Undraxis's page

43 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


My biggest pet peeve with Inventors is that they are singularly focused on a single invention, they cant even mass produce it. Maybe im unfairly comparing it to artificers in 5e, but I expected Inventors to be able to modify, add, or create that can be used by not only the inventors but by the group. Much like iron man making multiple iron man suits , or making a unique weapon or gear for all the other avengers to use. It just seems like unless you allow a very liberal crafting skill process, your Inventor character is a one trick pony.

I know balance is important for PF2e, so its hard for me to imagine a way to rebuild the inventor class without severe repercussions. As it is im just adding a caster archetype to the inventor and just roleplaying it just like the artificer in 5e. I just wish the core inventor class had more feats that allowed it to modify not only its primary innovation, but modify all gear the group uses. Maybe they will add a sourcebook in the future that can expand options for inventors without having to dip into a caster class.


HumbleGamer wrote:
Cordell Kintner wrote:

This seems more like a home brew question rather than a rules question. The Gunslinger class clarifies that yes, you can use the one action from actions that let you Reload toward weapons that take more actions to reload:

Interacting to Reload wrote:
The slinger's reload action from each gunslinger way, as well as many feats, give the ability to Interact to reload a weapon. This is enough to reload a weapon that takes 1 Interact action to reload, but only provides one of the Interact actions needed to reload a weapon with reload 2 or greater. As normal, you can provide the remaining Interact actions separately.
If you are already allowing 20th century firearms in your game the rest of the question is really up to you.

Well, knowing that on golarion we also have numerian stuff, I think that wouldn't be the right move to mention 20th century firearms or larger magazines. I mean, "If you want to give 20th century weapons is really up to you" Said the android wielding his plasma rifle.

I prefer to consider what we've been given just for balance purposes ( so, for example, I wouldn't dare to increase magazine capacity or modifying traits in weapons, because I can see, most of the time, a good reason between some choices ).

Thanks, I completely missed that.


Although the Guns and Gears book isnt too clear for me, I'm guessing the reload feats that provide 1 interact action for the 3 action magazine change similar to the running reload ruling with Heavy Crossbows? In otherwords they fulfil 1 of the 3 required interacts with changing magazines.

In addition, I'm willfully using 20th century firearms in my campaign and find the 3 action magazine reload too long considering how fast it is to reload a modern magazine (1 to 3 seconds at best). Assuming everyone is using modern firearms I'm wondering if reducing it to a 1 round interact would be sufficient or maybe follow the starfinder reload rules as a guide.


I'm gonna dive in the guns and gears book. I'll make a combination mage gunslinger at first (depending on archetype options or feat choices). I'm really eager for a more detailed gun ruleset since my primary world is at the steampunk-level of tech last I DMed with firearms leeching into Sigil(Planescape).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not fond of that particular feat, its too cartoony. Some of the other feats I can do without as well. As much as the game is all about fantasy, I cant get over it with a class that has ZERO magic. Even the fighter and rogue doesnt have an ability that skews reality as much.


I'll have to agree with the OP. As presented, it tries too hard to be a quasi Ironman homage. When I hear Inventor, I think of someone that can make a machine to solve problems. There is nothing in the ruleset that mimic that capability. It all revolves on their one innovation.

Comparing it to the 5e artificer, on the surface its the same situation where both classes rely on a singular 'trick'. Where the artificer shines tho, is that it uses 'spells' as a system to quickly mimic technical innovations without introducing a complex tinker system. For example that floating disc spell is actually a wheeled invention carrying the load. Fireball comes out of a makeshift flamethrower. Flight comes from a backpack with a propeller and wings. Just to name a few examples.

Now I dont think the Inventor should go down the same path, frankly using spells as an invention system has its own problems thematically for me. But I would like something similar where they could jury rig something on the fly to solve a conflict without being forced to rely on their 'trick'.


