Skabb's page

Skabb wrote:

Infinite Magic (Witchwarper level 18 feat) does not specify rank 9 or lower spell slot, just any ranked spell slot, meaning it is objectively better than Quantum Research (Level 20 feat to get an extra rank 10 slot) as far as I can tell.

I wanna say specific beats general? The feature that gives you a rank 10 slot, as always, clarifies that feats/features that cheat out/add/restore slots can't apply to it, with the exception of Quantum Research. I agree that additional clarification would be good though.

You are correct. I probably would have figured that out eventually, but these kind of exceptions are always tricky to make sure they are communicated directly. If they do specify only rank 9 or lower, people may see that a precedent setting, and elsewhere where this isn't specified may be informed by this.

Infinite Magic (Witchwarper level 18 feat) does not specify rank 9 or lower spell slot, just any ranked spell slot, meaning it is objectively better than Quantum Research (Level 20 feat to get an extra rank 10 slot) as far as I can tell.

Androids are Constructed but are as much living as machine. The rules specify them as needing to eat and sleep and having biological components. They're described as constructed (mostly) of nanites, so it can be inferred that these nanites are a kind of synthetic life born of biotechnology (and technomancy?) as much as or more than computer technology. Unlike SRO's that are constructed wholly or mostly of metal, glass, silicon, advanced AI software, and UPB's I suppose.

that's referring to the SF1E description though. They have been re-described, more vaguely, in PF2E rules, and have lost some things. For example in PF2E they need to breathe but in SF1E they don't.

This is true for pathfinder 2E, but these are different androids than in PF2E, they are straight up technological. It is an unfortunate flavor conceit in PF2E to make things less divergent and thus easier to balance. I'm saying I want SF2E to take more risks and not make androids... not androids.

I get why they may not want to subject PCs to the downsides (or upsides?) of the tech trait, but androids not being able to get the glitching condition is a HUGE loss of verisimilitude for me that (currently) I don't personally see a good balance justification for. Perhaps, at the very least, make it opt-in as an uncommon option?

Also, I noticed in the latest play test that the phrase "technological trait" and "tech trait" are both used, are these intended to mean the same thing?

Though I'm a bit worried with having area attacks only going for Reflex, I think having some weapons that allow an additional choice for saves would be welcomes. Like an item upgrade that turns bullets into nanomachines to make it fort or a 'hack' blaster that allows you to make it will against enemies with tech.

I could see them taking the route of poisons in PF2e (most are fort save based, but a couple of will save and reflex save ones are there). e.g. most are reflex, but maybe a couple will/fort save ones.

Maybe I'm just not looking in an obvious place, but seeing the glitching condition with a value in the Field Test 2, I don't see any definition for what the condition actually does?

Is it similar to the glitching from SF1e that can affect things like ships and some tech items? I vaguely remember what it did, but I'm hoping there's some concrete answer somewhere?

Any help is much appreciated.

It's in field test 1

Glitching is a condition that affects objects or creatures with the tech trait, and it always includes a value. A glitching creature or object experiences a combination of debilitating effects and moments of seizing up. If you have glitching equipment and take any action involving that equipment, you must attempt a DC 10 flat check to see what occurs. If you have the glitching condition on yourself, you must make this flat check at the beginning of every round.

-Critical Success:
Reduce the glitching value by 1.
-Success:
You act as normal or use your equipment as normal.
-Failure:
You take an item penalty on all your checks and DCs equal to your glitching value or the glitching value on the item you’re attempting to use.
-Critical Failure:
You count as stunned 1 for the round. Alternatively, the object you tried to use doesn’t function, and you lose the actions you took to attempt to use it.

The Soldier gets expert and fighter-level progression on area weapons, including automatic fire.

So I am the author of the mod mentioned in this post:

and developing that mod I tested out using weapon proficiency + con, and I found that the fighter level proficiency on area weapons was kinda busted at early levels (moreso, I think, than legendary at higher levels would be). Enemies were failing a LOT, and even critically failing a fair amount. That said, fighters are in a different game, so how important that is is up for debate.

