Tavaro Evanis's page

Heck, with cards you could even deal players a small hand of 5-cards that they must empty before they can draw again so they can have more agency in how the battle flows.

This idea intrigues me! Each player receives a pack of 5 d20 rolls of known value. The cards may be spent on attacks, skill checks, etc., or essentially anything that requires a d20. Of course, VTTs would require re-coding, but it's doable. Has anyone tried this?

All I can say is: don't knock it until you try it. Our group has been using 1 action + flourish cantrips for a year and it's not as OP as you suggest. I realize my case is only a sample size of one, but we would never consider going back to RAW for cantrips. This houserule is fairly common, so I'm not suggesting anything earth-shattering or innovative. Some tables go as far as houseruling most SPELLS as -1 action, which we have not tried.

The release version of them would be too powerful for one action. So if that's something to consider, you'd need to re-evaluate all cantrips.

The raw damage from cantrips drops off pretty quickly relative to martials during the leveling process. Also, The "balance" comes from the fact your enemies will also enjoy 1 action + flourish cantrips. This may allow casters a more dynamic interaction with the action economy.

Many current class specific cantrips are single action and many are barely worth taking even that action.

I agree, and all the more reason to make them 1 action + flourish.

I really like the concept of a rune interacting with magical abilities. I would employ this cantrip. Overall, I think cantrips would get a huge buff simply by making them 1 action + flourish. Cantrips are thematically supposed to be lesser magic, or essentially "tricks".

PF1 has a mountain of content in sourcebooks and APs, and I still draw ideas from them for use in PF2. With PF2's vastly improved standardization of rules, lore, publishing practices, polish, etc., the future looks brilliant for this system.

These are great! I like magic items with slight downsides while not unduly punishing the PC for using them. If balanced well, the downsides force the player to think more tactically. Plus, magic items have more mystique, too. I'm also a proponent of having items progress with the PC, so all my homebrew items behave like relics.

Have you worked out a way to calculate Item Level and Price?

May I suggest the shield rules proposed by Samurai.

silk is not elastic.

Silkworm silk has low elasticity. However, some forms of spider silk are highly elastic and more robust than Kevlar, carbon fiber, and steel:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658765/

Out of curiosity, what do the casters in your games typically do with their extra two actions when they cast a cantrip? The casters in my games often don't know what to do with their spare third action as is (usually shield cantrip or an actual shield).

The most popular third actions among the casters in my group are Shield, Reach and actions with the Move trait, especially Stride. Caster combat definitely feels more snappy, which was the missing "secret sauce" from my perspective.

Obviously, what I'm thinking of is much more drastic than what Tavaro Evanis suggested their table uses, but I don't think magic is "bad", I'm just curious to see how such a change would impact caster experiences. Spells are a resource expenditure already, so I'm not as concerned as I could be.

I play a warpriest/fighter but my primary role is the party healer. I invest heavily into feats which support healing and all my spells are support focused. My only sources of damage are cantrips and weapons. For me, the game is substantially more dynamic with the tweak applied only to cantrips. It took me from being a mostly rooted-in-place healbot, to a highly mobile battle medic.

With all respect, read Tavaro Evanis's post more closely before erupting into reactions. They specifically say that they add the Flourish trait to 1-action attack cantrips, which would prevent more than one such cantrip from being used in a round.

We discussed applying this houserule to both cantrips and spells. For now, it applies only to cantrips, and it's a resounding success. The increased utility was our rationale for its inclusion, not nuking. Telekinetic Projectile with a 30' range and damage equal to 1d6+ability modifier is hardly a "nuke". That has the Flourish trait under the houserule, so a two or three-round burst would not be permitted. Our GM routinely overtunes our combat encounters, even before we instituted the cantrip houserule. We have a highly tactical and integrated bunch of players. We wanted more combat fluidity, not more pew-pew.

Just as an example, I think it be a lot more fun if some of the utility cantrips/spells were 1 action instead of 2.

