Raxius Malgorian

Shinigami02's page

Organized Play Member. 997 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 997 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thistledown wrote:

Nowhere in all of paizo are my expectations more at-odds than the Simurgh. I don't know the original myth, but my exposure to Simurgh is This One from Worm.

Oh hey, I'm not the only one. Though my mental image tends to occasionally flip over to the Final Fantasy X version.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Sliska Zafir wrote:
Also running Plaguestone. Fighter not happy Ranger has higher AC without needing to have shield and take raise shield actions. Fighter at 19+2=21 when shield raised; Ranger at 20 just walking around.

Wait, what? How? The rules do not support this at all. Any Fighter with Dex 12 should have higher AC than any Ranger, assuming they grab Heavy Armor, and equal assuming they don't.

This sounds like a straight rules error or someone making a profound mistake in their armor selection.

A fighter with Dex 12 and in Hide or Scale is going to be lower than a Ranger with Dex 14 in the same armor. Both are Trained proficiency until 11, at which point both become Expert. It's not until level 17 that the Fighter gets an inherent advantage. As for the Fighter being decked in Heavy Armor, well, that stuff's expensive. Getting the cheapest Heavy Armor (Splint Mail) at level 1 is going to cost nearly the entirety of your starting gold, leaving barely enough to pick up the forementioned Shield and a weapon, let alone any QoL gear.

On top of that, the Ranger has the option of taking the Outwit Edge, which while not quite "just walking around" is the equivalent of permanently having a Buckler raised against your Prey at the cost of only a single action at the start of the fight.

That said, I do still think there's a mistake somewhere, as unless they're level 3 (in which case the Fighter probably is in Hide or Scale Mail with 12 Dex, or Light Armor with slightly higher Dex, and probably should have upgraded to Chain or a Breastplate if not Heavy Armor by now) I'm not seeing any way that the Ranger can have 20 AC casually.

Darksyde wrote:
Just a quick double check. there isn't any adjustment to weapon stats in 2ed for size just bulk and cost? So the main thing the giant instinct barbarian gets is the reach? I looked for info on changing the damage die for size but didn't find anything.

The really funny thing is the Titan Mauler-granted oversized weapon explicitly doesn't even change the bulk or cost of that weapon. So the weapon in and of itself doesn't actually do anything but give you Clumsy 1, and then allow you to use the other abilities as relevant.

Just as one extra point of note, if there were a restriction against using the same type of action (even just referencing the components of casting) multiple times that would screw over sorcerers (who replace Material components with Somatic Components) and any metamagic user (which generally adds Somatic Components). So yeah, definitely no such rule.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In general, if you have two single-action Cantrips (or even a single-action and a two-action e.g. Shield and any offensive Cantrip) you can cast them both in the same round.

That said, you specifically cannot cast both Inspire Courage and Inspire Defense in the same round, not because they are Cantrips but because they are specifically Composition Cantrips. The Composition tag has a clause specifically saying you can't cast more than such spell per turn. You could totally cast Inspire Courage or Defense and Shield, or Daze, or any other non-Composition-tagged Cantrip in the same turn though. Heck, a Bard could get three Cantrips off in one turn through a combination of Inspire Defense, Shield, and Guidance.

Rysky wrote:
You also grip it by the handle like you would other shields, in fantasy it just straps to your arm.

Yeah, the fantasy (or at least DnD and Pathfinder) version of a "Buckler" is actually a Targe, I guess they got confused by assuming a Buckler would probably be the one to involve a buckle.

Ravingdork wrote:
Blave wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:
Speaking of, I've seen someone claiming that if you use Assurance for things like shove or trip you don't take a multiple attack penalty? Can anyone happen to confirm or deny this?
It's true. Assurance lets you ignore ANY penalty. You only take 10 and add your proficiency bonus.
I didn't think skill checks took attack penalties in the first place. I've seen people recommending doing combat maneuvers in place of a 3rd attack with a -10 penalty for that very reason.

Any check with the Attack trait (including maneuvers) incurs and counts towards MAP.

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

1. Correction: I was wrong, you do get to choose 3 per level plus get a free granted spell.

See... here is where the confusion lies for me. It says in the class description that you must pick the bloodline spell as your first spell. And the example it gives has the sorcerer "picking" the bloodline spell, then picking 2 more (not picking 3 in addition to the free spell).

But in the bloodlines section it says they are in addition to.
I'm not sure which is right.