The biggest problem I have is with martial versus simple weapon training... they still mean nothing on area weapons (and less on auto fire weapons). Soldiers are proficient in martial and simple, so it doesn't matter for them... but lets say the mystic wants to pick up an area weapon... why would they ever pick up a simple area weapon when they can use a martial weapon just as easily, regardless of if they actually have proficiency or not? some way to limit the DC for martial weapons when non-martials use them is needed imo.

I really like that speed penalty increase, makes you a much more juicy target for melee dudes, and helps stop the ranged enemies move to get around cover.

-Suppressing Fire specifies it only suppresses enemies.

really helps allies get away from bad melee match-ups.

Skabb wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the Soldier specifically is going to have a higher number for hitting people with area weapons when they use their class DC (which is Con-based) than their weapon proficiency (which is Dex-based) assuming the proficiency advances at the same rate.

This, I think, is the point of rolling out this rule with this class. You can have a Soldier with a high Con and Str and minimum Dex and still be good at suppressing fire.

I like that the soldier can be con/dex or con/str, but I would address the issue by making area weapons use weapon proficiency but key off of Con or Str instead of dex.

How to do this might be tricky. Since PF2 is loath to do straight up stat substitions. Like the Kineticist attacks with Con, but that's because it uses its Class DC for attack rolls.

You could do "use your Class DC or your Attack DC, whichever is greater" though.

Finesse is a trait that has you substitute dex for strength, just use that wording but remove "can" and the target ability mods.

I mean, the Soldier specifically is going to have a higher number for hitting people with area weapons when they use their class DC (which is Con-based) than their weapon proficiency (which is Dex-based) assuming the proficiency advances at the same rate.

This, I think, is the point of rolling out this rule with this class. You can have a Soldier with a high Con and Str and minimum Dex and still be good at suppressing fire.

I like that the soldier can be con/dex or con/str, but I would address the issue by making area weapons use weapon proficiency but key off of Con or Str instead of dex.

Something I realize that has been tangentially referenced, but not directly pointed out...

There is no effective difference between simple area weapons and martial area weapons. There is no reason to pick scatter gun over stellar cannon even as a simple weapon class.

Even if you want the ability to be a reflex save and not use an attack roll, weapon proficiency should matter.

As far as I can tell, with the exception of the Broken condition (which is extremely rare for enemies to rely on, from what I can tell, especially at early levels), in PF2E, there is no real way to become immune to conditions at early levels, especially ones that creatures may base their strategies around. You can gain things like circumstance bonuses, but never really outright immunity.

Glitching seems like it will be somewhat prevalent in the game, and also a condition that is very easy to become immune to (even more easy than Broken in PF2E)... just don't be an ancestry with the tech trait, and don't use equipment with the tech trait (we'll see what armor options exist for this in the future). In a way, it's almost an "opt-in" to vulnerability.

Personally, I like this. Starfinder always felt experimental and boundary breaking, and this feels the same. I hope we continue to see a willingness to break for established paradigms of PF2E.

PF2E does have a stamina alternate rule that is similar to SF1E, but having it core would allow more class and equipment design around it, which I would like.

I hope they keep the experimental philosophy that SF1E. Don't constrict yourself to the same boundaries PF2E. That can be balance wise (they've already indicated this with the concept of level 1 flight) or complexity wise (glitched condition is probably one of the more complex mechanics out there, but I think it's fine and fits). This game can be the wilder brother to PF2E, and that's what I hope it becomes.

Already, this is somewhat the case, given how the Soldier gets to apply suppression with those weapons and gets dedicated feats, so I think that could be developed upon further (for example, with expert-to-legendary proficiency specifically for those weapons).

This is where I'm at. What I hope the soldier develops into is a class that specializes in a type of weapon trait (not just area weapons), kinda like how fighter specializes in a type of weapon, but instead of specializing by having the best chance to hit, they specialize by getting specific action/feats that interact with weapon traits in unique, more efficient ways.

That is why the Soldier isn't allowed to "The martial class" anymore, because Fighter & Gunslinger already cover those. So for mechanical identity, they needed to find a new spot for it and realized they could lean into having assault weapons and other big weapons be area based attacks.

