xris's page

Organized Play Member. 144 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
xris wrote:
I personally don't think this is a good way to try and grow the YouTube channel, it will most likely work against you.

That seems to be your point: that you personally disagree with Paizo's marketing department on the best way to market their product.

You're entitled to your opinion, which may, indeed, be based on a professional background and more than 10 years experience in marketing a tabletop role playing game. You may have more expertise than all of the Paizo staff and owners put together.

Or maybe not.

I agree with you, it's just my opinion.

If Paizo released 29 hardback books on the same day and then nothing for a year, I would suggest that it's bad marketing. I suspect that Paizo's marketing department might agree with that, after all, they are an experienced publisher and know how to sell books.

I'm not sure the same marketing department deals with the release schedule of YouTube videos. I'm also not so sure they are as experienced in this field as they are in the field of publishing RPG books.

But that's just my opinion. I offered some constructive criticism, take that for what it's worth :)

Zaister wrote:
You know you can watch them anytime you want, right? You don't have to watch them all at once.

Really! Gosh, I never know that! Just to be clear, that was sarcasm.

Otherwise, thank you but you seem to miss the point.

I'm only too happy to have Paizo release videos via YouTube, I'm no great fan of using Twitch as a platform.

What I'm not so impressed by is to have 29 Paizo Inc. YouTube videos all being released at the same time. It seems the bulk of the Paizon GenCon output has been dumped all at once, each video being about 40 to 50 minutes.

I'm sure releasing these 29 videos over a period of time, such as one or two a day, would be fair more acceptable to people than suddenly being deluged with 25 hours worth in one go. As it stands, I'm sure people will just gloss over them and not pay much attention to any particular one. In a week or so, they will be forgotten, which is a shame.

Releasing them over a period of time might result in better viewing figures and it gives a chance to notice the separate topics as they are released. A regular release schedule tends to attract more views.

So, thank you for the releases, but please don't make this this a regular occurrence. I personally don't think this is a good way to try and grow the YouTube channel, it will most likely work against you.

Ah, page 212 Personal Upgrades!

OK, that explains it. Thank you both!

I don't really understand why the Character Sheet should include such boxes, seems to muddy the water more than anything. If you get a Personal Upgrade you should record it somewhere on your sheet (under Equipment maybe). But that's just me.

It seems the form-fillable sheets created by Gilfalas doesn't take such upgrades into account when it comes to auto-filling the ability modifiers.

On the Paizo SF Character Sheets (and in particular, the form-fillable sheets created by Gilfalas), what is the purpose of the "Upgraded Score" boxes under the Ability Scores?

Each Ability has a box for Score, Modifier, Upgraded Score, and Upgraded Modifier. I'm wondering what's meant to be tracked under the Upgraded boxes.

On the form-fillable sheets created by Gilfalas, the Upgraded Modifier starts at -5 unless something is entered into the Upgraded Score. The rest of the sheet seems to use the values entered in the Score box, not the Upgraded Score box.

I'm wondering how people fill in this part of the Character Sheets. I first thought that you enter your base (i.e. Level 1) score in the "Score" box and never change it. As you progress through the levels, you update the "Upgraded Score" to show how you have increased your Ability Scores, leaving the first box (Score) unchanged.

I would like to use the SFS scenario (Ratrod's Scrap Battle race from SF S01-01) as part of an introduction to a campaign. The Junkrace seems an interesting idea but I'm a bit unsure how it was meant to be implemented in the SFS scenario.

As far as I can tell, each player gets to make four actions before the race but for example, I'm not even sure if the same action can be taken multiple times (see page 6 of the SFS scenario). I don't see any restriction on taking the same action but if so, it seems rather silly that the speed can be increased by 120 feet (i.e. "vehicle’s base speed increases by 5 feet" taken 24 times). This would change the full speed for the basic Junkracer from 400 feet to 1600 feet. Since the race course is 3,000 feet long, this seems a winning strategy.

Has anyone who has run this scenario, or who has played in it, give any suggestions on how to make this an interesting race? What limitations were imposed on the race, what would you make different to make it more interesting?