Imho thats the disadvantage of old style firearms. Its not meant to be convenient. I'm surprised they didn't use a longer reload to more accurately mimic real life reloading (i understand why tho, fun factor and all that). I think they will have other weapons listed in the final product that has more ammo capacity, ala pepperboxes or 6 shooters to facilitate a more cinematic gunslinger shooting up the place. If anything you can modify the guns presented now, having multiple barrels or a revolver style drum without too much fuss for the playtest.


I hope Paizo can give more spell previews in addition to the incarnate spell.

Frankly I think more cantrips or multi action spells can shore up a lot of the short comings of the magus and summoner without drastically changing their preview build.

I also hope with the incarnate spell reveal, they have at least discussions or recommendations on rebuilding Horde Summoners/Necromancers which is my favorite villian build.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
Undraxis wrote:
For me the math is too tight in the game. What makes it worse, the default character creation rules makes it too easy to get an optimum stat build. We get characters that can get suite of 16s or primary 18 right at level 1, which in turn encourages the DM to stat up their opponents if he/she wants to make it a typical 50/50 fight.

A 50/50 fight should not be typical. That's an Extreme encounter, which the encounter building guidelines don't recommend using at all unless the party is fully rested, the players are very skilled at the game, or it's the final encounter of the campaign.

The parties I GM for all started with 16's and 18's and I haven't felt the need to optimize things against the party to challenge them.

Thats why i said typical 50/50 fight not a typical fight. My point is the gm has to ramp up to compensate for the atypical player stats compared to the older editions. Rember the days when 12 to 14 was good enough, 16 was wow, and 18 was 'did anyone see you roll that'.

But the math is so tight that a +2 proficiency difference can mean one player hits often but the rest miss 90% or more of the time (being extreme here). Side Note: Probably why I wouldnt mind the magus getting master proficiency in both martial and spells early even if it flies against balance just for the sake if making the class fun.

Edit Addendum: Atm it feels like the game is balanced around the players requiring 18s in thier stats when it should be balanced on them having strait 10s. Its very telling especially when you look at the forum discussions on class playtests.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

For me the math is too tight in the game. What makes it worse, the default character creation rules makes it too easy to get an optimum stat build. We get characters that can get suite of 16s or primary 18 right at level 1, which in turn encourages the DM to stat up their opponents if he/she wants to make it a typical 50/50 fight.

At the moment, im trying to encourage more conservative character starting stats either using the old 15 14 13 etc stat block or just straight 3d6 stat rolls to curtail the modifiers, same when i use the character creation for the enemies. As for monster opponents, i try to stat or gear em in a more logical manner where possible to curb the almost auto-crit boss level enemies have.

The side effect of the tight math is that any new classes (ie: magus and summoner, hehe) tend to be very underwhelming at least during playtest in the name of balance or role preservation for other classes. Frankly, if it costs the fun factor of the game or new products, I say balance be damned. But thats just me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Undraxis wrote:

The language of life bond is one way. If the summoner is damaged, excess damage is transferred to the eidolon. If the eidolon is damaged and is in danger of dying, the summoner is in no way able to transfer his HP to the eidolon to save it via Life Bond, only via Life Link.

In other words, its the summoners option to save his eidolon, and the eidolon has no choice but to save his master at it's own expense.

PF1e eidolons are minions to be sacrificed, not a friend to save in a mechanics sense.

Which is why I prefer the new version of Lifelink.

Both versions deserve representation imho. Both have exemplars in fiction. Personal preference aside, the more options the better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The language of life bond is one way. If the summoner is damaged, excess damage is transferred to the eidolon. If the eidolon is damaged and is in danger of dying, the summoner is in no way able to transfer his HP to the eidolon to save it via Life Bond, only via Life Link.

In other words, its the summoners option to save his eidolon, and the eidolon has no choice but to save his master at it's own expense.

PF1e eidolons are minions to be sacrificed, not a friend to save in a mechanics sense.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Undraxis wrote:

Would depend on the final version.

