Search Posts
Barathu have hover as an adjective for their land speed, but I bet that is for their flying speed. Trooper is an uncommon background, but there doesn’t seem anything particularly special about it. However, right next to it is Timelost, where you come from a different timeline and it has various of special things about it, and it is common. My guess is that trooper should be common, and Timelost should be uncommon.
Instead of God Mode, arcane refactor makes sense, since refactoring is about making code more reusable and easier to modify. Sudo spell definitely needs a name change. I like recursive spell myself, since that is also a way to iterate a section of code, and recursion has always seemed really trippy to me. I think debug spell is OK, and that it's fun to consider that low damage dice are the result of magical code defects. God mode is also OK with me, though I like the references to Triune that you suggest. I agree that speed run could use a name change. I like glitch step better than anything I have thought of so far (goto just doesn't sound as cool, for example).
Double deployment takes 3 actions if you use the 2 action version of deploy mines, and 2 actions if you use the 1 action version.Two actions to do the 1 action deploy twice can already be done without the feat from my understanding? So would only exist as a three action if they followed that suggestion. Correct. Double deployment with 2x 1 action deploys should only take 1 actions, with 1x 2 action deploy and 1x 1 action deploy it should take 2 actions. Basically, it should save a character 1 action.
The way the mechanic class's deploy mines ability works with a number of class feats needs clarification. The deploy mines activity can be performed with one or two actions, however it looks like there are a number of class feats that are only balanced, power wise, if deploy actions were a 1 action activity. The following are some of the feats that may not be properly balanced if deploy mines were executed as the 2 action version: Instant deployment
For example, double deployment and mobile deployment both would let you compress 4 actions into 2, saving 2 actions, but most all similar class feats from other classes only save 1 action, and when they do save 2 actions, they usually have a restriction attached to them. Also note that once you start combining these feats with some of the other mechanic class feats, you can do a very large amount of damage even at low level. Consider, for example, double deployment combined with proximity alert mines or double detonation. With double detonation, I could do 1d6 + my class level in d6s plus bonuses by using double deployment with the 30' range 2-action as 1 action, then double detonation as another action, and I would have an action left. With proximity alert mines I can do the same thing with 1 action (once something in the area moves), and since there is no limit on how many mines detonate a round, I could use 3 actions and 6 mines to deal 36d6 + bonus damage x6 in a 10' burst at 10th level. There are a lot of ways to clarify these feats, but I'd suggest something like the following: Instant deployment and mobile deployment both specify the one action version of deploy mines. Double deployment takes 3 actions if you use the 2 action version of deploy mines, and 2 actions if you use the 1 action version.
I think that the mines exocortex may be the most overpowered of the exocortexes, just for the shear amount of damage a well setup minefield can deliver. Note that mines are not meant to be ranged weapons that do 1d6 + half your level in d6 damage in a 10' burst. It is supposed to require some thought to set them up, but when you do get them set up, they are enormously powerful. For example, if you find a choke point, or setup a lure, a 10th level mechanic could deploy 7 proximity alert mines in or around a single square. when a creature enters that area, they would take 42d6 + bonuses damage. If the mechanic also had the Critical Explosion class feat, the bonus damage would be +28, for an expected 175 points of damage. You should, in general, always deploy proximity alert mines with 2 actions to keep yourself safe. But there is nothing wrong with that, because mines are not supposed to be ranged weapons. They are more like traps. If you want a ranged weapon, you should take a turret as your exocortex. Since mechanics are also good with weapons, you don't need to rely only on mines. You can also have a backup machine gun or grenade launcher.
I am with the folks who say that you can deploy mines mid air (as long as the square is adjacent to you with a 1 action deployment, or within 30' with a two action deployment). Spells work in a similar fashion. Also, in the context of a civilization with ready access to gravity control technology, having the mechanic deploy mines that hover in place makes sense. That being said, this same issue seems to exist for snares in pathfinder 2e. The general rules for snares don't say they need to be on the ground, though if you read the descriptions for specific snares, there is an implication that certain snares do need generally be on the ground. There are many snares that only need some sort of trip line, and I'd allow them to be deployed in the air if one could string a trip line between trees or the like.
