Pantshandshake's page

991 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 991 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I'm in a AD&D 2E game currently (well, it's been going for most of a decade now, more or less.)

Most of our XP comes from doing class stuff. By that, I mean the GM keeps a tally of general XP, which is probably about 40% of the total we might earn. The rest is based on how many thief type things you succeeded at, if you're thief. Spell level and amount of spells cast that had an impact on an encounter, for magic users. Amount of kills if you're a fighter.

Which is why I really like milestone leveling.

The main issue that I get stuck on when people bring this up is the whole attacking business.

The first point I like to address is that adding a steadily increasing debuff to the attack roll, but allowing everything to make 3 attacks in a round, harms players much, much more than NPCS. Starfinder combat already sees an awful lot of NPCs that have a really hard time missing the players with an attack, while players usually have to try very hard to get the odds of a single attack landing to better than average. So you end up turning all your NPCs into much better murder machines, while making it harder for your players to be competitive in dealing damage. This would need to be addressed by drastically altering the standard difficulty of encounters.

The second point, is that there are already classes than can attack more than twice, with varying degrees of negatives to the roll, in the vanilla game. Your proposal actually makes soldiers and Solarians WORSE at fighting, even aside from my point above, as you assign higher negatives that Starfinder already does, and in the case of Operatives, appears to completely remove their ability for a 4th attack.

Again, something that is potentially solvable, but it is a HUGE difference in the fighting math that Starfinder presents naturally, and that math is so tight that I don't really like the idea of changing it to this level.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that they can't carry things.

They should be the same as every other thing with a stat block in this game. Strength score determines carrying capacity.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Given that Grab is written the same through all 3 alien archives now, I'm going with it being on purpose.

Looks like a typo.

Another important variable: Are you playing an AP, a home game with house rules that uses APs for content, or a real sandbox type game?

Because, sure, if you’re rocking out with an AP, you can kind of judge that you’ll be roughly even with your expected foes. The game I play in, is much more sandboxy. Our last spaceship encounter was against some sort of gigantic space ooze, and the only thing we could was run away before we died. It shot us once, which is when we learned that it barely needed to shoot us again.

In that kind of situation, speed may very well be more important than a +/- 1 on your initiative.

On the other hand, it is hilariously easy to build your piloting skills to the point where missing a roll is a pretty low chance. I'd gamble on having the extra speed every time, that -1 wouldn't hurt my character's odds very much at all.

They work exactly like force soles in power armor.

I'll go ahead and agree that Darkvision isn't just something that adds 60 feet of seeing in darkness to your regular vision.

You don't see in regular light for 40 feet then 60 more feet in the dark with darkvision, you can just see 60 feet (or whatever your darkvision range is) from your character in the dark.

I wouldn't think so, since the Solar Armor is basically a boost for light armor already.

If this is an NPC from an AP, use whatever tactics the write up says that creature would usually do.

If this is a PC or an NPC you made up, they should be doing whatever benefits them the most in a combat, like usual.

You've clearly never seen my sweet, sweet missile necklace.

Why not just load it up with Explode weapons, it'll have no problem hitting an AC 5 grid intersection, and now you've got some sweet fire support form your robo-buddy on the hill.

And necrografts!

Agreed. The armor's reach is 5 feet, regardless of it being Large. So you'd have a reach of 5 feet with a non-reach weapon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Nope, attunement is a combat only thing, as far as I'm aware.

2) Well, Stellar Rush isn't a move action, so you can't use jump jets during it, so no. If instead you're asking if you can move your 40 feet (with or without jump jets) and then stellar rush to get to the target, then yes.

I stand corrected. Good catch, Sauce.

As far as I know, grenades are the only weapon you can't gain specialization with. So, yes.

Amaltopek wrote:

Is there a social element to this? A person with the right cyberware is always armed. Always. That might mean there are some important places they can't go into because they do not allow weapons.

And are there social advantages to eschewing cyberware?