How many turns did it last? Assuming the racers move at 500 or 550 feet per turn, and the course is 3,000 feet, it should last about 7 or so turns. Did it come down to who's Overloading engine lasted the longest time before malfunctioning? Was Overloading too dominant? Did combat slow the race down (as in, being too fiddley to track and implement) or did it make the race more fun?

There are lots of tweaks that can be made to the race mechanics but I'm wondering how much to implement. For example, I'm thinking of making the result of the Piloting roll directly affect the speed (instead of just imposing a half speed penalty).

Investigating the race course beforehand could impart speed bonuses at certain points. Tweaking the engine could improve its performance for certain corners or the long straights. Allow only forward facing energy weapons maybe. Lots of possibilities but first I want to understand how the race is meant to be run.

Any help appreciated! Cheers.

Garretmander wrote:
xris wrote:
I wish it was possible to obtain empty Pawn boxes (for both Starfinder and Pathfinder) to store the Adventure Path pawn sets.
I've found that if you stick them on top the box still works halfway closed. I have AA1, core, pact worlds, and dead suns in the AA1 box, and it works fine.

I've tried something like that, but I find two small sets in a box is about as much as I would like.

AA1+Core+Dead Suns
AA2+Pact Worlds+Against the Aeon Throne Pawns

This leaves Signal of Screams Pawns loose.

Even worse for my Pathfinder Pawns, not enough boxes. Still would prefer a new box (Paizo, hint, hint!!!)

I have a large collection of Pathfinder and D&D pre-painted miniatures, which I prefer to use for fantasy RPGs. Even then, I still make use of Pathfinder pawns, I use them when a creature has been defeated. I remove the miniature from the map and place the appropriate pawn in its place (flat on the map). It's useful as a reminder that the space has become difficult terrain and it's easy for other miniatures to be positioned in that space (without having to try and balance miniatures on top of one another).

For Starfinder, I'm using Starfinder Pawns instead of miniatures. I still make use of the pawn when a creature has been defeated, I just remove it from the base and lie it flat on the map.

Pawns are a lot more cost effective than using sci-fi miniatures and they are a lot easier to come by thanks to the range Paizo already produce. While I prefer miniatures, even pre-painted ones, I like the Paizo pawns well enough to simple use them instead of miniatures.

Pawns are also easier to store and locate. I keep the original punch sheets in the Alien Archive Boxes and simply return the pawn to an empty slot on the sheets. There's also room to store the smaller pawn sets in the boxes as well (I keep the Core set in with AA1 and the Pact World set in with AA2).

I wish it was possible to obtain empty Pawn boxes (for both Starfinder and Pathfinder) to store the Adventure Path pawn sets.

I missed the smiley face, does that help :)

I raised a post in the forum when it happened, so I was one of those "greedy people" wanting my cheap stuff!

The issue occurred on 4th July. I think it would be unreasonable to think that Paizo would be instantly available on a Public Holiday. The issue was quickly cleared up and the site no longer shows discounted prices (at least none of the items I've looked at have discounted prices so it's a non-issue now).

Bacchreus wrote:
And that is what's commonly know as false advertising. I've been experiencing the same problem too. They really should clarify this quickly as falsely advertising products as discounted is not a good look

Except that a Paizo employee has already stated it was a bug that caused the incorrect prices to be displayed.

If you want to call him a lair, fair enough but I prefer to assume it was an honest mistake and wasn't done intentionally.

Plus, I know the few cases I've looked at, the prices are now correct so they've fixed the bug at least a day ago. But I haven't checked every single item in the Paizo store to ensure all the prices are now correct.

I think the only issue is greedy people want to get those sales price back so they can purchase stuff on the cheap. "Hey, how dare you fix the problem, I haven't had a chance to buy at the cheaper, incorrect price!"

Thanks for the suggestions but the purpose is to introduce new players to Starfinder. To this end, I don't want them to have to run two characters each, or give them two Classes each as I'm not sure this would be a good way to ease new players into the game. The Skitter Shot scenario is fun but again, I think this would be more appreciated once the players are familiar with Starfinder.