The confusion may lie in that the third spell you actually get to pick is on the even levels, with the bloodline-granted spell and first two picks being the odd levels (when you increment spell level).

Yeah, the Escape action uses Unarmed Attack against grapple DC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelseus wrote:

For those who are concerned that you can't really work up your character concept b/c you don't know who your GM will be, therefore you can't ask them, I would say that this is just as likely to happen in P1 or D&D 3/4/5/80000 etc. You might have a GM sit down and say that you're playing in his home-rule setting, and there are no monks. Or its an East Asian themed adventure, or you're all playing talking animals. Nothing about the P2 rarity rules changes the fact that your PC is subject to GM fiat.

I literally had a GM who said that there are no clerics in his setting, and this was back in the APG only days, where there weren't a ton of options to keep a party at full HP.

This is definitely one of the upsides of playing mostly published adventures, I do at least know the setting ahead of time even if I don't know the GM. Some GMs may not like me bringing a Tian to a Varisian game but at least I'm not trying to bring a Kitsune to a Humans-only game or something.

That said, sometimes the published adventure can be a downside. I mentioned the one who wouldn't even change given weapons to better equip the rest of the party, but even besides that GM there's several who are incredibly hesitant to add even a homebrew quest to a published game. And to add a sidequest for a single party member to gain a single option, let alone adding several for the entire party to get their items? There might be one or two of the, like, dozen GMs in the group that might be willing to do that. For the most part though, it's pretty much down to what's already in the adventure or maybe something easily subbed into the drop list.

I've noticed a lot of discussion in here seems to think that either a character is being built for a game that is actively ongoing (and therefore has a GM on hand to ask) or else is pure Theorycraft (in which case something something "I'm the GM now".) From personal experience though, and maybe my experience is Uncommon or even Rare, but I definitely have access to it and surely it's not Unique to me, there is a third category: The build designed for a specific game that doesn't have a set GM yet. It's kinda like Theorycraft but with intent to play once someone runs the game, and it's the kind of situation one might easily find themselves in if they play with a group that doesn't have a set GM (and especially a group that does a lot of APs and such). Personally, as soon as a Player's Guide drops I tend to start considering what kind of character might fit into the adventure, and how I might make that character. However, unless someone starts running it immediately (which almost never happens, my group's GMs tend to wait for the entire AP to come out first, and of course sometimes not even then) the actual game won't be played for a while, and I have no idea which of the several GMs in the group will be running it. And believe me when I say that the GMs in my group have very different styles (ranging from one that threw 3 Greatswords at a party with 1 Greatsword user because that's what was written and they didn't feel like straying from the adventure as written to the one that rewrote 3/4 of the story because they were having so much fun messing around with the Witch's Patron mechanic). So if the concept you come up with is something that seems like it's going to need a particular Uncommon whatever or two... well, it pretty much comes down to either "discard the concept" or "hope and pray that the right GM runs the game".

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So many people talking about the Flurry, but I'm surprised no one actually mentioned how it interacts with Incredible Movement (well I saw one mention of the tactic but not details). With Flurry and Incredible Movement Monks become nearly unmatched in hit-and-run tactics, eventually able to move up, hit twice, and retreat far enough that most enemies will probably need to burn 2 actions to catch up. And of course you can play this up as an Elf, with a potential 70 foot move speed eventually. And while it might not be the most likely choice, if you add in their capstone option that gives them permanent Quickened for moving, you can basically get to the point that in a large enough arena a Monk can probably kite any melee opponent to their doom.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Zwordsman wrote:
Huh if they can't. I'm less sure what an Alchemist's familiar is that useful for in comparison to other lv 1 feats . Huh.

I'm not caught up on Alchemists, but wouldn't the Manual Dexterity/Lab Assistant combo be useful?

There's also the Extra Reagents ability, or extra senses like Scent to help target bombs at invisible or hidden opponents.

On a turn where you're commanding your familiar you only get 2 actions (which presumably are being used to either draw and use an item or Quick Alchemy and use an item,) so if the familiar is using Lab Assistant it would probably have to apply the item too. This isn't horrible for Elixirs, but if you're doing something like bombing that means that the familiar needs to make the attack roll, and its attack rolls probably aren't great given its only bonus is your Proficiency modifier (fortunately including level, but even still). And of course giving your Familiar Lab Assistant takes both of your familiar abilities for the day so that's probably about the only thing it can do. Maybe useful for some Alchemists (like, I can see why the example Mutagenist has a Familiar now, spending 1 action to make/retrieve and drink a Mutagen is pretty good for them) but for a lot of alchemists it's probably not great.

