XBow Enthusiast's page

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 23 posts (295 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think complexity is a good measure. TIE fighters are fairly simple craft, no life support, no hyperdrive, limited computing for targeting relay only and com systems. A TIE is considered easier to fly and can pull off greater maneuvers than it's competitor.
the T-65.

A T-65 would be considered a higher tier craft, it has more armaments than a TIE, larger engines, a hyperdrive, full life support, complex systems to simulate gravity in flight. And a more advanced targeting relay.

It is a lot harder to pilot a T-65 than it wold be to fly the comparably more simple TIE.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you're desperate, Citadel minis can work, If you're looking for some things like Kasatha you can do some conversion work, Ysoki can use Skaven minis, Shirren can be a heavily converted Tyranid mini. Anything human like can use the Imperial Guard Eldar, or Space Marine lines.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
graystone wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't understand how someone can think fighting is the Fighter's niche. Literally every class participates in combat in some way. Some provide utility, some provide damage, some provide a mixture of both, but when every other class works both in combat and out of it you have to wonder what the hell the point of the Fighter is.
Fighters are for people who want a simple, underdog character.
Fighter is for a dip so you can get a free feat, armor up to heavy, shields up to tower and weapons up to martial.

Or for going full fighter and doing specialist builds last fighter I did (Lost his leg in a cave first of all) was a strictly no magic build. I got away with it by being a intelligent player who carved out a niche for the character in demolitions via heavy weapons.

There may or may not have been an incident involving three walls, and four natural Twenties on strength checks to put a heavy weapon through said walls and carve out a new path where none existed to allow us to avoid a miniboss that would have been able to wipe the party, the DM threw out my dice for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I like that version of the Code conceptually, but frankly I'm not sure either #3 or #4 are actually that restrictive, which could be an issue.

I think #3 is specifically to avoid Chaotic Good Paladins from being perma banned from every city and town by force of arms because they would be compelled by their code to spread discontent and anarchy regardless of their actual feelings about the village or town's leadership.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The biggest issue I see with trying to paint the Chaotic Good Paladin as some sort of eternal renegade always fighting to disrupt authority is that it is always fighting to disrupt authority. To the point where it becomes reasonable to assume that most cities and towns actually would prefer to kick the CG paladin out rather than let them run about spreading discontent and igniting revolution.

Basically I think any code the forces a wholesale revolutionary behavior at all times is a catalyst for player conflict in a bad way. It's a good thing if the Paladin and the Fighter disagree about the need for forced conscription into the army for example, and the Paladin would argue that each man should make his own choice to fight for his kingdom. It's not a good thing if the Paladin and the fighter disagree and the Paladin goes off and destroys the rosters for the army to prevent anyone from being conscripted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would like to pose the idea that perhaps Chaotic Good Paladins should not be out and out revolutionaries, but rather they should be a force to encourage people of all kinds to think for themselves and strive a balance of good for oneself, and good for the larger community.

I don't think any Chaotic Good Paladin should be compelled by their code to act in a radical and revolutionary manner. Rather the code should enforce the idea that choice is ultimately yours.

Perhaps by this ideal you could add in the place of the fourth tenet the following.

I will respect legitimate authority to the best of my ability and I will accept the consequences of my choices in the face of legitimate authority.

Not the best worded but the idea is that a Paladin of the Chaotic Good disposition should respect laws and rulers who are just in their rule, and accept the consequences of their actions against such laws.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pantshandshake wrote:
That is an excellent use of mobility, but has not much to do with actually playing Starfinder...

I disagree, that example was based on an encounter I had as a player in a Pathfinder game, which I would argue is a lot more restrictive when it comes to the ability to play a mobile character.

In that game were were facing a group of Drow who were keeping our slower characters at bay with a cloud effect poison and screening off a flank with some minions. I was playing a Monk at the time who was absolutely fast at 120+ movement speed with the ability to kick a target where I wished thanks to Unchained style strikes. In that fight I signaled to my party that I was going to open up a hole for them because unlike the others I could slip past the minions without provoking AoOs. When I did I kicked one of them into the Posion Cloud and killed him which opened up enough space for my party to then take out the others and surround a large creature that was just behind the poison cloud.