The deploy mines activity can be performed with one or two actions, however it looks like there are a number of class feats that are only balanced, power wise, if deploy actions were a 1 action activity. The following are some of the feats that may not be properly balanced if deploy mines were executed as the 2 action version: Instant deployment
For example, double deployment and mobile deployment both would let you compress what would otherwise be 4 actions into 2, saving 2 actions, but most all similar class feats from other classes only save 1 action, and when they do save 2 actions, they usually have a restriction attached to them. Also note that once you start combining these feats with some of the other mechanic class feats, you can do a very large amount of damage even at low level. Consider double deployment combined with proximity alert mines or double detonation. With double detonation, I can do class level+bonus damage by using double deployment as 1 action, then double detonation as another action, and I have an action left. With proximity alert mines I can do the same thing with 1 action, and since there is no limit on how many mines detonate a round, I could use 3 actions and 6 mines to deal 3xclass level + bonuses damage to everything in the area. So, 30d6 + bonuses damage in an area at 10th level (costs 6 mines). I don't know if this would entirely fix the problem, but I'd suggest something like the following: Instant deployment and mobile deployment both specify the one action version of deploy mines. Double deployment takes 3 actions and specifies that you can use the 2 action version of deploy mines. This makes sure that you can't use proximity alert mines with it more than once a turn.
Seems like soldiers should just be get profiency in simole, martial, and advanced weapons.
I am not sure how I feel about occult necromancer's. It seems to me that necromancers are, weirdly, spirit and matter, which would be a whole new tradition-- the tradition of necromancy. If not that, then divine, but maybe with a feat that gave them access to occult spells with the force trait.
Science fiction and science fantasy is way more about melee combat than is realistic, and Starfinder should be especially so. In Star Trek, it's Kirkfu against a vesk, err, um, gorn, captain Micheal's insane martial arts, or Worf with a batleth. In starwars its Jedi, and bounty hunters, and arena fights against monsters. In Dune, its knife fights with shields. In Guardians of the Galaxy, there are oodles of superpowered fights. In fire fly, there is probably as much melee combat as gunplay, with Mel punching people and kicking them into engine intakes, and River's super powers. In starfinder, since you have all sorts of monsters that are going to get up close and claw/bite/trample/squish/absorb you, melee combat should be a big part of a fight. Especially since players love to fight in melee. It is very satisfying to split a void zombie in half with a doshka.
One could also make a cool down trait. Flourishes purpose is different. Judt having the area and auto fire activity take two actions, and having those the only action the weapon performs, does everything unwieldy does. I was thinking that cool down weapon weapon would be one that required a number of rounds equal to its cool down value where it could not be fired. Kind of different from unwieldy.
Instead, they might want to add a heavy trait to the advanced weapons, and then give soldiers proficiency equal to their martial weapon proficiency in advanced weapons with the heavy trait. Or just give them advanced weapon proficiency equal to their martial weapon proficiency. (the oddness of their using some of the exotic weapons is not really that big a deal).
Unwieldy weapons are a holdover from Starfinder 1e, and do not make sense for the 2e actions mechanic. For melee weapons, the restrictions on them are too severe for 2e, especially when you consider that things like an archaic maul do not have that trait. For the unwieldy melee weapons (doshka and neural lash) and for the assassin’s rifle, the weapons seem balanced without the drawbacks of the unwieldy trait. For weapons with the automatic and area traits, the 2e actions mechanic already does what the 1e unwieldy trait did, because area fire and auto fire both are 2 action activities. A 2 action activity can’t be done more that once on your 3 action turn, and can’t be used as a reaction (you would need a special action or the like that let you do that). That being said, one could make a some new traits that encompassed some of the ideas behind the unwieldy trait, and that might let one make some very cool, yet balanced weapons. For example, unwieldy weapons in 2e could be the opposite of agile, and impose a an extra -1 to attacks after the first one in a round, or could they impose clumsy 1 when wielding the weapon (and so giant totem barbarians would be wielding unwieldy weapons). One could also make a cool down trait. In any case, weapons that have these traits should be a bit better than weapons without the traits. An unwieldy doshka should also have something like a 'massive' trait, that gives the weapon a +2 bonus to damage, or the like.