I tend to play my summoners as the classic swarm summoners with multiple pets. Assuming there isnt much change, I would prolly multiclass into beastmaster or find a combination to play more than 2 pets at some point RAW. Im still hoping for an option for separate HP pools even at the cost of the 10 hp per level (I'd even settle for 4hp for summoner+4 hp for pet, regardless of how vulnerable that is).

For magi, again assuming no changes, Ill be multiclassing for more spell slots, or mainline a fighter that multiclasses into magus. For magi im hoping the 4 slot design isnt the final, they need more spell slots for sure if their accuracy isnt improved via spellstrike or spellcasting.

I believe the point of the thread is to generate what sort of changes or implementations you'd make for your home game, maybe to see what ideas can spring to the devs' minds for contemplation.

One neat interaction here would be if you took Beastmaster dedication with a Summoner/Eidolon combo, where you can perform Act Together, commanding your Animal Companion, while your Eidolon gets an action as well, all with a single action of your own. And if you already have both an Eidolon, an Animal Companion, and a Summon (all viable with Primal Summoner spell list), you could do the optional Act Together 2-action variant to command both Summon and Animal Companion and Eidolon all at the same time.

In that respect, at least for the games i GM, the first thing i would do is an option for seperate hp pools for the summoner and either more spell slots for the magus or an improved accuracy.

As a GM i wouldnt mind if at some point the magus has master proficiency in both melee and spell accuracyat an earlier level even if it means encroaching on the roles of the other classes. The math is just too tight in PF2e to worry about class balance if it comes at the cost of the magi's fun factor.

Edit Add: For the summoner, I want to make CHA matter more. One of the Feats im thinking of is some sort of reaction feat with a daily temporary hp pool equal to the summoner's Cha x3 to x5 that the summoner can use to save his Eidolon whether or not they have single hp pool.


KrispyXIV wrote:

However my GM lets me :D

My GM isn't super comfortable with the Summoner as is, so if he'll tolerate letting me continue as is for the time being I'll take it.

Alternative would be to go back to Cleric-Beastmaster, which wasn't bad but was less interesting to play.

Considering how nerfed the 2e version of the summoner is compared to the 1e version, it cant be because of potential abuse is it? Even though the melee dps of the eidolon is significant compared to fighters and barbarians, all their other abusable abilities like flight and so on are in the high teens where its expected.


Would depend on the final version.

I tend to play my summoners as the classic swarm summoners with multiple pets. Assuming there isnt much change, I would prolly multiclass into beastmaster or find a combination to play more than 2 pets at some point RAW. Im still hoping for an option for separate HP pools even at the cost of the 10 hp per level (I'd even settle for 4hp for summoner+4 hp for pet, regardless of how vulnerable that is).

For magi, again assuming no changes, Ill be multiclassing for more spell slots, or mainline a fighter that multiclasses into magus. For magi im hoping the 4 slot design isnt the final, they need more spell slots for sure if their accuracy isnt improved via spellstrike or spellcasting.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Looks fun. I would change Con and Dex as it does your build no good to have so few hit points and be sickened, drained, or poisoned all the time. It seems you intend to get in there and mix it up. Fortitude saves are generally better for melee due to all the effects a melee has to take with poison, grabs, swallows, diseases, sickness auras, life drains, and the like.

True, i still have a week or two before i commit to choices. Figured the ac is better early on, then make up for it in the mid levels when i feel i have enough hp and ac to mix a little, unless one of the other guys does a champion with sword and board. For sure with that i can mix it up easier (if not safely).


SuperBidi wrote:
Undraxis wrote:
good points. ill have to consider it, but 12 seems a little late to see the theme thru. Also I tend to GM more often then not, so when i play i tend to try wierd non-optimized builds. I try to make up for it during roleplay situations.

Well, it's always a question of taste.