What I'm really looking for are suggestions for existing APs, SF Society Scenarios or other standalone scenarios that might be suitable for just two players (or at least can be adjusted down so it's suitable for two). I did run the SF Beginners Box scenario successfully for two previously so if need be I can run that again (and hope they don't notice it's near identical to the Black Fang Pathfinder Beginner Box scenario :)

If it's a case of using existing material and "just adjust the difficulty" and / or "lower the number of opponents during combat" then that would be fine :)

I suspect the problem is due to the Sale Price has been incorrectly added to some products. This was commented by Paizo earlier.

Gary Teter wrote:
We've identified a bug in some of our promotions code that causes this behavior, and hope to have a fix for it soon.

I think most of the items no longer show a Sales Price. Bottom line, it seems the price shown during checkout is correct.

If you don't want to purchase the item with the price shown during checkout, then do not complete the purchase as that will be the price you are charged.

I had this issue where I added three (discounted) items to my basket but when it came to checkout, the items were the full price.

The problem isn't that the checkout procedure is incorrect, the problem is that some items are shown with discounted prices when they shouldn't be.

Thanks Ravingdork but since I'm doing this to introduce them to Starfinder, the last thing I want to do is overwhelm them by making them run two characters each.

I have Dead Suns so I could try and adjust that for 2 players instead of 4. How many players are usually expected in a SF Society game? I assume it is greater than 4 since there are guides as to what to do if there are only 4.

Ideally, I was looking for something to ease them for a few sessions before starting something like Dead Suns when I have more players

Last night (about 9 hours ago), I added a few items to my cart and they were correctly priced (i.e. they showed the current sales price). As I was going through the checkout process, I decided to add another item so I started the checkout procedure again but this time I noticed the price displayed was the list price and not the sale price.

Checked again this morning, still the same. Tried to log out and log back in, still the same.

Due to this, I haven't completed the checkout procedure. As mentioned, the checkout prices seemed to be working correctly about 9 hours ago but since then the checkout prices now show the full sales price instead of the sales price.

I'm planning on introducing Starfinder to some my regular D&D players but at the moment only two of them are going to be available (i.e. one GM and two players).

What recommendations would you suggest for scenarios to try. I have the Beginner Box so I could use the scenario included but since it's almost identical to the Pathfinder Beginner Box scenario, they might notice they've played something similar before.

Are there any Adventure Paths or Organised Play scenarios suited for just two players? What would be your recommendation? Many Thanks!

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think most if not everyone in this thread now agrees that you can decide on a specific target after moving. You're only restricted to a target chosen upfront if you committed to that target to gain the benefit of Uncanny Mobility.

We also agree that you didn't need to have strict line of sight to a target to attack it. Nothing in trick attack requires line of sight. A blind operative can still make trick attacks.

Not everyone agrees whether you can begin a trick attack if you're not aware of any enemies. Here Claxon claims it would be metagaming. I don't agree. There's no rule against it, and a character could be legitimately suspicious of a situation and want to try to draw out enemies. If there are no known enemies but the GM mysteriously keeps the PCs in initiative, then he's the one forcing metagame awareness onto the players. If he insists on "playing the combat soundtrack" then I think the PCs should be allowed to act like it, be that taking trick attacks, staying in full defense, or keeping a more tactical formation than usual. If the GM doesn't want characters to act like they're in combat, he should go out of initiative.

And another question (but NOT the topic of this thread!) is whether you can move, notice an enemy, and then decide your move was part of a trick attack action all alone. BNW thinks so, since "it could have been". I don't agree. My take is that you can't move unless you're using some action that allows you to move, so you already had to pick "move your speed" or "move as part of a trick attack" to leave your starting space. That's not pre-declaring your actions; there's no time gap between choosing an action and performing it. But you can't perform the effects of an action without choosing to perform a particular action that has the effects that you want. So to start moving your pawn on the map, you had to pick an action that lets you do that.

Good summary Ascalaphus.

As you say, the only slight ambiguity is if awareness of an opponent is required. For some GMs, this may be dependant of the specific situation and may vary due to that. For other GMs, this may lie between a definite "yes" or a definite "no". I think I'm in the "depends" camp.