This is a very limited slice of very early development, they are using pathfinder stuff for now to help identify how things interact with the system, and my guess is it will let them identify how things like melee need to change to better fit the system. I also think this area and automatic stuff is pretty new for the system, whereas melee is a more well known quantity, so they likely chose more stuff focused on that to show along with the soldier, but that doesn't indicate that this is ALL the soldier will be able to do.

I am inclined to agree. Class DC is ultimately another number that scales and interacts with the world like weapon proficiency, but the point is keeping buckets of interactions seperated. In this case, weapon effects like area and automatic feel like they belong in the "weapons" bucket, and should thus key off of your weapon proficiency, maybe call it "Weapon DC"

with the caveat that 1) these weapons should not be good even on a Fighter or Gunslinger, let alone your average Pathfinder martial, so that they don't get to opt into good at-will AoE

I personally see no real problem here. If you are mixing PF2e and SF2e (which should not be the default assumption during design imo), then fighters and gunslingers would be the type to be able to pick up and learn these AOE weapons. And, if these weapons are available, you are in a setting where this kind of thing is more balanced around.

Here's another example:
First action, strike with a two-handed weapon.
Second action, switch Active Hands.
Third action, raise shield.
Not sure what I think of this one. It is something a two-armed character could not do normally

First action strike

Now, there are some niche ways the 4 armed version is better, but it's not as cut and dry in terms of action economy as you might think.

This playtest is the first I've seen people talk about burn being weird or confusing... I don't get that, it seems very straightforward to me, more-so than vancian casting.

I really think we need something like burn. It was such a good way to show the strain on the body the kineticist went through, and I want that flavor back in a mechanical way. And there really is no way to show it in a mechanical nature without some self damage of some form (damage, unhealable damage, drained, or something else similar).

Flavorfully, Kineticists use their body to channel elements, so constitution makes sense from that perspective. Though having some kind of burn-like mechanic would certainly help make that flavor truly realized via mechanics.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Same, and I'd like to see you guys do it again with future classes, the amp framework seems perfect for say, the Kineticist.

Honestly I think one of the reasons this class worries me is this. As someone who got into pathfinder because of kineticist, I'm thinking this class might set a precedent for class specific cantrips and more spamable focus spells. And if this is the power level we can expect, I'm very worried. Class specific cantrips should be stronger than regular cantrips, and amped ones should be on far with other blasty focus spells (maybe slightly lower but not like, half as strong like they are now).

I think it is really hard to consider playtest material as precedent for power level. At MOST possible precedent for mechanics, and that is the specific I focus on with regards to being positive. The underpowered nature is a pretty common complaint, so I would reserve judgement on that until the final class comes out, and EVEN THEN if the class turns out to be under-powered with its cantrips and focus spells, there is nothing stopping Paizo from learning from that and adjusting for another class like the kineticist.

Do non-spellcasters already have a way to tricks wands into working for them? If so, they may have been left out of the playtest because that is something they already know how to do -- and all the Thaumaturge would need is slightly easier access to this ability.

via a the trick magic item feat. if there's anything more, I'm unaware of it.

looking back over it, there may be a few instances where it is less clear (though so far I've found 1). The amp heightening of shatter mind makes it unclear if the rend heightened replaces the regular cantrip heighten. Considering no wording here says the heightening of the amp replaces the heightening of the cantrip, I read it as they stack.

I think it's pretty clear that you add the effects of the amp to the cantrip.

When you cast a psi cantrip, you can amp it by spending 1 Focus Point to add the effect described in the spell’s Amp heading.

In the case of TK projectile, it makes it clear in the wording of the amp itself that it replaces 1d6 with 1d8

The damage changes to 1d8 damage

at most, they could maybe say "add the effect and replace effects where specified" but that seems unnecessary to me.

Mark Seifter wrote:

John Ryan 783 wrote:

Mark, here is your gushing. I was gonna make a new thread, but GameDesignerDM has a lovely one for me to reply to...

Dresden, John Constantine, and more, a lot of urban fantasy and related "mysterious stuff and also magic" subgenres are all about items and superstitions (Dresden admittedly gets flashier and more high fantasy the further along it goes). So I'm glad it's resonating. I'm thinking you could play like a lower magic noir style urban fantasy feel game with like thaumaturge for your "magic person," investigator, etc.

