts, one each for Combatant, Expert, and Spellcaster, with slightly different arrays of stats ( Combatants get more HP and damage, Experts get better skill codes, Spellcasters get more special abilities ). Have a few pages of "ship form" special abilities, with guidelines on which ones go with which kind of ground abilities. There, you now have a relatively easy way to make monsters that can fight in space.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The other thing is, dice pool systems tend to use one singular mechanic to resolve *everything* in the game, with different actions defined solely by which stats are used to size the dice pools. Its a lot easier to incorporate multiple aspects to combat if they use the same rules as everything else.

To draw from the obvious example, most classic White Wolf games do indeed distinguish between avoidance and armor. However, its still an at-most two step process: opposed roll to see if the attack hits, then either an opposed roll or a static comparison to see whether the hit does damage ( depending on the game ). Anything that makes you harder to hit adds to the first opposed roll, and anything that makes you harder to damage adds to that second roll/comparison.

Whereas here, you theoretically have a *lot* of independent steps:

1. Roll an attack versus the target's avoidance, success means a hit.

2. Apply miss chance ( which by current rules, happens after the initial attack "hits" )

3. Apply effect of shields, somehow ( reducing raw damage? )

4. Apply the deflection chance of armor, somehow ( percent chance to bounce attack? another attack roll? flat or percent damage reduction? )

5. Apply protective properties on character themselve, like natural armor and damage/energy resistance, somehow?

Between them you've got for mechanics "Standard d20 roll vs a target number", "Percentile roll vs a target number", "fixed value substraction vs a damage total", "separate temporary pool of hit points, with effects out of order", and possibly a few others. Most of these game mechanics not being routinely or ever used for other purposes.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Something more generally I'd like to see going forward when new playable species are introduced: NAMING CONVENTIONS!

Seriously, out of the approximately 50 species you can play as now, we only have example names for, like a tenth of them maybe.

We have the ones in the Corebooks, obviously, and we can kinda cheat on the Legacy species as well as other Pathfinder imports by just assuming their naming conventions survived the Gap, and then for species like ikeshti, contemplatives, skittermanders or nuar, you can extrapolate from the names of the NPCs of those species in various adventure paths.

But how do I figure out what to name a bantrid PC? Or a brenneri, or a vlaka, or a dirindi, or an ilthisarian, or a khizar? If the species' only appearance has been in an AA or in the backmatter of an AP book, there aren't any real examples of what typical names from their culture would be. It just feels like a glaring oversight.

This, absolutely. And even some of the major species don't really have enough material to do more than the vaguest guess at names.

I eventually settled on using Indic names of various kinds for Verthani ( because of their ancient caste based society ), and Slavic names for Ryphorians ( because I decided to portray Triaxus as Planet Russia ). But this is largely because I don't have guidelines otherwise.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've only paged through the PDF a bit yet ( mostly waiting on the hardcopy for serious reading ). My preliminary thoughts:

-A lot of the entries are basically "Native Sentient Species of Planet X". Which is fine, but not the most useful for me. I prefer employing sentient species with more social and historical context, and a two page species writeup really isn't enough; I also discourage players from running Random Alien From Planet X as PCs. On the other hand, this does contain most/all the remaining sentient species of the Pact Worlds, which is nice.

-Multiple new native "species" for the Drift, as well as more flavor about the Drift. Definitely welcome. As are the double handful of other outsiders. In general I prefer more outsiders, fae, and other more "cosmic-y" races to ordinary aliens.

-The animal companion rules look neat. I expect there will be loud complaints both about their balance, and *especially* about how the mount rules do not especially interact directly with the bulk rules. I will attempt to keep my schadenfreude within control. *cough*


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why exactly would you want to discourage players from maintaining comms with each other?

1 to 50 of 1,644 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>