As for the last point (which isn't the topic of this thread), I would also agree with you.

Thanatos83 wrote:


Oopsie. Well then thanks to you too.

In that case, you are more than welcome! :)

BTW, I think you fleshed out the idea quite well.

Thanatos83 wrote:

Well thanks for the many answers. I gave my players this (special thanks to Hawk Kriegsman):

If you want to ride an enemy he needs to be at least 1 size category bigger than you.
You roll against acrobatics 20 + CR, if you suceed you mount it and can attack (double damage), if you fail by max. 5 you ride but cant attack this turn. If you fail more than 5 you land on your a**. When its the enemies turn he can make a reflex roll against your acrobatics roll to throw you down.

I think with this rules it is possible to do this stunt while its not just an even harder combatmaneuver.

Ahem, the example you gave was based on my suggestion wasn't it, don't I get a nod :)

One other point that might be worth incorporating would be that leaping up onto the creature's back would invoke an Attack of Opportunity (since you would be leaving a threatened square to leap on the creature's back).

Steve Geddes wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
CRB p. 95 wrote:

Uncanny Mobility (Ex)

When you make a trick attack, if you choose the target of your attack before you move, your movement doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity from that target. When you use your standard action to move, you can choose one creature; you don’t provoke attacks of opportunity from that creature for this movement.
This makes it clear you don't have to an particular opponent when you begin the movement part of your trick attack.

This was the nail in the coffin in our group for those who believed you had to designate a target as soon as you declared a trick attack.

There didn’t seem any situation where you wouldn’t meet the precondition of this feat, unless the designers anticipated you not being able to see the target at the start of your turn.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. To be clear, are you saying that Uncanny Mobility proves you don't need to have line of sight to the target of your Trick Attack?

What about the situation where the Operative starts his turn adjacent to the target? The Operative wants to move away from the target and then use his small arm for a ranged (trick) attack. Since Uncanny Mobility allows the Operative to choose his target before movement, then it means he can move away without provoking an attack of opportunity from the target.

Or did I misunderstand the point you are making?

The question on line of sight is an interesting one, I would also be interested if line of effect is required (in the sense that the character needs to be aware there is a potential target for Trick Attack). Can a Operative run around a corner and trick attack targets he was totally unaware of. I suspect this might typically happen because the player knows of the existence of targets but should he be allowed to announce trick attack when the character would be unaware of the targets. GMs call I suspect.

I would have approached this in a very different way.

I enjoy being GM when players try and do something unusual, so this does seem to be applicable for the Rule of Cool. I try to say "yes" when a player asks if they can try something, as long as the request isn't outrageous. At worst, I say "you can try" and hint that its either possible or plain stupid.

The player could simply stand adjacent to the creature and attack (boring), or they could attempt to leap up onto its back, run along its spine and attack it from above.

Either way, the attack roll would be the same, so why not allow the player to do something cool?

I would have asked the player to make an Acrobatics check, maybe as low as a DC 15 check. To add some reward / danger to the manoeuvre, then it would be easy to say if he fails the DC by 5 then he can't attack but if he succeeds by 5 then he gets an extra die on the damage.

I would try and find a balance where the player can try something cool, in this case it didn't seem that the player wanted to be able to one-shot the Ksarik, it just seemed a request to do a normal attack but in an unusual way. I don't see any harm in allowing a player to do that.

I don't see the need to bring in a combat manoeuvre as there didn't seem to be a requirement that the attack would be anything more than just an attack. Sure, its got tentacles and it's trying to eat you but it would be doing the same if you were standing next to it attacking or you were on its back attacking.

Good post Themetricsystem.

Let's just consider a small area within the Ring that contains most of the population. Lets take an area 1 mile in radius and 0.5 miles high.

That comes to 231,218,992,313 cubic feet (Pi x 5280 x 5280 x 2640). Out of that approx. 2.3 x 10^11 cubic feet, lets assume that 90% of it consists of auxiliary space not in actual use for housing creatures. It might consist of walkways, support machinery to supply a breathable atmosphere, water, power, major transitways, recreational areas such as parks and public buildings, so on and so on.