Counter intuitively I am getting more Dr Who vibes from the class, Dresden has always in my mind been more of a sorcerer slugger brute forcing problems. I don't think you can do Constantine with a little bit of love for rituals. But its no the less super cool.

They do get Ritualist Dedication benefits without having to take a dedication, but that is all they get, and the only reason to take it over the ritualist dedication is to avoid archetype dedication restrictions. I imagine thaumaturge with ritualist dedication will be the best approach, at least to start, for a Constantine feel.

perhaps some feat that gives you the benefits of Efficient Rituals and Assured Ritualist for 1 feat cost could help play up that specialty, and add in the other Ritualist feats as feats for the Thaumaturge

When reading about the focus points being spent with amps, I was worried it would feel too limiting to only be able to use them twice per combat in addition to have limited spell casting, but once I read Unleash Psyche (and strain mind) I found myself very impressed at how you found a way to "increase" the focus pool without actually increasing it. MUCH more successful than the attempt of doing something similar with the oracle playtest.

It not only provides a unique power boost compared to other classes, but also helps push the flavor of what I would imagine a psychic to be like compared to other spell casters (powers being more limited in breadth, but each power being powerful and used in novel ways with the amps)

Perhaps there is a good reason related to balance, but wands/staves are weird magical implements that seem within the wheelhouse here (especially wands since there is a wand implement). I feel like this would apply to any magical artifact requiring access to a certain spell casting tradition to activate.

I would imagine this as a class feature (even as simple as gaining trick magic item as a free skill feat, maybe keyed off of charisma instead of int), but with scrolls being tied to feats, it probably makes more sense as feat related (possibly with scroll thaumaturgy being a prerequisite, and maybe the ability to recharge a staff in some limited way as its own feat).

beyond mechanically, I think something like this would feel good as a way to tie the flavor of the thaumaturge to the adventure at hand, being able to gain access to more of the artifacts revealed by the adventure.

this feat is listed under level 20 feats, but has level 18 next to its title. What is the intended value?

75. Sometimes planar travel can be quite simple. For example, all I have to do is pick up this stick, and with a simple *bonk* I have transferred the incubus from the material plane to horny jail.

Skabb wrote:

hmm, so what I like about the evolution that this just abandons is not having full control over your mutations. the evo changes slowly as the fight goes on for both good and bad, and in order to exert control over it, you have to spend resources to do so (actions, resolve, EP). In this case, it's more of a soft limitation to what you can actively do rather than lacking total control over how you change.

In some games I don't want full control over my powers. Those are games like Vampire: the Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse.

In Starfinder there's no real precedent for not having full control over your character.

there doesn't have to be a precedent. This class being that is exciting to me because it DOESN'T exist yet in Starfinder.

hmm, so what I like about the evolution that this just abandons is not having full control over your mutations. the evo changes slowly as the fight goes on for both good and bad, and in order to exert control over it, you have to spend resources to do so (actions, resolve, EP). In this case, it's more of a soft limitation to what you can actively do rather than lacking total control over how you change.

I’m very confused by your definition of “flavor”.

Giving Evolutionist something to do outside of combat and more utility is a good thing, especially if it makes the class overall more refined.

I'm fine with that, I just don't want to remove the teeter totter in combat.

And we can give them the Drawbacks more room to grow or give not-buffs if more instability is what you crave.

instability isn't synonymous with "downside", it means "not stable" as in the state you are in is constantly changing, constantly as in second to second. So your buffs and downsides are not the same from moment to moment because your state is not stable.

As is the evolutionist doesn't actually evolve. They change a bunch in combat, then reset to their baseline. They're more of a... adaptationist? Reactionist?

I agree that the name is not the best, at least from a pure scientific/logical perspective. From a pop-culture perspective I think you could make more of a defense, but overall I do think the name is not the best. What excites me about this class is the flavor of the mechanics more than the flavor of the name.

Also, doing a reverse EP pool is probably fine, it may help solve the problem of out of combat utility, as long as it provides the instability, I'd have no problems with it.

Skabb wrote:

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

You can have the shifting and the mutations without the teeter totter.