People in the playtest actually were actually calling for the name to be changed to something involving "spell" because having this entire separate thing that's not called spells but pretty much function exactly like spells just without using spell slots was seen as too confusing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are we sure about that though? Because the Titan Mauler ability specifically says:

Titan Mauler, page 87 wrote:
You gain access to one weapon one size larger than you, of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation.

Emphasis mine. This implies that oversized weapons are probably at least Uncommon, and that you only gain access to one. But then again, much like anything else Uncommon, if you find them in your adventures (such as fighting a lot of Large enemies) you could probably take those with you and either just use them or... whatever it takes to gain Access for Crafting purposes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was looking at the Disarm maneuver, because I remember its Success effect being not great in the Playtest. I noticed that it does grant a -2 penalty to attack now, which sounds nice on the surface... but then I noticed that it (like the bonus to additional Disarm checks) seems to only apply until the start of the target's turn. This is great if you're fighting something like a Paladin or some Fighters, where they can get a lot of Reactions they can use to hit things, but it seems like most of the time this penalty is going to be wearing off right when it actually becomes useful. And I'm just curious, is this intended? Because it seems to make Disarm still not very useful unless you can reliably crit-succeed it (which is not an easy state to reach I don't believe).

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The original We Be Goblins at least mentioned that Goblins can and will pickle anything they can get their hands on.

Kringress wrote:

Looking at the saves for a moment, you get a base 10+cast Stat+ TEML: (maxing casting stat) 10+4+2=16 at first level, 7th level is 18, 10th level is 19, 15th level is 21, 19th level is 23, and 20th is 24 (25 with INT Item)

Going to use Demons for the saves CR 1, 7, 13, 16, 20
1 F 4, R 10, W 7
7 F 15, R 14, W 17
13 F 26, R 19, W 24
16 F 32, R 26, W 27
20 F 39, R 35, W 34

I will have to check other monsters but right now anything that allows a save above level 7 is not worth casting.

I think you're missing the part where level contributes to Proficiency Bonus. So for level 1 it would be 10+4+(1+2)=17. At level 7 it would be 10+4+(7+4)=25, and so on.

EDIT: And severely ninja'd.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing to get out of the way right off the bat: I'm an Anime and Video Game nut. I have this weird obsession with oversized swords. So I'm just going to share how to get the most insanely oversized sword that I've found, just in the CRB.

Also, something I'm taking as a Given, though table variation might exist: When the Barbarian's Giant Instinct allows you to use a weapon two sizes larger than you at base (aka a Small creature using a Large weapon) and then that same Instinct gives you abilities that explicitly grow your gear with you, I am going to assume you don't suddenly lose the ability to use your weapon just because it grew with you and you are no longer Small or Medium.

So going off this: Halfling or Goblin with a Large Greatsword. I can't remember exactly if PF1e gave an exact length, and the book doesn't seem to give an exact length for Greatswords, and Google has turned up Zweihanders being as long as 7 feet so I'm going to say that a Medium Greatsword being 6 feet isn't unrealistic. Follow the PF1e standard of increasing gear's size by 1 increment doubles the size. So Large Greatsword would be 12 feet. 3 foot creature, 12 foot Greatsword, already off to a great start. But it gets better.

Level 6, get Giant's Stature. You grow to Large (+2 Size Increments) and your gear grows with you. Your character is now Large at 12 feet tall, and your Greatsword is now size Gargantuan at a whopping 48 feet long. But still it gets better.

Level 12, Titan's Stature. You can now grow to size Huge (+3 Size Increments) and again, your gear grows with you. So now your character is 24 feet tall... and wielding a sword that is a whopping 96 feet long. If you pointed that thing straight up and let it fall it would probably cleave a moderately sized building in half. But there is one more point to this study...

You see, one of the hilarious things about Pathfinder is that for the most part the length of your weapon has nothing to do with how far you can hit. So that 12 foot sword you're starting with? Yeah, you can still only hit adjacent creatures (up to 5 feet away). The 48 foot Gargantuan Blade? 10 feet. And the 96-foot monstrosity? 15 feet. I guess 80-some percent of the sword must be incorporeal or something. Oh, and of course, at all these points it still does the same 1d12 damage, I'm pretty sure.