The only differences between that encounter and my Starfinder example are a) the exact actions taken to breach the front line. In Pathfinder I breached the Front Line and then removed part of it to open up space, in Starfinder the Operative breaches the front line and draws fire to open up space. Then b) the exact actions taken after the breach was successful. In Pathfinder the party rushed forward now free of any threat to the non tanky members (Even then we didn't have a true tank) and routed the remaining foes and killed their big creature. In starfinder the Mechanic used his mobility to reach and turn on an environmental asset in the turret while being covered by the soldier, who could use the harry action with a certain feat to give the Drones negatives to hit in a cone effect, which is a valid action. The end result is the same, both parties route the enemy through more or less the same tactic, breach the front line with a mobile character, then execute a follow up.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think mobility is good, if you are using it the right way.

Example of a good use of mobility:

The Engineer and the Operative are fleet of foot and quick thinking, while his soldier and mystic party members are more static with heavy weapons and spells, the Engineer and the Operative often act as a distraction while the Soldier sets up his big gun to decimate the foe.

Durring combat in an abandoned military complex the party is pinned down by malfunctioning security drones and the Soldier can't get a chance to set up. The operative notices a inactive defense turret but can't get to it on her own.

The Engineer is more durable than the Operative and can get the turret online so the party forms a quick plan to have the nimble Operative create a distraction for the Mechanic to dash to the Turret and start it up.

The Soldier and Mystic agree and take cover, ready to blast the drones when the Operative gives them an opening while the Mystic prepares to cast a spell to better help his more fragile companion survive the few seconds longer she needs to.

The next round the Operative dashes out away from the Mechanic blasting away at the drones to draw their fire, which is sucessful.

The mechanic and Soldier then move, the soldier, though he is rushed and not the most accurate lays down suppressing fire while the Mechanic dashes for the Turret systems and manages to just get them turned on and targeting the drones in time.

The next round the drones are decimated by fire from all sides and the party survives.

Admittedly that is a bit contrived, but that is a solid example of how mobile characters can help immobile characters in tough spots with solid planning and coordination with the party, which I think is the key thing here, you must always use your mobility to the benefit of the party, make plans and execute in tandem with the others.

A bad example would be the Operative instead of planning out the assault with the Mechanic just running out to try and draw fire before the mechanic is ready and getting gunned down by well trained laser fire.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tryn wrote:

I like this idea (since someone here at the forum implanted the idea of a scifi erastil scout/mythic in my head...)

Maybe instead of improving the stats only via the bow, you could split it between bow and arrow (bow for range and different arrows for the damage) - this would make better arrows more interesting. ;) (while it would mean more micro-managment for the player)

Just a bit of a random addition to this, since now y'all got me thinking about a Skyfire Legionnaire scout who uses an advanced bow for behind enemy lines style mission.

In addition to just pure damage arrows, I thought up something like a Sensor or camera arrow. Something like a one use arrow with a specialized payload that sets up a sensor on the object struck that detects movement within a radius.

Also tagging arrows shoot creature and be able to tract them with an injected beacon for a few hours.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Metaphysician wrote:

Eh, there are plenty of reasons to want surface forces. Sometimes you are dealing with smaller scale problems where you need some armored vehicles, but don't need them to be able to fly to another planet, in which cases, simply being armored vehicles would make them cheaper and more plentiful. Maybe you want them to have hover-drives for convenient travel over terrain, but still.

In other cases, you'd want surface vehicles as a comparatively cheap way to provide defense against space attack. You build a tank out of what is effectively a starship weapons mount, enough power core to run it, and enough targeting electronics to shoot at stuff in orbit. You now have something that can shoot at enemy ships hanging in orbit, but is small and mobile. Its cheaper than an equivalent firepower worth of actual starships ( because its basically a gun mount on treads or hover-pads or whatnot ), and more survivable than an equivalent cost of fixed anti-space batteries ( because its small and mobile, and thus can't be targeted as easily from space ).

I do admit that conventional aircraft are probably obsolete as vehicles of war.

Fair enough, the use of a Planetary Defense Force would be valid as a strictly defensive force. However I don't think they'd be strictly planet bound, but would operate more like the United Stats National Guard, which is a reserve Militia force that makes use of a combination of Air and ground systems.