We houserule exactly that, including the attack cantrips, with the Flourish trait added to them. It's hella liberating, and our martials are not even close to being outdone with respect to damage. Everyone should at least try it for one session at their table. I can virtually guarantee you're group won't go back once they've had a taste of freedom. The 2 action cantrip idea should have never seen print, IMO.

Has anyone worked out stats for brigandine armor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine

I surmise brigandine might be between scale and chain in relation to some stats:

Medium
Price: 5gp
AC Bonus: +3
Dexterity Cap: +2
Check Penalty: -2
Speed Penalty: -5'
Strength: 15
Bulk: 2
Group: composite
Armor Traits: flexible

Other suggestions?

I'unno, I never really liked having to track the HP and Hardness of absolutely everything in the vicinity just because someone cast Acid Splash.

Did anyone really do that, anyway? Here's what I was thinking: lightning bolt vs. rickety wooden door and the door is undamaged. How about no?

Also the fact that now no spell can affect objects unless it says otherwise destroyed a lot of the power that casters had.

That ludicrous rule change will never see the light of day at our table. How absurd.

And the homebrew can't possibly be > RAW, since the RAW doesn't exist yet! Or does that mean it must be better than RAW?

Haa yes! That could have been worded more clearly. I intended to emphasize that homebrew in general is often better than published rules.

More kineticist homebrews will always be good in my book. At least until we get the real thing.

Good sir, what you've accomplished here is "the real thing" in my book: an exemplary case of homebrew > RAW.

Just to provide some playtest feedback pertaining to your homebrew rules for attack cantrips. These changes ROCK! The damage increase feels just right without being overpowered at all. Before I implemented the cantrip changes, I always felt quite weak as a warpriest during combat encounters. I would never expect to match the damage output of a dedicated martial, but the vanilla cantrips covered by these changes are too underpowered and unsatisfying.

I feel like if they make SF2e too soon, Starfinder 1e wont have anywhere near enough content for longevity which would immensely frustrate me as the chances of me moving over to a PF2e style system written by paizo is near 0.

I hear what you're saying, and from your perspective as a current SF player, I get it. It's an unfortunate predicament. As a PF2E player, I am intrigued by the SF setting, but having to recalibrate my familiarity with PF2E core mechanics has dissuaded me from diving in. There's only so much free time in any given week...

I know essentially nothing about the RPG publishing business, so what I'm about to say is purely from a "man on the street" perspective. Nevertheless, the timing of the releases SF PF2E does not seem optimal. Their core mechanics differ enough such that each is a separate game, but yet, they share the same universe. As SF was released well ahead of PF2E, there's enough reason on both sides for players to remain in their preferred game system. What if SF shipped with what would become the universal engine for both games? Surely, the devs already had a clear vision for PF2E during the development phase of SF. Why not just integrate the efforts of both teams towards developing a universal core? I'm just speculating here, and I'm sure there are myriad moving parts with publishing these games that I have no clue about.

I'm going to go ahead and say it out loud.

Starfinder 2 based on Pathfinder 2 for the core system rules.

Throwing my two cents into the pot for this! I would gleefully give Paizo my money for a SF2 with the PF2E core engine. But as others have said in this thread, SF2 is not likely to happen any time soon, and no guarantee that SF2 will be a reality at all.

In the meantime, I will continue to monitor the progress of community-based conversion projects for PF2E/SF.

Nicely done regarding the homebrew rules for shields, Samurai! The Fortitude/Will save option is sweet. I will drop that into my sessions ASAP.

I wonder if anyone has insider info to share about shields in the upcoming Advanced Player's Guide...

I never liked the "You can't repair a destroyed shield" rule anyway.

Very much THIS. Destroyed equipment should be a rare GM call and it needs to be based on a damn good reason -- i.e. the shield fell into a lake of molten lava or consumed by a horrendously corrosive assault that was far above "normal".

What is the modifier for a skill check which includes additional "helpers", like crafting an item? Another scenario: two or more players are looking for signs of passage (tracking) in the wilderness. I assume it is "legal" for all of the participants in that particular activity to roll independent checks?