If they are taunters, and not body guards, why call them guardians. Why not call them Harriers or Hecklers or something? I can dig a class that is a body guard. But it's silly to have them taunt, just because there is a taunt WoW ability. Being able to jump in front of attacks though, that is cool and actually more effective because it repositions the Guardian to be adjacent to the enemy and actually intercepts the attack. Or an ability that lets them jump to the origin of a burst and smother it. There are so many cooler things that could be done other than immitating WoW.
It makes less sense because its an ability that affects the targets mental state, but does not have the mental trait. And its just silly that this one class, which is not particularly charismatic, can manipulate even mindless creatures at 1st level, because they are some kind of body guard. And the ability is not even some sort of psychic magic. It makes sense meta game wise, and it makes sense for if people want a world of warcraft tank, but its silly within the game world. The point I was trying to make was not that the guardian doesn't actually do something, but that within the game world, these dedicated bodyguards would probably not all be taunting things. It's not something bodyguards would do. They would be more physical, interposing themselves and forcing enemies to go through them to get to their wards. As a higher level body guard feat, or more appropriately, a feat chain, I could see it. Or even better would be a skill feat chain for either Performance, Deception, or Intimidation (I like Performance best, Intimidation least.)
Taunt is quite a bit more 'meta-gamey' than demoralize or feint, because demoralize and feint make sense within the world. Those are things the character can actually do, and their limitations make in world sense. For example, they are both mental, they are charisma based, and by default demoralize requires that you share a language with the target. I could see a skill action to taunt, perhaps unlocked via an intimidate based skill feat. There are much cooler, more thematic ways to let a guardian agro than a taunt.
This is about the whole idea of Guardians getting Taunt, not about its mechanics. Even if the mechanics were neat, I would still hate Guardians getting Taunt, and that's because it is an ability that is about the Guardian's meta role in the game of being somekind of WoW inspired 'Tank' who should have an 'agro' ability, and not about a power that everyone who was a specialized body would learn to do. Bodyguards don't taunt people. It feels both silly, and meta-gamey in same way that D&D 4e sometimes, when it was at its worst, felt meta-gamey (I actually liked 4e fine. There were some had some cool ideas.) Also, how it could possibly work within the game world doesn't make sense. Its not magic, but it somehow draws even mindless being into attacking the bodyguard, including, say, a golem who was programmed to attack mages, or a revenant bent on vengeance. What is the body guard doing when they spend this action? Instead of Taunt, why not have some ability that let the Guardian designate a ward to protect, and then if the ward is attacked, the Guardian can use their reaction to stride adjacent to their ward, and take the attack instead of the ward. This could be augmented as they level, or via class feats so that they can also strike the attacker, or push the ward to a different space. Finally, do we really need another excuse for even more Mounty Python and the Holy Grail quotes while gaming?
Oh well, Urgathoa was my first guess, and here I was feeling all smug last week about Asmodeus (many people arguing online where guessing Asmodeus because it's a deity in 3.5e, and I was arguing that the big A is not subject to copyright).
I’d like to see some higher level non magical weapons, like a sword with the two hand d12, and slashing versatile piercing traits. I’d call it a knightly sword, but it would represent weapons like the Oakshot Type 18a-c, and Oakshot type 15a swords. It’s weird that they didn’t do that as a solution to the balance issue for more kinds of weapons. They did that for heavy armor, and they did that with bows. It would actually,she in game sense, too.