Functionally such a PDF would be able to hold off minor assaults, but full on blockades might be a different. In this case I think a PDF as we have described would probably make use of, a) a small fleet of starships capable of long to mid range engagement, with only minor transport and carrier capacity as most of their fighters are probably deployed on patrol missions or else be ground based. B) a ring of orbital weapon batteries, this would be especially true on smaller planets or stations such as Absalom, then c) ground based missile batteries of both the mobile and immobile types.

For sieges the attacking side would probably employ a vanguard of light frigate style warships in tandem with carrier born or drift capable fighters to try and clear away any opposing fleet and orbiting defense systems. Following that would be the main fleet which would either launch into a full scale planetary invasion (hereafter called a planetstrike for cool factor) or a blockade, depending on their intentions. From that point it becomes a stare down between the two forces. The worst case would be the use of potential planet killer weapons, the simplest of which is just a large spike of material that gets shot down onto the planet from a significant distance.

Darn I just text walled a totally theoretical style of war, but now I want to incorporate that style of warfare into a campaign.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am of the mind that most military forces in Starfinder have replaced planet bound forces with Fleet based marines and air forces with those same fleets, what that would mean is that instead of sieging normally, with a large numbers of artillery pieces a navy would resort to blockading a planet with large scale Starships of at least Dreadnought class or larger having large scale weapons which could probably target fortified positions on the surface.

The alternative is they just have a ship the size of a Transport or even a light Freighter drop a large pure adamantine rod of roughly 100 tones from orbit, such an object would more than destroy a large area of land while being able to withstand re entry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FirstChAoS wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:


Way they feel the need to point out that orbiting further than Aucturn is outside a habitable zone, which is kind of the equivalent of saying "Living in London, England, he existed well outside the borders of Hong Kong", makes me think that the habitable zone in SF is just bigger than it is irl. Want to call that Sarenrae's influence, want to call that "that's just the way it is" style plot convenience, either way works, but that's my takeaway.
So all these worlds are shoved into the habitable zone? No wonder they call them the packed worlds. :)

I almost spaced out upon reading this. Well played.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

Awesome! But wish they each had like some unique special ability(s) like 5e and SF. That way they are more than just "plug in your 2 boosts, + skill feat + lore" and actually have unique stuff that makes them special!

Otherwise the splatbooks are not gonna offer much in the way of backgrounds besides "some permutation you could have done yourself + some lore on it". The campaign traits in the past were really cool! Wanna see some of those exlcusive powers still in 2e.

The trouble with that idea is that we want backgrounds to be fun but flexible, allowing you to try out all sorts of combinations for your characters. But if they had a unique and desirable ability you can't get anywhere else, suddenly they become extremely inflexible: you have to take the background that gives you a particular unique ability or you will never be able to get that ability. Does that make sense?
As opposed to every thing else? I don't see why background get a free pass.
Because backgrounds should be selected pretty much entirely for story reasons. Class feats, not so much.
I suppose no one picks Class for story reasons. Or any race.

I'm sure most people do, but everyone remembers those people who only pick things for pure mechanical advantage.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
XBow Enthusiast wrote:

I think this is a brilliant system. If only because it helps address perhaps the most frustrating problem I had when I was a player and DM for a School Pathfinder Club, that problem being players would only min/max and take traits and classes purely for mechanical advantage and in doing so create no background or worse yet, poorly justified over dramatic tragedies that for some reason culminated in their characters being some sort of superpowered murder machine.

I think this helps players focus on a more grounded and plausible Character, one that had a past, has a present, and if they play right, will have a future.

Another note is that outside of adventure paths, most of these backgrounds are generic enough to be slotted into pretty much any setting. I've certainly never heard of a fantasy setting that didn't have Blacksmiths, Urchins and the like.

Hmm really? My min maxers didn't even TRY to give a reason.

The only issue here for players that don't min max and just want to make an actual character is "What to do if an Existing background doesn't fit my idea". I had that for 5e often with their backgrounds and was told 3 times "No you can't make your own" at their organized games.

And if some Backgrounds do a bit more, the min maxers will flock to those anyway. So at this rate we're stuck with pretty average picks. They don't feel like I'm picking a back ground. They just feel, meh.