They are literally one and the same. The mechanical representation of rapid unstable mutation (which IS the flavor of this class) is constant changing of abilities and statistics within a single combat.

And grabbing somewhat more permanent mutations that can change every time you take a ten minute rest doesn't fulfill that flavor?

no, not at all. 10 minute rests happen out of combat, its not some form of instability in action. You could add it in addition to the in combat shifting, but alone, it doesn't fulfill that flavor.

As a compromise, I would ok with some sort of subclass system between more stable and unstable, where one, the importance of EP level is reduced significantly, and one where it make a much bigger impact. This could increase the range of flavor-ability of the class

You can have the shifting and the mutations without the teeter totter.

They are literally one and the same. The mechanical representation of rapid unstable mutation (which IS the flavor of this class) is constant changing of abilities and statistics within a single combat.

Right now though it seems like it doesn’t appeal to that many people.

I have no idea where you are getting this impression. Most people I see seem to have no problem with the core mechanic concept, but rather power level and out of combat utility, neither of which need to sacrifice the constant shifting mechanic to fix.

We all do, our definition of fun to play is different though. Not every class is going to appeal to every player, and that is ok too.

Rysky does have a point.

Evolutionist is thrown out as a combat class. So far, it doesn't hold up against the combat classes. Since the classes 'pure focus' is combat, as in it has no real ability out of combat, it warrants comparison to the Soldier.

I think most of us agree the class is under-performing, where we disagree is in the inherent value of the mechanics of the class, those can always be tweaked to make the character more or less powerful or more or less versatile.

When talking about comparing to soldier, we mean the mechanics used in the process of playing the character, not how powerful it is. The class takes more work to track than a soldier AND THAT'S OK. The point was, if you want a class with complexity closer to soldier, play soldier.

If the balance is struck such that the passive abilities matter, then cognitive load is undeniably higher than for most other characters. Every time you spend EP you have to weigh it against what you lose, and you could be losing things from a variety of different mental silos.

A lot of us can handle that amount of cognitive load without issue.

If you're not weighing the options each time, then you're essentially rolling the dice and seeing where the EP effects land, which amounts to randomly gaining and losing various minor benefits.

I can't see how that's desirable.

A. it adds to the feeling of instability, which is the whole flavor of the class, I am perfectly ok with this. People enjoy wild magic sorcerers in DnD, this is similar in that respect

Now look at it from the GM's perspective. Is it fun to have a player randomly bouncing around by 1 point of AC? Have them constantly raise their hands and check their EP before allowing you to proceed with an attack?

Well, I tend to trust my players, at least haven't had an issue with any in this case. I tend to ask if my roll hits their AC, and they respond. And honestly, me asking, and they are like "just hits.... no wait, I have X, you miss, ha!" is kinda exciting.

Systems should be evaluated by the effects when they fail as well. In this case I can easily imagine players forgetting all these little things round by round, and eventually entering a state of Schrodinger's EP Total where, unless I'm policing them, they always have +/- 1 EP depending on what benefits them.

I don't tend to play with people who purposefully cheat like this, and people who don't may occasionally screw up and that's OK, but I don't mind being someone who reminds them on occasion.

Honestly, it's not that much different than play goes currently, maybe with a little more state tracking, but not by a huge amount. A lot of us like the play that comes with it, and I would hope it stays that way for our sake. Plus, it honestly would be quite easy to write out a chart with important stats listed on each one to cut down on cognitive load. Hell, you could even use a coin to track where you are at. It would take like, 10, 20 minutes at most to whip something up like that. It's something I'd be willing to do to play a character a little too complex for me (which I don't think this class is) to get to the mechanical uniqueness it provides.

Skabb wrote:

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Again, "This class is awesome cause I ignore the bookkeeping until it's relevant and actually remember to do so" is not the shining endorsement you think it is.

That's literally how most people play all of their classes... at least for temporary bonuses.

So why does the Evo need another pile of temporary bonuses for people to forget? Why is that a good thing?

Because a constant changing state of being is a lot of fun to play with, and some people enjoy it. The added book-keeping isn't a huge deal to us.

Again, "This class is awesome cause I ignore the bookkeeping until it's relevant and actually remember to do so" is not the shining endorsement you think it is.