It makes no in world sense that a bastard sword doesn't have a point. Surely there is a half intelligent armorer somewhere that's like, 'hey, I have an idea forming in the cavity of my thick dwarven skull! Why don't I make a sword with a longer handle *and* a sharp point...' Also, free hand fighter builds are kind of weak, because you can do many similar things more easily, and more effectively, with the various 2 handed weapons with the trip and shove traits.
I noticed that the text 5th level android feat 'Machine Saboteur' only makes sense for melee attacks, but the feat works for any attack. MACHINE SABOTEUR FEAT 5
If its the android's nanites that are causing the glitching, then the feat shouldn't work if the android is using a ranged attack, because the nanites couldn't reach the target. For example, it is a pretty big stretch to come up with how this would work with a lasr rifle. The nanites are hitching a ride on the coherent light of the laser? If instead the glitching is from the android's knowledge of other machines, then the effects of the feat make sense for any attack, but then text should be changed. It would still be a good feat if it only worked on melee attacks.
It doesn't prevent them from retching to try to remove the condition though... It find it to visualize encounters where every time someone feels sick they stick their fingers down their throat.
By RAW this is all flatly wrong. If you want to houserule it at your table because you think it's cool, that's great. But telling people the rules already work that way is simply not true. Yeah, I looked up the thrown trait, and its in there that it says that a the weapon becomes a ranged weapon when thrown. Y'all are correct.
Where is there a rule that says that? There is not one. In fact, there are ranged weapons with the thrown trait, and melee weapons with the thrown trait. The classification of melee and ranged is right in the Core Rulebook. Describe an interaction where this breaks something? Throwing weapons has never been that great. You need to specialize with feats, returning runes, etc. to make it work well.
To me, RAW, the feat works with two melee weapons that are thrown. This includes hatchets, tridents, or any melee weapon with the thrown trait. Also, thieves do get Dex to damage with thrown melee weapons that have the appropriate traits (daggers and throwing knives). Aside from RAW, it's just cool. Thieves throwning daggers is classic fantasy. Shadowspawn from the Thieves World anthologies comes immediately to mind. So, yeah, you throw one hatchet overhand, then the other hatchet underhand at your MAP. The target is off-guard for the second attack. You are now disarmed.
Note that if you emblazon your weapon to become a holy symbol, you can use Raise Symbol with two handed weapons. That's nice for clerics of a number of faiths. Also, a war priest with weapon and shield can spend 2 actions to raise symbol, and then raise shield, if they want. +2 to saves is sometimes going to be worth it, especially if you are raising shield and striking anyway. Its a nice 3rd action.If the religious symbol you’re raising is a shield, such as with Emblazon Armaments, you gain the effects of Raise a Shield when you use this action and the effects of this action when you Raise a Shield.So a Warpriest with an Emblazoned Shield and this feat can Raise Shield and Raise Symbol as part of the same action. Yes, of course, but you then would not have the extra damage from an emplazoned weapon. Its a call a war priest needs to make. Do they want to save an action when they raise a shield, or do they want bonus damage.
Note that if you emblazon your weapon to become a holy symbol, you can use Raise Symbol with two handed weapons. That's nice for clerics of a number of faiths. Also, a war priest with weapon and shield can spend 2 actions to raise symbol, and then raise shield, if they want. +2 to saves is sometimes going to be worth it, especially if you are raising shield and striking anyway. Its a nice 3rd action.
We now know that the god who dies is not Pharasma. If it were, the psychpomp would not be able to present the book to her as a gift.
Note that the light cantrip can be used to track the location of creatures that hide or turn invisible. Attach a light spell to a creature, and where ever they go you will know what space they are in (they'll still have concealment, of course).
Also, wow, Thunderstrike and it’s Clumsy rider is really strong! It makes it useful for even a higher level character to cast.
A hasted magus casting a debuf or blast, striding, and striking is badass. If you want to do this, you may want to start str/dex 18, int 16.
I think it represents poetic knowledge, like what a bard uses to create stories.