Yeah I get that sentiment. I can't really speak for organized play, I was unfortunately turned off from it by some frankly horrible experiences at said school club, though admittedly we should have had PFS restrictions in place to begin with. But that's another point entirely.

I guess your best bet is use official means and request this be clarified. I can't say for sure though I could just be making an idiotic response, I have no idea how Paizo responds to that sort of feedback


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think this is a brilliant system. If only because it helps address perhaps the most frustrating problem I had when I was a player and DM for a School Pathfinder Club, that problem being players would only min/max and take traits and classes purely for mechanical advantage and in doing so create no background or worse yet, poorly justified over dramatic tragedies that for some reason culminated in their characters being some sort of superpowered murder machine.

I think this helps players focus on a more grounded and plausible Character, one that had a past, has a present, and if they play right, will have a future.

Another note is that outside of adventure paths, most of these backgrounds are generic enough to be slotted into pretty much any setting. I've certainly never heard of a fantasy setting that didn't have Blacksmiths, Urchins and the like.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Cleaning Gelatinous Cubes that are clear in color might be an option, no one actually carries salt on them at all times in most cases.
(I actually had this happen to me once while exploring a dungeon, we expended all our salt to kill it)


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hazrond wrote:

If you have the Pact Worlds book then you should definitely look into the Divine Champion archetype. Shelyn while having gone quiet still does provide divine power to her followers (or at the very least Zon is picking up the slack without telling anybody).

It would be very flavorful, that said, it would require you to pick a class for him and stick to it. I would suggest making him a full-class soldier since it fits best thematically and a paladin out of time would likely have a difficult time adjusting to technology enough to really fit the mechanic class, at least i think.

Edit: OH! Have you considered an Envoy? I'm pretty sure they fill the old Bard's niche of the party buffing support class. A Divine Champion Envoy would probably make a very solid support character for your party while retaining a hint of magical support.

Thankfully I just got the Pact Worlds book for it's flavor.

And I have to say I might go Divine Champion on that note maybe as an Envoy or sticking to their past as a soldier.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah this style of combat NPC actually stems from a bit of a tradition with my gaming group. Since it's often just three players and a GM we have usually given the party a supportive NPC. I was actually thinking about how an aggressive build could still be supportive and I actually thought along the same lines, Start of as either a soldier or mechanic with just a simple longarm, but use more actions to do things like provide cover fire or create openings so that the party can take on larger threats. I really like the idea of supporting by directly boosting the power of Allied weapons through overcharge, if that's even possible. Or throwing up cover with Barricade then go in with the melee character or dash off to draw fire away from the party.

I think 5 Levels of Hit and Run Soldier with the rest into exo mechanic providing buffs might be the way to go

Edit:

My group consists of one player who is about as experienced as I am, so about four years of Pathfinder, and two newer players.
My experienced player tends towards finesse builds and actually picked operative as his class of choice. Of the other two I have one person who tends towards rather unusual builds that most of the time work out but he's more than capable of playing more down to earth characters, I think he was going to be the rain fire from a distance guy with a Combat drone Mechanic built as a turret, I also suggested he be the 'computer and tech' guy for the party. The last person is honestly my only concern because while he's also new a lot of his stuff is somewhat powergamer builds or more recently a necromancer built in an explicitly neutral to good setting with a large number of Paladins around (We were doing a holy crusade sort of game) Really I don't know what he'll do but I suspect we'll be lacking in caster support, which is fine by me I do think caster NPCs are harder to make background characters.

One system I use is what we refereed to as a "Boon" system in practice it gives player characters an added ability either of their own design approved by the DM or a cheeky bit of another rule that exists already. Usually this is enough to allow NPCs that are combatants to be less powerful than PCs by nature of not having a boon, currently we limit boons to 10th level effects knowing full well that stronger boons mean stronger enemies to match, which often leads more to flavor than to abuse. The only abuse I had was my least experienced player who built the Necromancer with the ability to cast Power Word Kill once a day, eventually we had to explain to him that while it is a powerful tool using an ability to circumvent story does cause problems. Hence the current level restriction


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Greetings,

For a campaign I'm starting up I need to create an NPC that will grow with the players and actually be a full member of the party.

The Context of this need is that the campaign will feature heavily in the party trying to recover the lost shards of this NPC's memory/soul.