But one of the main strength of the Wizard is its versatility. Limiting yourself to 3 spells will really kill your efficiency in combat. If it's not important to you, then it's fine. But Pathfinder 2 is a very balanced game. If your DM calculates encounters using the official encounter system, a PC who's not meeting the expectations can really toughen up the whole experience for everyone.
It's also important to take that into account. I would certainly at least talk with my DM if I ever plan on playing a character who's really not optimized for combat.

True, but considering the other players in the group, I'll probably be the ONLY one that is building based on theme or roleplay. I get tired of their fighter/mage/rogue gishes >.<. They should be able to cover me combat-wise.

I do plan to have an ample spell list tho, at least to cover up some versatility. I just wanted my primary combat spells follow the theme(akin to fire mages casting fire etc). And im hoping ill be able to get enough items to cover up my combat deficiencies by level 10 depending on how much loot the GM gives.


OOOooo...me likey very much...my players are getting restless at level 20....

EDIT: crap, wont load past the first cover page >.<


SuperBidi wrote:

In my opinion, you should go Fighter with a Wizard Dedication.

Take your Sword, obliterate things, get Hand of the Apprentice at level 4 to throw your Sword whenever you want, Weapon Storm at level 12 for AoE damage and you should be fine.

Because if you expect to be competitive by limiting yourself to a cantrip (useless after level 6), a focus spell (weak by definition) and Weapon Storm (weak spell, its main strength is to abuse special materials weaknesses) you will be highly disappointed. Your whole carreer will look like an endless grind and you won't feel like Gilgamesh at all (unless he's weak, but I have a doubt from your description).

good points. ill have to consider it, but 12 seems a little late to see the theme thru. Also I tend to GM more often then not, so when i play i tend to try wierd non-optimized builds. I try to make up for it during roleplay situations.

ironically in the anime gilgamesh is defeated by a novice mage/fighter who realized by going full melee gilgamesh couldnt keep up. he was used to just flinging the swords at range. In a later season/series ive seen him melee after he is resummoned/rezzed and he looked more like a typical dual wield fighter. The whole anime series implies historical heroes can be summoned in different roles, saber, archer, rider, berserker, etc. The initial role he was summoned as was archer.

as a side note, the whole series showcases shared hp summoners basically.


mrspaghetti wrote:
Undraxis wrote:
stat wise i planned to start with 14 14 10 12 10 10
That's only 5 boosts, everyone starts with 9 (1x class + 2x background + 2x ancestry + 4 free) unless you're playing some variant I'm unaware of.

wasnt counting the initial 4, would become 16 16 12 14 10 10 then 18 18 14 16 10 10 at 5 etc.


stat wise i planned to start with 14 14 10 12 10 10, then use stat boost on physical plus int as i leveled. As for armor i was hoping the ranged aspect and movement spells would keep me safe enough in the short term with mage armor as a stop gap. Frankly its one of my pet peeves with pf2e that the numbers are so tight you need to max out ac as much as possible unlike previous editions.

taking sentinel over mauler, ill be delayed since ill have to use two feats to boost to bastard sword proficiency. i could do it with sorc but losing summon bond item screws with the tk projectile combo, hrm....

add: took the mauler so the prof would go up to expert later on. getting wp thru skill feats limits me to trained. I fully expect to be killed if i go melee, hoping enough mobilty feats and the repulsion spell would keep me alive. But ill see if i can weave in sentinel at some point without compromising the whole kinesis weapon thing.


Taking a break from the summoner/magus drama :)

I'm hoping I can convince one of my players to take a turn DMing in a couple of weeks and I was brainstorming some character themes while watching some anime. I happen to discover Fate/Zero and was enthralled with Gilgamesh and his ability to just summon and hurl swords at his opponents via kinesis.

I started with a human wizard(prefer humans), though i could probably get the them going faster as an elf with the ancient elf ancestry.