This leaves only 10% for actual housing, or 2.3 x 10^10 cubic feet. In there fits 3,000,000 creatures. This means each creature has 7,707 cubic feet allocated to them, or about a single cube 20 feet by 20 feet by 20 feet. Or a two story dwelling with 8 foot ceilings, 30 feet by 30 feet, and that's just for one person. Hmm, this is bigger than my house!

Shops, office buildings, manufacturing plants, etc. would be housed elsewhere. This 2 mile dia. disc just contains housing, it seems 3 million could fit easily into this space.

Ascalaphus wrote:
Another idea is that science officers can try to lock on to another ship's drift engine, so that they can follow them. If the enemy's got a lock on you then jumping won't shake them. So you have to run the chase for a bit longer until the science officer can realign the drift engine to unlock.

It's a nice idea to link the escape attempt to a skill roll.

This could be built on. For example, if you make the DC, then you arrive a defined random distance away from the target (for example, say 5d10 hexes) and for every 5 you make the DC by then you get to remove a d10 from the roll.

The question I have is what would be a "good" random distance? It could be any number of d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, etc. For a spaceship chase scene, what would make a good initial gap? 10 hexes, 15, 20, 25? Not sure the Vehicle Chase zones would cover a spaceship chase that well. Since you are on a hex grid already, might as well make use of it.

You might also want to consider how quickly it takes to enter the Drift and how quick it can be left. An obvious escape tactic would be to enter and leave the Drift a number of times in quick succession.

breithauptclan wrote:
But am I missing something? Is there something in the description of the drift that says that two ships entering the drift from the same location would end up in different areas?

I suspect this has been purposely left vague such that it becomes the GMs choice as to what happens.

I don't see any issue allowing escaping into the Drift as a practical option. It should be easy to come up with reasons why this is so, the exact point in time you enter the Drift, the strength of your Drift engine "field", the direction your ship was moving (even if at 0 speed, there would be some small velocity). Soon after you pop into the Drift, you can then exit and reappear light minutes away from your entry point, well out of range of the enemy ship's previous location.

breithauptclan wrote:
xris wrote:
What is it that you want to avoid with these house-rules?

First and primarily, TPK. That is never good.

I also want it to be possible for enemies to be able to escape - but not have it be practically guaranteed. We are playing with a bounty hunter character. I don't want it to be that if the quarry gets to a starship he is as good as gone. There should be a decent possibility of preventing escape too. Same goes for the players. I still want there to be an actual risk of losing the fight and having serious consequences: capture, trying to survive in space in a crippled ship, hoping that someone notices the distress signal being broadcast, death. Things like that.

Agree, TPKs are not a good thing.

How about allowing your players some weird science that allows them to jump into the Drift to escape? Mind, I've often found players rarely run away from a fight and will just stand battling until it gets to a TPK.

Escaping into the Drift could be the mechanism to survive but also introduce serious consequences without actually losing. They might not be able to navigate to where they want to go, they might need to squander valuable resources to fix the ship while in the Drift, they could encounter a minor threat from mutant space goats.

Not sure what you mean concerning your bounty hunter. Do you mean if his target is on a ship then it is too easy for they target to die? Why not suggest to the players that attacking a ship just to capture one person isn't a good idea and they need to wait until the target is planetside.

Xenocrat wrote:
The game proceeds on an action within turn basis. It introduces chaos (and ignores the clear intent behind the "offensive readied actions happen after the triggering even") if you try to slice stuff like this.

But doesn't the game already slice things like this? Shot on the Run, Parting Shot feats?

Xenocrat wrote:
The technomancer one is where you don't get what you want. He completes casting the spell, then you shoot him. This is exactly what the rules want to happen and is why concentration checks were removed in the port from Pathfinder to Starfinder. Stopping spells via readied attacks isn't a thing, only AOOs.

But the triggering event is that the technomancer starts to wiggle his fingers.

But fair enough!

I will plan to house rule such triggers are triggered by events, not actions.