This has been a study on insanely huge blades and how to use them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Metaphysician wrote:
... if it is altering the psychic medium of an entire planet, in what way is *that* not detectable, like a giant beacon?

If you dropped a drop of dye into a swirling tank of water (the swirling in this case being representative of the telepathic communication occurring on the planet anyways, which would theoretically muddy the telepathic medium), even a minute later would you be able to look at the now colored water and pinpoint where the drop of dye was dropped in? Because I think that's the comparison (or at least similar to it) they're making. Using it changes the entire medium of the planet via a cascade reaction, rather than a constant input.

Of course it's not quite a perfect comparison given the effect does change if you remove the device, but then the water would revert to colorless if you removed the dye too, that's just a bit more complex.

SirShua wrote:
As a side note. Stars continue fusion past iron. All known elements are the product of fusion or are synthetic. Iron is the point where fusion consumes energy rather than releasing it however.

I think the science classes I've taken have said anything beyond Iron is generally the result of supernovas, but I'm no astrophysicist or anything so all I've got is gen-ed.

Ascalaphus wrote:
What this box is really about is "oh please don't split the party between a space combat and a regular combat". If only because you can't fit both maps on the table at the same time. GM responsibly :P

From what I remember of discussions that happened a while back, it's also at least in part just to promote actually using space-combat rules. After all, why do all these space combat things when you can put the ship on auto-pilot, board the enemy ship, and treat it as a (possibly somewhat time-constrained, auto-pilot isn't perfect) dungeon crawl instead.

Dracomicron wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Operative-property weapon so that you can go properly Dex-Light Armor/Cha-Soulfire
I get that the damage is still low, but can't you do this now with solar armor and an operative melee weapon?
I believe that Soulfire only goes on crystals.

It does indeed, rendering the fusion completely useless for armor Solarians.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Even when published materials sometimes fall well under WBL.

I think except for hells rebels every adventure path I've seen has left my characters horribly under WBL: kingmaker, dead suns, pirates, .. I think kingmaker was the worst. My character at 7th level had starting wealth and his spellbook which had increased in value from him scribing into it...

Funny thing: In my group (at least for Pathfinder APs) we quite often houserule sale price = full cost rather than the default 1/2. Despite that we still wind up under WBL (sometimes dramatically so) surprisingly often.

WatersLethe wrote:

Also, consumable items would literally never be used if it meant each one sets you further and further back from your expected WBL.

Same goes for recouping lost items/limbs.

GM: "Oohh, I'm sorry, since you spent too much on consumables you're now permanently behind in wealth. All the math surrounding encounter design is going to go out the window from here on out, good luck and make sure you roll up a more miserly character just in case."

Just for point of note, this is literally exactly why my group almost never uses consumables except the occasional healing item in emergencies. Because our GMs don't tend to adjust things like this, they tend to run things by the book. Even when published materials sometimes fall well under WBL. Some GMs hesitate to even change Pathfinder item drops to the slightly-less-common things the party is specced into instead of five hundred longswords or greatswords.

I mean it did also apply to pretty much everyone ever using a Spell-Like Ability, as those are almost if not literally always component-less.

Ascalaphus wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:

It wasn't at all clear before psychic magic. That you could hide a spell with Silent+Still magic was something a lot of people believed and it required a rather specific reading of Spellcraft to determine otherwise.

But when Occult Adventures came out, suddenly the ability to cast discreetly wasn't something that you needed feats for anymore, it seemed as if these new classes could do it for free. The design team looked for a way to avoid such a situation, because it'd really allow these classes to wreak havoc consequence-free. They went with this Spellcraft interpretation, basically saying "hey all along it's been like this", which surprised many people, rather than coming out and saying "we're changing this rule for balance".

It wasn't FAQ'd properly, but obvious casting had definitely come up in the forums well before that. It's kinda like the "Hands of Effort" thing in that it's existed forever but if you didn't frequent just the right parts of the forum it's easily missed, and even when it's not missed a lot of groups tend to ignore it anyways because it's one of those divisive rulings.

Xenocrat wrote:
Spells get called out because they have no components and the introduction of psychic magic in Pathfinder infamously required them to state that all spell casting was always visible regardless of direct spell effects or components being sensed.

Small note, the whole obvious casting thing way predates Psychic Magic. It was originally created to prevent things like Silent Stilled spells (or just Silent spells cast while Invisible) or Spell-Like Abilities (which have no components) being undetectable. And it's been a controversial ruling the entire time.