Areas where you wouldn't be allowed because your cyberware might be dangerous, as well as areas where there would be social benefit to not having cyberware, would seem to be GM contrivances. If your GM is going to the trouble to decide for or against cyberware, then they should also be doing the reverse by having in-game solutions to the in-game problems they created, rather than "Sorry, Jim. I know you have cyberware in your Trox. Your character has to wait outside the (building.)"

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ixal, have you considered that maybe, just maybe, that just because there's a post in this forum that mentions equipment, it doesn't mean you have to come in and let everyone know, AGAIN, that you can't wrap your head around item levels?

Like, we get it, you've repeated it enough. We've also tried using our imaginations for you, and it didn't work. So I'll try something else.

Seriously. Stop it. Go make your own thread to discuss your issues.

Each set of environmental clothing is made to protect against one type of environment. A player could buy a bunch of sets, one for each kind of hazard, but couldn't buy one set for several kinds of hazards.

Because shutting the door is defensive, it happens before the trigger, so you aren't shutting the door because you got shot, you're shutting the door because you think something is going to shoot you. There's no timey-whimey interaction here, aside from the prepared action happening first.

@ Tiberius: #2 is what already happens. Caster casts, offensive prepared action happens, in that order. One might almost think it happens that way on purpose, so that casters can actually do things in the game without being shut down, constantly, by something with a gun.

#1 is how it would work, if we were playing Pathfinder, but we're not, so it doesn't. I appreciate that its a change that takes some getting used to, but positing that it SHOULD be that way is the same as saying "Weapons should have an increased damage range for critical hits, and the possibility of critting on an increased numerical range on a d20." Yes, that was a cool thing in Pathfinder. This isn't Pathfinder.

I don't believe it to be an error.

Or, rather, I believe the writers were going for two completely different kinds of actions, but since Starfinder is pretty notorious at this point for using language that makes things harder to parse than is usually necessary, it just seems like the two actions should be related more closely than they are.

Part of it, I'm sure, is calling one action "Target System" and then using the phrase "If you have at least 6 ranks in Computers, you can lock your starship’s targeting system on to one enemy vessel" in the Lock On action.

What's more confusing to me is why you keep posting in year old threads about this. I don't mean that you continually necro old threads, though you've been doing that too, but this this specific Lock On vs Target System apparently needed to be neco'd twice.

Nothing is being negated, whatever was shooting that triggered a character shutting the door still gets to shoot. No time is being rolled back, no actions need (or can, or should) be reconsidered.

I’d say it would be the DM’s call if they give total cover to the character being shot at or have the shooter roll vs the door’s AC. Either seems fair.

And, Tiberius, sorry you’re not happy with how it works. Thems the breaks.

Agreed. About the only time I can think of would be if you don't have anything to shoot right now, but have a standard action left and you feel like maybe a target will walk into view before your turn comes up again.

A little bit of common sense would suggest that this feat is clearly meant for you to use resolve to fuel a Zenith revelation before you become fully attuned.

You'd have to read it in a very singular way to come up with "I have to choose a revelation, and then I can use resolve to fuel it, but if I couldn't use it, then how would I choose it?"

Except, in Starfinder, that is the exact opposite of readied actions that are not purely defensive do. So, you can decide at your table to have the readied action to shoot a guy pulling a lever go off before the lever is pulled, but that's your house rule, not the actual rule.

Divine Judgment (Su) - 4th Level
Choose chaos, evil, good, or law; your choice must correspond to a portion of your or your deity’s alignment (or both, if possible). If both you and your deity are neutral, you can choose any one of the four.

So, 'both' refers to your character and your deity's alignment.

I'd like to add, "If you can't do it right, at least do it fancy."

Fanciness should always be rewarded.

Pretty much up to the table, given how many entries in the books are wrong, missing information, or flat out don't make sense.

I would think you would subtract the amount from energy resistance right off the top, regardless of what pool the damage is going into.

I would say 90 feet, under the assumption that the items effect your base telepathy as opposed to stacking.