Universalist with spell blending to get higher slots (listing only class feats for simplicity)

1:Hand of the Apprentice
2:Mauler Dedication (for 2h weapon proficiency)
4:Call Bonded Item (by this level, designate a Bastard Sword)
6: Bespell Weapon
8: Universal Versatility (to get a second focus point,not much options for wiz)
10: Knockdown (from mauler dedication)
12: Bond Conservation (more spell usage)
14: Superior Bond (even more spell usage)
16: Bonded Focus
18: Reprepare Spell
20: Archwizard's Might (hieghtened 10th Weapon Storm anyone?)

The meat of the build comes from spell choice.

The most important spells are:
Telekinetic Projectile cantrip to throw the sword in range then use Call Bonded item to get the sword back by the end of the round. Yes it doesnt allow you to get the sword's magical effects but im going for theme rather than power gaming. This would be the build's basic spam attack.

Hand of the Apprentice allows the same thing, but stacks the sword's properties but its limited by focus points so it would be more like a medium power attack.

Then the third most important spell is Weapon Storm, which mimics what the anime character does RAW particularly in cone form. Basically its his big move and all the higher level slots would be filled with it.

The rest of the build (skills, general, spell choices) would be the typical fighter/wizard suite. It seems like a one trick pony but it gets the character theme im going for. Would appreciate feedback on alternative class feat choices or any stand out skill/general feats. Of course i would go for the usual toughness, imp init, and fleet options at the very least.


I like it...( as in im screaming at the top of my lungs as an arachnaphobe kind of like it...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope the book will have hundreds of spells.

More cantrips
More reaction, single action, multiaction spells/cantrips
Some benchmark roleplay/limited combat use spells like summon accountant or unseen cook servant. I wouldnt mind if they had some out of combat spells used for day to day work for labor, cleaning.

maybe a page or two of spell design recommendations for certain benchmark tiers. Like minimum spell levels long duration buffs, damage, teleport, etc. At least something official so that some table arguements can be put to rest (even tho GMs are the final say)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I miss the old pet army Summoner/Necromancer. The new minion rules and 3 action economy, while I understand the balance needs, annoy me to no end. Balance considerations aside, its thematic that a pet class control an army not a single pet (or two).

My groups never had an issue with the summoner/necromancer getting the limelight when all casters could summon to some extent and the summoned creatures as a whole are much weaker than PCs. The martials either had their own followers/squire npcs or they did so much damage with the full attack options they still out-shined what the pet army could do.

Currently, as a GM, im stumped on how to make my usual pet army villian using the rules as written. For now im using Diplomacy rules just to give my necromancer intelligent undead to use (which kinda kills the whole they are in control bit from the older rules).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me the biggest pet peeve is the requirement to roll an attack for the spell (if it requires it normally). As it stands, i look for spells that dont require an attack roll to put into spellstrike to make it palatable. I find it illogical that a spell that goes off when the weapon is wounding a target would miss in any capacity.

If I were to make any changes, the only change I would do is automatically change any spell that required an attack roll be changed into a standard fort/refl damage save when used with striking spell. That guarantees at least half damage on a failed save rather than a complete miss on the part of the magus. Remove the crit enhancement if need be for balance. It makes more sense to me that if a spell did no damage, its the target's resistance that stops it rather than the magus missing the equivalent of hitting the broadside of a barn.

The only other thing that irks me atm during playtesting is the limited slots a magus can use for striking spell. I dont see the 4 spell slot changing very easily, considering DnD5e warlocks do ok with similar limited slots. To fix that I would like if they added a feat or two that allows the magus to hold the charge much longer than the end of the following turn in the event they missed or need to move in closer, assuming they didnt add more spell slots or improve the magi's melee accuracy during the playtest.


You got my vote, sounds like a fun alchemist type build.


I tend to use everything as a caster, especially on a healer.

1st levels, i tend to use em up on magic missiles and if i need a short duration buff like jump and fleet step.