SuperBidi wrote:

Archetypes have one big flaw which can't be removed:

- Soldier asks for a few feats to get an archetype in. Feats are part of the Soldier, but not much of it. And you can get feats in the normal way.
- Envoy loses Improvisations. Improvisations are all the class gives you, and there is no way to get them out of the Envoy class features.

So, currently, for one class you don't lose much for another one you lose everything.

And then there's Mystics. The Mystic trade-outs are a bit of a mess, and IMO a bit larger of a loss than pretty much any other class has, making them horrible for taking archetypes.

Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
In addition to seems like a bit much, and again, leads to mandatory archetypes.
I mean, yes, they'd literally be mandatory in that system; selecting an archetype would become a part of the character creation process as an element of further customization. But in that scenario that's not any more of a problem than, say, feats being mandatory.
Except it is more of a problem simply because an Archetype (especially as designed in Starfinder) means so much more than a feat does.

While that's a true statement, it's not particularly relevant as the comparison I'm making there is to "feats", not "a feat" - which is to say, I'm comparing archetypes to the set of all feats a character takes in ordinary progression.

And in any case, the point of that statement is "being mandatory in this situation isn't a problem, but a designed and intentional outcome" - what I'm saying is that if you made it "optional" to take feats, whether or not to take feats wouldn't be a real choice either. In the system I'm proposing there, it moves from "you may choose an archetype" to "everyone chooses an archetype". I'm increasingly considering just writing such a system out next week (entirely too busy writing some important stuff this week), and I'm partially looking for what to watch out for in doing so.

The thing is, it being mandatory still creates a problem that feats being mandatory doesn't, especially because feats are several small decisions while archetype is one big decision, which is that it severely limits what character concepts are usable based entirely on which ones can fit with an existing archetype. Even if you completely extract it from class mechanics, most archetypes have a sizable chunk of flavor built into them that is much harder to ignore.

Nerdy Canuck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
In addition to seems like a bit much, and again, leads to mandatory archetypes.
I mean, yes, they'd literally be mandatory in that system; selecting an archetype would become a part of the character creation process as an element of further customization. But in that scenario that's not any more of a problem than, say, feats being mandatory.

Except it is more of a problem simply because an Archetype (especially as designed in Starfinder) means so much more than a feat does. An individual feat rarely means that much in terms of build or story, and having the several that we do means you can piece them together to make whatever character you're after. In contrast, an Archetype has a fair bit more meat to it. There's a lot of mechanical impact, (the weakness, perceived or real being subjective, of which of course is part of the issue a lot of people have with them right now,) which needs to be considered, and then there's also usually a fairly large chunk of flavor impact too. And for some (possibly even most) characters, well, there's just not an archetype out there that actually matches the flavor of the character. And shy of releasing a book with several frankly extremely bland archetype options for no other purpose than to specifically be applicable to basically anything (and possibly not even then,) there's really not much chance there could be a guarantee that every character will have an archetype that fits it.

And on top of that, there's just the matter that archetypes require much more design space to write than a feat. Feats don't take up a whole lot of space in a book, you can generally get multiple on a page even, while archetypes are generally going to take up at least one, probably multiple pages. And because feats are such small-scale items they usually don't require too much cross-comparison (outside of balance considerations we of course hope are happening, whereas because of the inherent lore to archetypes they require a lot more consideration, both just in creating the lore and then double-checking it doesn't intersect too much with another existing archetype. But at the same time, with archetypes divorced from class you have to keep that consideration in mind so that archetypes don't clash too much with class (or get rendered completely useless by a class, either is bad) so you have to design around that too... basically it's all just a very involved process.

One thing I think is worth noting is that the Energy Shield is considered a Force Field as far as Solarian's Particle Field ability (in the Armory) is concerned, as having an Energy Shield up prevents you from using Particle Field same as a normal Force Field does, as is specifically stated in Particle Field's description.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
that's no moon... (spaceship sized mimic!)

Few months back I learned about DnD's House Hunter, a house-sized (and shaped) mimic, so my first thought was a Starfinder version of that that took on the form of a spaceship.

As for a more normal sized mimic, you could have a particularly fancy Mimic Null-Space Chamber for the new hungry bag, Tent Mimics of all shapes and sizes, Mimic Escape Pods, Mimic Vehicles, Mimic Storage Lockers (both horizontal like you'd find in a barracks and vertical like schools/workplaces/etc, some large species may even form an entire walls of lockers, with each locker just being a separate mouth), Mimic Arcade Games, Mimic Control Panels... a Mimic Recharging Station could be quite dangerous, go to recharge your batteries or even your environmental protections, and the wires suddenly come to life to grab you and drag you into a well-hidden mouth.