I'd like a witch's choice of patron to give them a cantrip, a basic lesson, and some extra thing (like a bard's muse does). For example, a vengence witch might get a +1 circumstance bonus to curse DCs against a target that has ever attacked her. I'd like the witch cantrips to all be reworked. They need to be a little bit better. Make them in line with the psychic cantrips (unamped). I'd like cackle to be usuable in a manner similar to a psi cantrip. If used without a focus point, it requires an action. Cackle also sustains all the witch's spells.
How much does turning into a lich change a person? Well, that is, will the wizard go crazy much, or will he generally remain himself, but acquire a greater share of cynicism? How preserved is the original personality (if it was corrupted enough to decide to become a lich at all) Distort is such a loaded word. A wizard who becomes a lich already has a unique mental state. Being immortal would change that unique state further, as would having only a skeletal body. Being infused with negative energy might also have an effect. These might not be bad things though. In fact, it could be a joyful and fulfilling experience. If you look at the liches we know, they seem to be rational and ambitious. The do not possess an undead hunger, other than to ensure that their immportality is not ended by the untimely destruction of their soul cage. That is a very rational fear, especially for NPC liches. Liches also typically have the same cravings for magical power that they had as wizards.
I have some equipment gripes. I'd like a reworking of the weapons that takes more into account the usefulness of the different traits. Slashing weapons that are versatile piercing are not that useful. 1. Bastard swords that are versatile piercing.
Also, I would like the deer totem barbarian to get a different trait added to its antlers than grapple. For one thing, it seems to assume the giant antlers of a male deer. Shove would make more sense and would actually be more useful along side reach (since you could shove as a followup to force them to take an attack of opportunity). Also, it would be cool if they had some special thing that works with sudden charge. They really need to give a saving throw vs. the trip critical specialization on hammers and flails. I think they should rework what is a light weapon. Short swords should not be light. You can't easily carry 10 of them. When considering what a light encumbrance item is, I like a reality check of 'does it make sense that someone can easily carry 10 of these?'
One thing I would like to see is a bastard sword with versatile piercing added to its traits. It could be a new type of sword, maybe level 1 or advanced. Or it could be a change to the current bastard sword. It makes no sense that a person can’t thrust with a bastard sword.
There are a bunch of classes whose main stick requires a skill check. For example, pistolero gunslingers make either deception or intimidation checks when reloading. One thing that has bugged me as being inconsistent is that the dedication feats require the character to get more trained in the spellcasting skill of a class’s tradition than the class itself requires, and with sorcerers or bards it’s actually quite likely that the dabbler is more trained than they are, because they’re better off training up in a charisma skill, like performance, intimidation, or diplomacy.
I agree, and think this is a great list of ideas for wizards. The meta magic thievish would have been better if it gave bonus class feats, or the meta magic feat you could prepare was at up to your level. At least wizards had a clear vision of what the class was about. Witches, sigh. They could have been so cool.
I forget who originally said it, but I really like the idea of swashbucklers getting a free skill increase to be spent on one of their panache-gaining skills. They get skill feats for them already, and that's cool, but if you're expected to increase a panache-granting skill as much as you can in order to ensure you can enter panache, then it feels a bit sad to have to use one of your three or fewer eventual legendary skill picks to make sure your core class feature comes online. I think that the free skill increase that the Thaumaturge and Inventor currently have should be applied to a number of other classes. Especially, alchemists should get it with crafting and all spellcasters should get them in their tradition. Swashbucklers should get them in their panache skill. Gunslingers in their way skill.
It’s strange that the harrow bloodline gets suggestion for its 4th level bloodline spell, and not read omen. I can’t see how suggestion has anything to do with the harrow, but read omen seems obvious and it would be odd for a harrow sorcerer not to have it.
Start out with a one or even two drakeheart mutagen elixers. You would have to give up a scroll or two. They are 4 gp each, and will raise your AC to 17 for 1 minute, which is just one less than the best you could start with. Buy more as you can afford to. Then, for spells go with magic weapon. At first level, casting magic weapon on one of your friend's weapons is amazing. Color spray is also good.
