Uetur's page

The Ragi wrote:

Nobody is immune to shaken (unless there's a unique ability somewhere), and shaken does not have the mind-affecting or fear descriptors - if the GM says otherwise, he's house-ruling, and that's not allowed in org play.

Yeah, I've seen the threads :D I agree, the shaken, frightened, and panicked conditions are, RAW, not Fear or Mind-Affecting. Lots of GMs, especially those who are still in PF mindsets, have a hard time with this at the table, though. At the end of the day, Feinting causes fewer rules debates in Org Play, lol.

Wesrolter wrote:

Huh... I am starting to consider a support Witchwarper

Not gonna lie, it takes a bit for my build to come online: Improved Feint and Spell Feint are the foundation or the build. And, I can count the number of times I've used Infinite Worlds on one hand (and the number of times it's materially impacted a battle on one finger.) But as a support character, I've had fun anyways!

And - we haven't even talked about Paradigm Shifts, yet! As a Support character, I am basically always using my Reaction, every round, to do something. I run out of Reactions and RP before I run out of situations to spend RP and Reactions on :D It helps me to stay engaged with combat, since even when it's not my turn having a ton of Reaction options rewards me for paying attention to what other actions are being taken.

I really appreciated your insight here. I like to take classes and try and find a way to make them shine. I was trying to figure out how to make a WitchWarper and I kept looking at Infinate Worlds and I couldn't figure out if it was even close to good. It looked like I was going to go through some pain for a build to come online and so getting a concept of a good build but also the pain was nice.

My Monday gaming group just bailed on PF2E to go back to Starfinder. We had some real problems with PF2E, so personally I hope we never get that system for Starfinder. Party composition and class diversity of playstyles is just so much greater in Starfinder than PF2E, plus IMO the APs are better.

Doesn't mean Starfinder doesn't have issues and couldn't benefit from some of the PF2E mechanics but it is more of a tweak than getting the full treatment.

It's funny I ran into this post and I totally get what the OPs viewpoint and where he is coming from. I run with a Monday group and we like to try different systems for each campaign, Starfinder, 5E, Blades in Dark, etc.

A couple of us have moderate Pf2e experience and decided to roll a random party and start Abomination Vaults. We got hammered, lost 3 characters and are usually able to do roughly a fight. I had a pretty good sense that this game was somewhat more about mitigating the amount of hits and crits you take than outright preventing it but we lost our fighter, our champion, and a druid and now we are running into a problem that we have no strength characters and this game does have bad choices you have to learn not to make. Our fights keep bogging down, we literally have to stop after every fight and medicine check ourselves back up, etc. I have yet to experience the critical hit/critical failure system really working in the players favor but have seen how the monsters can use it.

It is just such a different game system.

I personally find quick draw a little bit of a trap for dual wielding rangers having played one. Because you have a decent perception skill I often beat monster initiative, so target your prey and move then quickdraw often means I was right next to an enemy having made one total attack. Then they get to go in initiative and unload on me.

I often found it was better to draw/draw/hunt prey and let enemies waste actions getting up to me. This is for random combats where I wouldn't naturally have weapons out.

Plus Quick Draw has the interact tag provoking AoO which is annoying.

I prefer to think of the Free Captains as one of the innumerous threats in the galaxy and one that doesn't warrant a full scale military action due to lack of resources and the costs involved. This is actually somewhat a dynamic on Earth right now.

Arguments about classes and abilities are so hard to settle because we don't play in a white room, we play in slightly different game constructs with slightly different groups and different play styles. Then when we add the word "fun" which is really just emotion, we get typically different responses.

Now that I have played for a while I am realizing if I had started with a Wizard not understanding this system I would have utterly hated it. Frankly to play one well you need a understanding of the game system. I have found Wizards to have too many ways to fail in a action and their dynamic abilities don't rely on understanding say a couple of skills but understanding an overall spell book. You actually need a potentially different playstyle of +1 or more CR monsters which affects the spells you take. You need to make sure to optimize. You need to know your "money" spells versus the "trap" spells.

As a class I don't think Wizards are underpowered but I agree with the OP, the cantrips are too weak and I think the attack roll disparity is the biggest culprit. I personally don't see an issue with making cantrip one action to cast and adding the flourish trait.

From a "fun" standpoint, a class that uses two actions to cast a spell only with the odds tweaked against them for to hit/saves means the class doesn't really get to participate in the action economy. It still may be a good class but it isn't "fun" to me.

I think this is big news for 3 reasons:

1. Support for Starfinder will be continued at a high level. I didn't doubt the game will be supported but a partnership like this usually means enough staff that ancillary projects get supported as well.

2. This is a great way to get new players into the game and grow the playerbase.

3. I get to play more starfinder.

So far I have played the Age of Ash first module and I have found most classes to be able to do consistently decent actions across a variety of situations....except for alchemists that is who after the 2nd combat are spent for the day.

It is funny you posted this because I was thinking about this last night as I was going through character concepts. If I started a level 1 character made a choice that looked fun and had faith the game designers wouldn't make me regretting my choices this system works fabulously. I have been playing a lot of Starfinder recently and P2E is a much faster character build for me. In fact I think I can teach this system pretty quickly.

However when I personally build characters I want to know what are the general consequences down the road because I want to get an idea of how a class will perform. This is where I got bogged down. For instance I looked at an Alchemist focusing on Mutagens which caused me to flip to items to understand what could be a core feature of the class. I had to figure out how to differentiate between mutagens and elixirs. Then I had to go look at skills to understand how crafting worked and how the class improves or doesn't improve on that. Then I wondered why there were two attack styles (bite and claw) on the bestial mutagen and how that interacted with the goblin bite. Then knowing that longer term modifying those attacks would be important I had to figure out how that worked. This is where choice starts to bog me down because there are a lot of branching paths when you go through this process and I was comparing this to the other two alchemist sub-paths. Don't even get me started on archetypes lol.

None of this is bad as it vastly entertaining for me but it does take a long time. My only complain is I am not seeing any sort of level by level grid similar to Starfinder, DnD5e, etc. showing BABs, saving throw modifiers, etc.