Basically, it's not as simple as 'treasure chest' anymore, but with some creativity there's all sorts of stuff of all sizes that someone might approach, many someone might even open.

Jasque wrote:

There is a recycling system expansion bay for starships that states:

Starfinder #6: Empire of Bones pg. 46 wrote:

Note: The following Expansion Bay is compatible only with a Supercolossal ship.

A recycling system enables a Supercolossal starship to be nearly self-sustaining, operating independently for decades or even centuries. A combination of smelters, biomass processors, manufacturing, and UPB converters allows the ship to convert almost all its waste into goods and materials.

It appears that items can be broken down into UPBs with "smelters, biomass processors, and manufacturing." I assume the "UPB converters" then convert the UPBs back into useful items.

The recycling system is the size of a cargo bay, and it can convert "almost all" the waste generated on a starship into UPBs.

I do think it's worth noting that while it is 1 Expansion Bay in size, the recycling system only works with supercolossal ships. AKA a size beyond the "15,000+ feet" long category. So while technically all expansion bays are supposed to be the same size, that kind of size restriction makes it not unreasonable to believe there might be something more to what goes into the recycling system. Like, it might not be all that compact.

And maybe John Cena's a Verthani. With their camo skin, you really can't see him.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I think you get more out of being a level 17 soldier than that gear boost (not least of all the bonus to hit, which increases your damage without appearing to do so, but also the non-damage boosting benefits you get).

The problem with holding up the "to-hit" bonus like this, is that (at least as of the Char-Ops Playtest, and probably the final book since I doubt Vanguard is going to stop being a full-BAB class) 2 and a half classes have the same bonus to attack you have (Solarian, Vanguard, and Exocortex Mechanics). Another can pretend to be on par until level 9 with their main trick; and yet another can pretend to be on-par until level 13 (even surpassing you occasionally) with a couple talents, while even buffing the entire party (Operative with Trick Attack and Envoy with Get 'Em and later Clever Attack respectively.) Granted those last two won't necessarily be as mobile as you are, and can't full-attack, but still. Meanwhile you put your talents into damage which... becomes a drop in the bucket. Especially compared to the damage bonuses Operative is getting with their Trick Attack, though I suppose that's mostly because of how much their weapons kinda suck without the handicap. ^.^;

Steve Geddes wrote:
If the "I want to do lots of damage" option for soldier added as much to the average damage as the increase in weapon damage inherent in the gear progression, then it would become the only choice.

While I agree that flat out doubling your damage would be insane, I do totally agree with others that I really wish the damage options scaled more than their piddling drop-in-the-bucket amounts. It really hurts with this part of your conclusion:

Steve Geddes wrote:
FWIW, I think feeling like your choice matters is more important than actually mattering (though I take your point that they should line up).

After all, if you know that the damage boost you're getting from your gear boosts is only going to save you maybe 1 attack in 20 (possibly hyperbolic, don't have the time to actually calculate things ATM), it's hard to even feel like that choice actually matters. Especially since I doubt many enemies take 20 attacks to take down, meaning it doesn't really save you much at all.

Claxon wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Kinetic Converter is also absolutely life saving, but can't be used in SFS.
What is this kinetic converter? I couldn't find it on Archives of Nethys.

Starfinder Armory, page 123. For some reason the Archives don't have the rules text for it, so here's the most relevant paragraph of 4 or so.

Kinetic Converter wrote:
If you are the target of an attack, spell, or similar effect that deals you damage while you wear the kinetic converter, you can activate the device as a reaction, provided the effect wasn’t a critical hit. Once activated, the converter disperses the kinetic energy of the attack. Instead of taking damage, you are knocked away from the source of the damage a distance based on the convertor’s type, rounding the damage up to the nearest 5. You can fall prone during this movement to halve the distance you move. If you hit an obstacle before moving the distance the converter threw you, you take 1d6 bludgeoning damage per 10 foot increment you would have traveled, rounded up to the nearest 10 feet.

Exact distance you travel and how many times you can use it per day depends on the mark (of which there are 3 tiers), and Mk 1 is level 8 and 10.5k Credits for a 1/day that knocks you twice as far as the damage you would've taken (unless you fall prone). And you can't get around the uses limitation by getting several of them, because using more than one in a day leaves you Sickened until you rest for 8 uninterrupted hours.