1. Bastard swords that are versatile piercing. My pet peeve. But in general, more 1+ level non-magic gear would be cool.
Back in the very early 1980s we ran an all kobold campaign. There were 4 kobold PCs, Huey, Duey, Luey, and Puey. Huey was a fighter, Luey was a cleric, Duey was thief, and Puey was an assassin. Most of those kobolds died, but Puey, aka 'Puey the bold', went on to join the regular adventuring party and eventually became a 15th level grandfather of assassins. He was like a kobold James Bond. These were kobolds from the 1st edition monster manual, which looked like cute little reptilian devil puppy people, and they were technically members of the 'giant class', and so somehow related to ogres, trolls, fire giants, orcs and goblins.
It seems that the basic armies by level table, which should be on page 63, is missing from the players guide.
There are all sorts of cool alchemical items that should have been in the game, but we got stuck with low level stuff with more DC and damage.
Anyway, here are some higher level alchemical items that might be cool: Disintegration bombs
I think that the Thaumaturge is good for a monster hunter class. There should be a cleric doctrine of inquisition, that has the spell/attack progression of the warpriest, provides light armor proficiency, and focuses on perception and skills. So, instead of being a cleric with an investigator/rogue/thaumaturge background, you could be a cleric with the inquisition doctrine if you wanted. Really two cleric doctrines is kind of sad. There are all sorts of rogue rackets, sorcerer bloodlines, druid orders, etc. But only 2 cleric doctrines. Other cleric doctrines could include evangelist, and secret cultist.
The following is incorrect: Goblin (Intelligence/Charisma) I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again, Goblins have some of the best feats and heritages around. Of particular note here is the Goblin feat ‘Burn It!’ when combined with the Oscillating Wave Conscious mind can make your Produce Flame deal an extra 2.5x the spell’s level damage when your psyche is unleashed (that’s an extra 10 damage at level 8, and 15 damage at level 12!) Both Burn It! and Unleash psyche are status bonuses, and so they do not stack. Still, Burn It! is somewhat useful for when your psyche is not unleashed. To unleash your psyche, you need to cast a spell first anyway. Cast ranged 'Produce Flame' or other fire spell with a bonus for Burn It!. Then on the next round, unleash your psyche, and cast a ray of frost or other cold spell (as per the requirements for oscillating wave, and benefit from the unleash psyche status bonus.
I'd see it similar to a good religions tenets against killing. It's OK to destroy undead in self defense, or to otherwise further the creation of unlife in the world and the cause of Urgathoa. If some cleric of Norgrubber created a bunch of undead and had them attack a community of Urgathoa worshipping gouls, Urgathoa would be cool with destroying those tools of Norgrubber. It could also be that Urgathoa wants just to make sure that their clerics are a negative force in the cosmos, weighing things away from life and towards undeath. As long as the cleric creates or saves more undead beings than they destroy, they are OK. But then, there are also probably Urgathoa fundamentalist fanatics that are very strict. A pragmatic blood lord would use them, but not really buy into their strict, literalist interpretation of Urgathoa's anathema.
I don't know if you noticed this yet, but you have a section where you say, "Double-Dipping Weaknesses
This does not always work, because of the following rule regarding weaknesses: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=345 "If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value." So, for the flaming sword example, you could use the personal anti-thesis to trigger the 'you' weakness for the slashing damage that the sword does, and then the 1d6 fire damage that the flaming sword does would trigger the troll's fire weakness (I think that's how it would work, those are 2 different damage instances, right?). But, if you were attacking a werewolf with a silver sword, you could not do this, because the silver weakness is already triggered by the slashing damage, and you don't combine weaknesses.
I am more into the mana wastes and steam punk these days, but I will say that Iron Gods was an utterly awesome adventure path to run. Each and every module was splendid-- not a weak volume in the 6. Also, when you dig into Numeria, it is friggin *cool*, what with mutants, rat folk warrens, Kellid barbarians, the Technic League, all of the crashed alien starships and alien monsters. |