To start the NPC is an Android who the Players find, along with Shard 1, on a mysterious Asteroid bound station. The NPC then get's revived by the players and initially serves to point the way to the second shard and draw the party into the grand conflict.

What I've been struggling with is what class to make them and what theme. The concept is that the NPC is the preserved soul and memories of a Paladin of Shelyn, in their past they were a Holy Gun who sought redemption through Shelyn's love but now post gap, where no one remembers much of anything, and Shelyn features only in the background I'm struggling to capture the idea of a lost soul brought back in the future for one last chance. I want to explicitly avoid Solarian because while it feels right to go full holy avenger I have a hard time trying to fit that into the mindset of the NPC.

Currently I have a Mechanic build that uses the enhanced abilities of the exocortex to rain laser fire down on the enemy, but I also have a soldier idea that revolves around being able to open up the fight from range but then closing in to bring divine justice down on the foe.

Any other ideas come to mind for this build or am I on the right track with what I've already posted?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm only recently getting into Starfinder after constant frustrations with Pathfinder's numerous glitches and breaks.

I'm using the Pact Worlds setting but with a campaign of my own creation called currently The Last Paladin, a tale revolving around the shattered soul of the last Paladin of Sheilyn (I know I just butchered that somehow) and their link to the past with their four companions who sought to aid their goddess in her quest to Redeem her fallen brother.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A Heavens Flame build has some potential depending on spells.
For one color spray lets you stun initially and some creative application of Hexes and Hex Vulnerability means you can keep a target down.
A personal favorite of mine is Misfortune then HV for another few rounds if the target is still standing after that.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lemeres wrote:

Are you absolutely set on the repeater? Because, with rapid reload, anything short of heavy (excluding some of the weird ones) would be a free action to reload anyway (especially with the bolt ace's Inexplicable Reload ability reducing it even further). Crossbow mastery also seems a bit unnecessary (although it does mean no AoOs for reloading).

The easiest way I know of to max AC would be to go sword and board. And that is an actual option for you. Nothing about the gunslinger/bolt ace says you can't use shields. You just need a free hand for reloading (which you have if you use a buckler/light shield). Even the lack of shield proficiency is not a problem, since masterwork bucklers/light shields have no ACP (and thus no penalty for using them).

I know that this might not exactly go with the normal image of this class/archetype...but hey, having two items you can enhance for AC bonus means you can get them for cheaper.

Anyway, if you do use a shield, I suppose a hand crossbow might be a better weapon choice, since you only need one hand to shoot it.

Yes I'm set on the repeater. This character still has a hook for a left hand which makes it harder to explain most other crossbows, Though I might just throw in a hand crossbow for the more stealthy jobs that come up.

Chengar Qordath wrote:
I'm rather curious about the massive wisdom investment on your character when dexterity is usually considered a far more important stat. After all, dexterity handles your offense and quite a bit of the defense too, while wisdom only really affects grit pool, will saves, and a couple skills.

You're right on the money with the will saves.

My group DM has a thing for mind altering effects and trying to get characters shaken.

Though I probably could afford to move the +2 over to dex and just have both stats at 17.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well hello there ladies and gentlemen.
Today I come to the vast pool of Pathfinder Knowledge in hopes of getting advice on maximizing The AC and damage potential of this character.

Currently I have no armor selected for it and I have a Light Repeating Crossbow.
The reason for the light crossbow and not the heavy is because this character has a hook for a left hand and the only repeating weapon I could reasonably use with a hook was the light crossbow(Believe me when I say convincing the DM of how the character loads the darn thing was fun).

The stats I rolled for this character are

STR: 12
DEX: 15
CON: 12
INT: 12
WIS: 19(after the +2 granted by being a human)
CHA: 13

The feats I have selected are
Extra Grit
Point Blank Shot
Rapid Shot
Rapid Reload
Crossbow Mastery

The character's current level is 5th(Starting Level for my group)
and he has the Crossbow Training for Light Repeating XBow
and the deeds
Sharp Shooter
and Gunslinger's Initiative.

Aside from that i have a short sword for when things get a little too close for comfort.

I have a starting gold budget of
10,500 gp so I have a lot of room to work with on this.