Basically it lets you no-sell damage a few times a day in exchange for being knocked across the room.


Also, as far as the Dented Kasa goes, the 2 Resolve points and Reaction cost for each use is pretty steep, but it's definitely great for no-selling stuff like, say, a Wounding weapon.

DM_Blake wrote:

The problem is that this results in an infinite supply of these torpedoes on the PC's starship.

The minute I tell my players that they have an infinite supply of weapons that cost 3.8 million credits each, they will happily open shop and start selling them. Even at the game's staggering 1/10 selling penalty, they can still unload theoretically infinite torpedoes for 380,000 credits.

...and this is part of why ships exist outside of the normal economy. On top of the several million (or possibly even billion) credits it would take to buy the ship itself, that no APL 1 party could possibly afford.

Hmm wrote:

The only thing that I want from 2E in Starfinder is the action economy. Starfinder was a rebalanced version of Pathfinder 1. Is it terrible to say that I hope they don't change it for years yet?


Yeah, that's totally understandable. I just kinda hate how thin the 10-point stat gen is. And to be honest, outside of it throwing all the math for a loop, the Playtest (and possibly PF2e, I don't know yet if it survived the transition) stat gen would be the easiest thing in the world to convert, since all the pieces are already there.

Pantshandshake wrote:
*patiently waits for a "Can we tape 15 nuclear warheads to a detonator" thread*

Ignoring the issues with placement on that, that's gonna be a lot of duct tape.

Ixal wrote:
Don't only focus on the nuclear weapon. Yes, they can't be triggered by a explosion, but the other tracking weapons available likely can.

It still ties into the first point, likely even more than an actual nuclear warhead would, because while the rigged nuclear material is going to be big, bulky (especially with the likely lead lining) and awkward, straight up explosive ordnance that can do even remotely comparable damage is going to be even bigger. And still probably shielded so that it doesn't chain-reaction explode the first time your weapons system takes a hit, so you still have to bypass that shielding to attach the detonator.

Ixal wrote:
And the text about the limited quality of starship weapon says that the ship fabricates them on its own. So you do not have to buy the weapons but just whatever resources the ship needs which is "free".

That material still has to come from somewhere. Yes the ship probably has an entire store-room of UPBs somewhere specifically for making ship-based weaponry. Yes that store-room of UPBs comes out of the same nebulous "ship fund" that lets a level 1 party have a ship in the first place because it's outside of the normal economy. No that still does not make it actually infinite, and the GM can still give you at least a metaphorical slap on the wrist and tell you to stop it if you try to abuse the system.

1) Size is probably an issue. A high-powered or nuclear warhead probably isn't going to be small. It's probably big, clunky, and heavy, making it very obvious if you're trying to take it somewhere it shouldn't be.

2) I'm no demolitions expert, but I don't think you can just use any random detonator for nuclear warheads. Based on my limited knowledge of explosives, detonators work by basically triggering either a small ignition or strong heating element which then ignites the larger explosive package. From what I know of nuclear explosives, that just isn't going to fly with a nuclear warhead unless you take the entire thing apart and rebuild it with the detonator in *just* the right place, which is probably going to be a long, involved, and probably high-DC task, because from what I know of nuclear explosives the function by triggering a blast of *just* the right size in *just* the right place to split the unstable atoms of certain radioactive elements, thus causing the fission reaction that leads to big boom. And if it's a Fusion bomb (if those are even a thing in Starfinder, I can't remember,) well, based on my sci-fi readings, that might not even work with a detonator at all but rather something like a miniature particle accelerator. Which means it's going to take time to warm up, which is fine if you're taking the time to load up, aim, and fire, and then take travel time into account, but not so great if you want to blow up this thing right here when you want it to go boom.

And of course the final point, while mechanically it may seem infinite, your supply of warheads isn't *actually* infinite. You actually have a limited supply, it's just that reloading that supply is part of ship upkeep, which happens outside the normal economic system and thus there's no actual 'cost' to it.

From what I remember of developer comments an enemy built with PC rules is supposed to at least roughly line up with benchmarks for a level X NPC, which absolutely would not fly in Starfinder, so I'm not sure how good an idea the +/-10 rules would be. Experimentation would probably be the best way to show if it is or isn't good though.