2nd -5th, even at level 15+ im filling these with heightened versions of lower level spells especially those where i can lengthen the duration to 8 hours or more like longstrider at 2nd level and see invis at 5th. Jump heightened to 3rd level is a godsend for lower level fights which is essentially a 1minute long 30ft teleport of sorts depending on how many actions you can perform a jump.


The few times i get to play and not GM, my wizards tend to get into some form of melee danger at least once per fight. But I believe its more to the fact our group doesnt use tactical maps or movement, more abstract. So we tend to ignore situations where AoOpp or reactions would affect mob movement.


im hoping the book has a ton of new cantrips, multi action spells (magic misile/heal), reaction spells regardless of magus needs. I would value those more than the 2 new classes since its obvious paizo will never allow its action economy to be broken even in the name of fun.

-disgruntled fighter-magic user/summoner player


Thanks bunches, ill give it a lookover, itll definitely be useful.


Basically im continuing the leveling past 20 by adding more levels, letting the players choose a new class at 21. I did use the Mythic adventures rule of not adding higher proficiency/level based modifiers past 20. So in essence they are not adding a higher proficiency bonus but choosing more class feats etc.

As for why past 20, the players i play with are my friends from the last 2 decades, so they have played every iteration of DnD from 1st onward and they love playing post 20 (the highest we played was 60s to 80s in 2nd edition dnd). They particularly enjoyed the epic levels in dnd 3rd and pathfinder mythic adventures. They also love monty haul/over the top style adventures.

As for how i tailor encounters...I'll have to admit im more of a make up as I go along with regards to story since my players prefer to be 'unique' with reaction to encounters (one too many seduced princesses...). And as for opponents i tend to to make up stats on the fly using modifiers with the player averages being the norm (like say +1 or +2 to bonus/DC over players, or +2 to +6dice hp etc)


Deadmanwalking wrote:

No. This is a bad idea and will end badly.

You can absolutely do this with enough work but 'the Skills are the same and they both have Feats, it will be fine' is exactly the wrong attitude to go in with. It will not be fine and huge amounts of conversion work, amounting to re-writing the system almost from the ground up, will be necessary.

It will be similar to trying to use the Mythic Rules in D&D 5E, which actually has almost the same Skill list as PF2 and also has something called Feats. Which is to say it will be a very difficult conversion and not easy at all.

Just as one example, adding +20 to a single check will make you automatically not only succeed, but automatically crit, and flat +20s are hardly difficult to achieve in Mythic Adventures. That's a huge mechanical difference and a very meaningful one. Another example is that Swift Actions don't exist, or have a real replacement, and many Mythic things use Swift actions.

Basically, you will need to do extensive extra conversion work on any ability involving either of the following:

1. Math. If there's numbers involved, the two systems are completely different and you'll need to seriously adjust things.
2. Actions. The action economy is completely different and everything involving it will need to change radically.

Given that, I think you need to adjust almost every single possible thing.

good point...

Im at a loss for the moment. My current group wants to go past 20th level, so far ive just let them level up another class (ala dual classing) as a stop gap measure with a class level proficiency limit of 20th. But they miss a lot of the older mythic adventuress leveling options. I was actually also considering DnD5e's style of just adding a boon per level, but again, they were unimpressed by the options.


Has anyone else tried to integrate mythic adventures with PF2E?

On the surface it doesnt seem to need too much modification since most of the feats and skills exist in both versions. Some spells prolly do need some changing but for now I am not using any epic spell version until I can get a handle on the book's basic leveling premise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

It looks like it's a feat that's way out of line in power compared to other feats, but it really isn't like the other feats. There's no other feat that everyone gets at level 3.

It happens to be implemented as a feat so that there are nice clear rules on how to take the feat again to apply it to a weapon that's not standard for your class, but thinking about it too much as a feat is confusing.

Rather, it's function is saying "my deadliness is part of the gun I'm using, but it's a whole lot of me being the one using it". A high level badass with a gun can do a lot more with it than a beginner with the same gun. A high level badass doesn't need fancy toys to be dangerous, he can be dangerous with any cheap gun. (But the really big gun does help.)