So, you'd double 30 from the booster, to 60, and then add 30 from the feat, ending up with 90.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Off the top of my head, part of the bell vibrates, like vocal cords, and being malleable, also serves as the mouth/tongue/lips/teeth portion by changing shape, size, and density to modulate the vibrations to produce something like speech.

You know, I never noticed that. I don't think I've come across a bleed damage calculation or chart, I'm going with this being a mistake in the books.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My GM handles this (well, I should add, we play a homebrew campaign that takes a little from AP's but is mostly 'Galactic Sandbox) by giving us around 30-40% more credits than WBL would demand after a session, or by having a corporate sponsor 'gift' a player with a weapon or armor once in a while.

To balance that, we're restricted to buying level +1 gear at most, unless we can really come up with a really good in-story reason why our character should get a level +2 item.

What ends up happening is weapon and armor levels amongst the party are pretty consistently at-level, but we end up having spare cash for toys, augments, etc.

Basically, there's way too many non-weapon/armor items that are really cool, but the expense in a regular by-the-book game means they'll rarely actually be purchased. So we found a way that seems to work pretty well to let the characters actually do cool stuff.

I mean, really, if you goof and the party gets too strong, it's pretty simple to readjust the threats until everything balances again.

Well, battlegloves let you use the hand to do other stuff while wearing the glove, so yes, I think you can do that.

If the feat meant for you to be able to upload and/or download data without a device capable of storing said data, I bet it would say so.

So, to your question, I'm going with no.

I beleive in that case, the drone, and not the rider. Being moved by something else doesn't generally trigger an AoO unless it specifies that it does.

Is the GM running it straight from the book? That would certainly account for your team's ability to win that fight in a round and half.

Actually, I guess it would be more accurate for me to say "I'm not sure what your GM is doing, but that fight was definitely not built to be a challenge for 7 players."

It's hard for me to care about the stealth numbers, because the system is obviously unclear and/or broken, and if your team is only fighting toddlers, it doesn't matter how stealth works anyway.

Ah, an SFS thing for the planet. That's kind of why my SF game is 100% homebrew, and about 60% sandbox. None of us really like the idea of "Here's your spaceship, now go where I tell you." But, as long as your group is having fun, it doesn't really matter that my Vesk would, at best, not get off the ship, and at worst, go for a nice quiet solar system cruise by himself.

Ah, well, that sounds an awful lot like a new DM hasn't quite dialed in the difficulty needed to challenge the players, as far as building a combat encounter goes. I'd try and have some regular fights happen first, without stealth mucking up the math, to see where the sweet spot is.

As far as the location, sounds like the kind of place where my character would want more compensation than has been offered before he'd set foot on it. Which also means my team won't go, because they can't drive the ship.

I hope you've got a melee heavy party.

I agree that taking 20 on a stealth check is probably not a common occurrence.

On top of that, crazy high numbers notwithstanding, if a group of PCs or NPCs dedicates an appropriate amount of time and effort to conducting an ambush, and they succeed... well, ambushes are really effective, historically, so why not go ahead and give them the surprise round they crave?

I mean, it's not like a surprise round is all that great in the bigger picture. You get a standard or a move, so even if everyone succeeds in hiding (not even close to assured) the best case scenario is your team gets 1 free shot each at flat footed targets. If your team focuses fire, you'll maybe kill one NPC, then it's on to regular initiative.

If you want to be extra Rolly, check out the Anacite Laborer Frame power armor for when you want a level 7 armor.

Ashanderai wrote:
Yes, but I notice that you aren't that far away from Owensboro... Coincidence? I think not! :)

You got him, he's actually Stephen KC Owens, the multimillionaire playboy reported dead in a mysterious plane crash in 1994.

He's merely been biding his time to return and take his throne.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't know how much I wish just one other person at my table knew anything about 40k.

Not that my character comes off as a space marine. He seems more like a Fallout character than anything else. Initially I was going to try and model his behavior off of Amos from The Expanse, but as time goes on, his thing has basically turned into "I want to go over and see if there's something cool to see, or something dangerous I can save the Ysoki from."