That's literally how most people play all of their classes... at least for temporary bonuses.

At low level, Full baby is just +1 to hit. How many attacks have you made that only exactly hit the opponents AC?

statistically speaking, about 5% of the time. that is once every 20 attacks.

I love the mechanics. Perhaps there needs to be some balance changes, make the upside better or downsides less bad, but overall, I love this kind of state management in games. I get a lot of people don't like it, but some people do, and that's ok, not everyone needs to like a class.

Like the saying goes, there is no perfect class, there are only perfect classes, you can never design a class to appeal to everyone. I would love the resource mechanic to stay to appeal to my personal tastes.

A lot of people have complained about this, but I really do think with a few tweaks, you could make use of the great flavor of this class in situations outside of combat.

first, I think having the evolutionist lose all EP outside of combat would be a mistake. Flavor-fully, I don't think it makes sense unless you box everyone in to this stuff being highly driven by adrenaline, which is kinda lame. It also provides a play pattern that is more unique than other classes, and with drawbacks balancing things out, it's not like you just build up to some OP state for future fights. And of course, this opens up the door for more utility outside of combat.

Worth noting, you would have to make sure the player can't abuse things like evolution drain outside of combat to fine tune their EP without cost.

my proposition: instead of adding " An evolutionist loses all EP at the end of combat.", add " An evolutionist loses all EP when they restore resolve points while resting" and "An evolutionist cannot gain EP when outside of combat except by spending resolve".

Next thing is to buff the abilities that can be useful outside of combat. For example, with these changes, ocular advantage becomes an interesting out of combat option, except it only lasts a minute. Buff it to last 10 minutes or even an hour, and suddenly you've added some cool utility to the otherwise combat focused class. Similarly for gaining specific movements, I would extend that to a minute, perhaps only outside of combat if that is too powerful in combat.

Next is to add more abilities like those mentioned above that focus more on utility, like perhaps some pheromone enhancers for charisma actions; and have each niche gain 1 bonus that is mostly only good for out of combat situations (maybe they gain it at level 3 or 5).

Seriously though, I would love to be able to use fission form to solve problems outside of combat.

Activating Cover Fire just make your attack worse. Instead of doing a normal attack, you instead give the enemy the choice of either a normal attack or an attack that is twice less as likely to hit or crit as its next attacks chance to do the same get reduced... theoretically the enemy should always choose the better option (unless you have an overly benevolent GM, or flavor really dictates the worse option), so if you are using it because you want them to take cover, they would instead just take the attack. In other games this is called a "punisher mechanic" and is almost always considered bad, unless the choices to choose from are both generally worse than what you could be doing that doesn't give the enemy an option.

To fix it, the options need to both be a little better than just a regular attack. My suggestion is two fold, the enemy needs to take a reaction to take cover, and if they don't take cover, your shots ignore their cover for the strike. I think it remains flavorful, and while both options seem powerful on their own, in practice, the ability for the enemy to choose which they do takes it down quite a notch.

DRUGS there are not enough drugs to mess around with. plus either an archetype or series of feats that makes taking drugs more appealing/effective.

and speaking of feats, more feats to support dual wielding sidearms to better support the John Woo fantasy.

in the book, it reads like so:

"Whenever a mech takes enough damage to be reduced to two-thirds its remaining Hit Points, and again when it takes enough damage to be reduced to one-third its remaining Hit Points, it experiences system failure."

At first, we assumed it worked like starships, so when the mech reaches 2/3 and 1/3 of it's maximum HP, it causes system failure. However, My players and I noticed the word "remaining" not "maximum" or something similar.

Is this a typo? or does it actually mean something like, if your mech is at 15/100 HP, and it takes 5 damage, it causes a system failure?

furthermore, does that mean one attack can cause multiple system failures? for example, dealing 10 damage to a mech at 15/100 HP causes the mech to reach 5/100, which is less than 2/3s (10/15HP) and 1/3 (5/15HP) of its remaining hit points (15). thus hitting both thresholds?

In the end, we guessed this was poor wording, so we went with the static break points of 1/3 and 2/3 of maximum hit points.