Whenever someone picks up a game and looks at some of the rules and balks, I always say "try it first". You might like it more in practice than you thought just reading the theory.

Try it the way it's designed, you can always change it later if you don't like it :)

True, thinking of it as not a feat and more a class/level feature does ease my brain.


HammerJack wrote:

Well, the first thing I would say is "Don't compare to PF." For all of the similarities they have, the math is sufficiently different that looking at abilities in one through the lens of the other tends to be a mistake.

Secondly, I would suggest taking a look at the cost and low resale value of weapons. One function you would lose, of having specialization be a large portion of weapon damage, is that affordable backup weapons (a necessity if your primary weapon deals damage that some monsters may be immune to) become much less effective.

You would also significantly impact the balance between operative weapons/small arms, which receive only 1/2 level, and other weapons. Without additional changes, you nay end up with a game where operatives are far too strong in combat, as well as out of it.

Obviously, you can make whatever changes you want in your game, but this does end up being a total system overhaul, if you account for everything that is affected. If you want to take on that project, you may end up with a version of the game that plays well for your group, but it's not needed, since you are foxing something that isn't a problem.

Good point, i was just shocked the feat give such a large bonus. Just so used to rules being very conservative in later editions.


Anyone else try to integrate SF gun rules to the new edition at least until paizo comes up with official rules?

I was brainstorming what adaptions I would have to make to make it usable without using TAC rules for armor pen for more modern firearms. I'm guessing for old flintlocks I wont have an armor piercing mechanic but use more deadly or fatal traits, or maybe break the unspoken rule about putting multiple damage dice.

For more advanced firearms I would prolly limit PCs to tier 5 level guns for the setting I plan to use, at least until i can determine if the lack of stamina points in PF2e would make them too deadly.

Any advice?


I just recently bought Starfinder (primarily to use its gun rules in PF2e). There is something has been nagging my brain about the setting.

Weapon specialization gives +lvl to damage(half for small arms). Is it me or does that seem like a bit much to expect +x damage at certain levels per gun attack? Especially when comparing it to PFs usual +2 flat bonus to damage for base weapon specilization. It irks me even more when there isnt an equivalent for spells or other non-gun type attacks.

Now taking a step back I can rationalize it in a couple of ways. I can say it mimics gun lethality without using the TAC rules PF1 had and it compensates for stamina points which is basically doubling hit point for PCs.

But I still feel having a flat +lvl to damage seems like a bit much. If I ever get a dedicated SF game going I would probably revamp that particular feat to something more managable like +1 damage per 4 levels or something, or at least give other type of attacks an equivalent. I figure i would also have to adjust hp/stam points, maybe even get rid of stam pts entirely, I'm not sure.

Thoughts? Thanks for your time.


I dunno, in my experience its the martials that have always topped the fights. The fact that casters had limited spells really allowed my player's martial toons to flourish. I found ways to keep the casters from 'reloading' so to speak :)


In my old groups, I simply had a percentile rez check to see if rezzes worked.

The higher the effective level of the npc, the more likely it would fail. I rationalized it as the god of death simply didnt want someone with that much power or influence to return to the living and wanted him in his realm.

As for the more mundane cures I used a similar roll at least for NPCs, that same death god doesnt want the world to be overpopulated with the living and wanted his underworld population to exceed it.


I sleep with my Pathfinder and 3rd Ed DnD books next to me in my bed...

Does that constitute unhealthy?


Its been years since I've played any pen and paper game(despite the fact i still buy books to keep up). But none of my old groups worried about being a 'generalist' or what role someone had to play. We all played whatever character we liked and the group adjusted appropriately.

Though it did help that me and the other DM were good at structuring the adventures in a way that any group shortcomings were minimized to ensure everyone had a good time.


Reading this thread made me laugh so hard I was in pain >.<

So glad the gnome hate is just as strong in pathfinder as in some MMOs, rofl