The Ragi wrote:
xris wrote:
Your character has invisibility cast on them. You are moving down a corridor slowly and stealthily. Suddenly from around a nearby corner a enemy security guard appears, one that you have not seen or noticed before. He walks towards your apparently empty space and makes a few inappropriate remarks to the empty air a couple of feet away from your left ear and then randomly stabs the air around you. The GM then tells you that you’ve been Trick Attacked and have taken a boat load of damage. Do you find this OK?

Sure. It means you were detected and didn't realize it.

The guard also has to roll a total concealment check, unless he has blindsight.

The GM would have included a total concealment check as part of the sequence of rolls the guard would need to make. Certainly.

As to the fact your character had been detected. No.
True, he might have been, but it's not a requirement for that event to have played out that way.

Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Readied actions are rather useless otherwise.

Very interesting. We use offensive ready actions all the time and find them invaluable.

Just some examples:

If the soldier draws his weapon I shoot him.

If the creature leaves his current position I shoot it.

If the technomancer begins to cast a spell I shoot her.

If the soldier in the building on the left exists the building via the door on the right hand side of the building I shoot him.

Once the lead vehicle of an enemy column reaches the midpoint of the bridge I detonate the explosives.

and so on...

I would agree, all those ready actions can occur immediately after the triggering event. The rules don't say the they occur after the triggering action, they say they occur after the triggering event.

Claxon wrote:
Like readying to trip someone if they move, doesn't actually happen until they finish moving. At which point they are probably out of your reach. Although you would still get an attack of opportunity, but you get the point.

Has this been confirmed? I'm relatively new to Starfinder (played Pathfinder a number of years ago), so I'm not familiar with previous rulings.

My understanding was non-defensive ready actions occurred immediately after the triggering event. To me, this doesn't suggest that they occur at the end of the action that triggered them , but immediately after the event.

So, as per the example on page 249, you can return a shot after you have been shot, not before. But I don't see a reason why you have to wait until the end of a move action before you can trip someone up.

If you ready an action to "trip someone up as soon as they move", then I would assume that it would trigger immediately after the move starts. This would mean that as the move started, the trip occurs. It doesn't occur when the move ends, it occurs after the event has been announced.

This interpretation seems to fix both defensive ready actions and offensive ready actions.

Hawk Kriegsman wrote:
If you had said something like: 'The guard approaches your square weapon drawn, eyes full of intent to locate the invisible interloper, but stops short, staring in your general direction, saying in a threatening voice " I know you're here and I will gut you, like a fish.", then thrusts the knife violently at your position.'

You seem much better than I when it comes to describing the scene but in honesty what I was trying to describe wasn't that much different to what you described. Edit: Ah, another reply that changed before I replied. I preferred your first reply.

How about if I said
"Suddenly from around a nearby corner a enemy security guard appears, one that you have not seen or noticed before. He draws a weapon as he approaches your apparently empty space, he makes a few inappropriate derogatory remarks to the empty corridor and peers tight-eyed into the area around him. Suddenly he stabs the air around you."

I would like to point out that there wouldn't be a real reason for the security guard to think there was an invisible intruder but who knows, maybe it's in his contract that he has to make such random acts to gain a monthly bonus?

SuperBidi wrote:
xris wrote:
Do you find this OK?
The guard made a pretty amazing Bluff check, you saw nothing, and now you're dead. Luck happens, but, in the end, invisible or not, a bullet in the head is a bullet in the head.

Actually, it was an Intimidation check but fair enough. EDIT: SuperBidi's reply changed as I was typing this post.

I don't object to the conclusion. I'm not sure as a GM I would perform such an action against a player, it seems mean to pull that out of the blue. But I actually want to hear other people's opinion on the matter.

This thread is interesting in that it shows how different groups / players interpret certain rules. If you want to get to the salient point, please skip to the final paragraph or two :)

Can I suggest that people stop trying to persuade BNW he is playing incorrectly. It should be clear by now that no matter what is suggested, he is going to stick to his guns and play they way he is currently playing.

That's fine, it shouldn’t be our job to tell him how he should play. The majority of posters here don't seem to agree with his interpretation, if we are correct or if he is correct doesn't seem to matter. Whatever counterpoint gets raised, BNW claims that in most cases there is no justification and there isn't a rule for what is suggested.