Garretmander wrote:
Stinger-X wrote:
I actually use the 3 action economy in my home game and it's fun as hell
How do you run all the specific standard and full round actions? Envoy's improved get 'em, Bombard's heavy fire, the solarian & blitz soldier's standard action charges?

Not Stinger, but I don't think it would be that hard to convert them. Full-Round Actions still take your Full Round, aka 3 Actions. Might take a bit more judgement call on Standard Action stuff, but I could see those either being 1 or 2 action things, depending on the situation. For instance, the Standard Action "move twice your speed and attack" Charge, IIRC from the PF2e Playtest, is actually a perfectly reasonable 2-Action activity for a martial class to get. In contrast, Improved Get 'Em I'd probably make a 1-action thing. The entire point of it seems to be messing with Action Economy, and if you made it a 2-Action activity then there would be literally no difference between using it to debuff-and-shoot an enemy and, ya know, just debuffing and shooting an enemy. While yes that would theoretically allow you to use it more than once in a turn, well, it's not like the bonus is going to stack so you have to spread your fire... and being able to do more cool stuff in a turn I'm pretty sure is a feature of the action economy, not a bug.

I'd love to see the action economy in Starfinder. Also the Stat Gen, but that's mostly because I just kinda really dislike Starfinder's very small point buy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Dr." Cupi wrote:
It has a hardness of 20 and, by Pathfinder rules, the hardness of a substance a weapon is made out subtracts from the hardness of the object it is attacking. This allows a weapon made of adamantine to ignore the hardness of any nonmagical substance.

...Pretty sure this isn't a thing, and Adamantine's ignoring 20 points of Hardness is unique to it.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You could... have your real talent elsewhere (Jean Claude Vesk damn: 8 charisma but looks REALLY good when he's tailwhacking people)

I do think it's worth noting that if you are playing an Icon background, unless you are specifically using the "reduce your stats for no benefit" rules (which you might be, but I tend to assume that's not going to be an average thing) your Charisma cannot go below... I don't think anything reduces by more than 2, so 9. And it won't be below 11 on a Vesk, since Int is their reduced stat. Icons do tend to be more charismatic than average for their race, but it doesn't have to be by a lot.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's really two ways I can see it being explained, since I don't know of any official reasoning:

1) Adamantine Alloy is, when compared to raw Adamantine, kind of like comparing Steel to raw Iron. Iron's good, but Steel is better, and likewise the Adamantine Alloy is more effective than raw Adamantine would be.

I think there's stuff that goes against that somewhere in one of the books though, so the other option:

2) It's a few thousand years past Pathfinder. Metal refining has gotten much better, allowing for metallurgists to work with something closer approaching Pure Adamantine than what their relatively primitive predecessors were using in Pathfinder days. And since by this time it should be relatively simple to examine the effects different elements have when alloyed with Adamantine, it should be simple enough to create an alloy that stretches Adamantine supplies as far as possible while still retaining that strength that the purer-than-Pathfinder-era Adamantine possesses.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
EltonJ wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:

I want more biotech augmentations. Specifically, I want disgusting, body-horror-esque biotech augmentations. Kinda stuff that the PF 1e alchemist could do to themselves; tentacles, removing & preserving organs, parasitic twins, tumor familiars.

Pact worlds has a picture of a (half?)elf who's biotech'd his arm into a tentacle as the picture for the Biotechnitian theme; so far as I'm aware, something like that isn't actually possible under the current rules, although it would be easy enough to home brew.

Necrographs & some velstrac gear are a good start but I don't feel that we're there yet.

Can I say that this sounds sickening?

Meanwhile, maybe it's the [PG Unfriendly] in me, but it sounds kinda awesome to me. Tentacles are fun.

SuperBidi wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
No, but the difference between an 8 and a 14 is rather noticable. A 16 and an 18 on something harder to measure not so much.
And if he had a 10 in Intelligence, would you give the solution?

Given 10 Intelligence traditionally was average intelligence (even if adventurers only really go up now) I absolutely would.

avr wrote:
@Arutema, pantshandshake: I'd always assumed 'spoony' came from 'I'd eat them up with a spoon', i.e. the person is being compared to ice cream. I'd be surprised if a video game was the original source tho' it might have popularised the term in your social circles.

I've also only ever heard it originating from the game. Which, since FFIV came out in 1991, it doesn't seem unreasonable for a game in that time period to be the origin for a term that circulated from there through geek culture.

1 to 50 of 997 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>