For a while I had my main damage gun mounted to the armor, and I carried my backup gun, and it worked fine.

Nowadays I have both guns mounted to the armor, and I either go empty handed until something gets to me, or I just keep my Storm Hammer out just in case.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Well not must, just it's expected. Doubly so for starship combat. We lose track of facing WITH the map i can't imagine trying to do that in my head.

A long time ago, in a Spelljammer game, I learned that mapping out your moves in front of you with a d4 (hopefully on an empty chunk of hex map) really lets you solidify what your ship is doing and which end is where once it's your turn. You just have to pick a number for the 'front.'

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, not throwing stones at you, Hawk. I know we've butted heads a time or two, just like everyone else, down in the rules forum, just like everyone else on these boards, but this... this isn't that.

I play in an AD&D 2E campaign that's been ongoing, in one incarnation or another, for almost 30 years. Now, I wasn't there when it began, I'll likely not be there when it ends, and there's been 5 gms all sharing this one world and maybe 40-50 players.

It's amazing, it's a work of art, and I believe the GMs are mutants or aliens or robots or robot aliens for being able to keep everything straight.

But its to the point now where even if a new person wanted to play it, they can't, because it would take months (after they learned all the actual rules) to learn the mountain of house rules.

I see that, and I see my Starfinder GM saying "Does this make sense to you guys? Yes? Well, not me, I'm changing it." Once you do that enough, we're playing KriegsmanFinder, and maybe its a great game, but I came to your house because I like Starfinder, and those little hot dogs your wife makes.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I'm happy for Hawk and his group that it works out. When we're not in rules forum, I default to "Is it working for your group? Fantastic, tell your friends so more people play Starfinder."

For me on a personal level, I just want to play the game I read about in the books I bought, not 15% pathfinder, 10% call of cthulhu, 20% shadowrun, just a touch of warhammer fantasy and 40k, and a sprinkling of Star Wars dumped into my Starfinder game. The faster a GM starts making big-huge sweeping changes, the faster I get to a point where I start saying "I don't know how this universe works, it's not fun for me if I have to second guess every credit I spend or every feat I take."

Particularly when so many people (not throwing stones, in this case I mean specific people that generally show up when I play) can't even get the actual Starfinder rules right.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, as much as there's no reason for my soldier to be wearing PA (By the by, it's currently a Laborer Frame with tank treads, I don't clomp, I zoom.) in a executive board meeting, there's also zero reason for a soldier to even be there in the first place. Soldiers aren't going to help you diplomancy your way into a higher pay scale, or help the grueling contract negotiations.

If my soldier is there, it's because he needs to protect something or kill something. Ergo, he needs his toys. If he doesn't need to protect or kill something, he can wait in the ship, or at the Starfinder HQ, or at a bar that caters to people with guns.

If instead, we're going to have combat situations on the way to, from, and during the executive meeting... then why are you taking away our guns and armor? Did you on purpose put us into a "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" situation? Why would you do that? That's not fun for the table.

On that point, we have free planetwide digital communications. Nobody has to meet anyone in person, ever. If your NPCs don't want to be around some wildcards whose idea of a sidearm is a slightly smaller grenade launcher, they can USE THE PHONE. Or send a fax to the Starfinders, detailing a mission they want done, and we'll take it off the job board. Or our Mr. Johnson will tell us there's a gig for us.

I mean, I, personally, as a human in front of a computer, can see the logic with the gun controls, and such. But I made a character built around weapons, if my GM decides that at level 8 we're going to have to start worrying about what we carry and where, I'm going to flat out tell the table that my character will wait until the stupid talky bits are done, or the GM can whip up some NPCs to try and take my toys away.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not happy unless I have to roll a d100 followed by a d20 and some d6's only to find out that the last d6 brought me to a chart of items I can't use so I have to start over. It's the only way.

1 to 50 of 991 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>