Fine. Let's just leave it at that. BNW interprets the rules in a way the majority here seem to disagree with.

Despite the fact that the rules tell us...

Page 244 CRB wrote:

In a normal round, you can perform one standard action, one

move action, and one swift action, or you can instead perform
one full action.

Note that as far as I can tell, the CRB doesn't tell us that a Full Action consists of a Standard Action, Move Action, and a Swift Action. It tells us that a Full Action is a different type of Action.

Later on we are told that..

Page 248 CRB wrote:

A full action requires your entire turn to complete. If you take a

full action, you can’t take your usual standard, move, and swift
actions. The following actions are full actions.

Again, the CRB doesn't seem to make any reference that you can swap a Full Action for the other three.

No doubt BNW will reply (or not as he seems annoyed with me, he has after all threated me with the dreaded "second strike", eek! :) ) that since it doesn't say we can't swap a Standard/Move/Swift for a Full, it therefore is allowed (or maybe that it isn’t disallowed?). Fair enough. If he wants to think that then fine. Who knows, maybe he’s right! It just seems the majority here don't agree with him.

And yes, I seem to be disregarding the suggestion I made at the start of this thread. Heh.

What I would like to do is continue the discussion on the idea that Trick Attack can be performed on an empty space.

Let’s consider the following scenario. Let’s assume it has occurred while in Initiative.

Your character has invisibility cast on them. You are moving down a corridor slowly and stealthily. Suddenly from around a nearby corner a enemy security guard appears, one that you have not seen or noticed before. He walks towards your apparently empty space and makes a few inappropriate remarks to the empty air a couple of feet away from your left ear and then randomly stabs the air around you. The GM then tells you that you’ve been Trick Attacked and have taken a boat load of damage. Do you find this OK?

Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm guessing, by giving both PCs and enemies a chance to escape, you can have combats against more serious enemies. Right now, if an enemy is equal strength to the PCs (i.e. 50% chance to win a fight to the end), that's a problem in your scenario because what if the PCs lose? TPK? Loss of an expensive starship that you never recover, crippling the party for the rest of the campaign? Deus Ex Machina rescue? Conveniently finding a new and better ship?

So a lot of scenarios are instead written with enemies almost guaranteed to lose. Which makes the starship battle feel like a waste of time.

Escape mechanics could help here. If you have to retreat, that's a setback in your adventure but not the end of it.

Good points you raise here. I can see that it would make battles less interesting.

How damaging (to a scenario) would it be if the enemy was able to escape 9 times out of 10 instead of getting destroyed? Would it make battles even less interesting?

Allowing escape into the Drift would seem the easiest, and maybe most realistic, method to consider.

While there are a number of possible outcomes to a battle, such as surrender, evacuate, it does still leave similar problems if it's the PCs doing this. How do they escape, how do they find a new ship. In a sandbox game this could be fine but for an Adventure Path it's not so easy.

What is it that you want to avoid with these house-rules?

Is it that you want to give the PCs a chance to escape if they are in deeper than they thought? Do you want to introduce exciting chase scenes?

Bear in mind that what applies to the PCs would apply to the ships they are fighting. Do you want enemy ships to escape as easily as the PCs might be able to.

Perhaps a suggestion is to introduce the concept (maybe by example) that fights are not to the death. Once the crew determines it is unlikely to win then they would do their best to escape. The easiest way to do this is to allow escape into the Drift as a valid option.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scottybobotti wrote:
If you fail your trick attack roll can you then decide to full attack instead or can you only attack once since you tried to trick?

The only difference between making or failing the trick attack roll is you get to add bonus dice to the damage roll. NOTE: I am assuming by "trick attack roll", you mean the Bluff, Intimidate, Stealth, or whatever skill roll that is made directly before the Attack roll. Oh yes, if you do make the trick attack roll, then the target is also flat-footed.

If you fail the trick attack roll, then you simply make your attack roll as usual but without the additional damage.

Page 93 CRB wrote:

Just before making your attack, attempt a Bluff, Intimidate, or

Stealth check (or a check associated with your specialization; see
page 94) with a DC equal to 20 + your target’s CR. If you succeed
at the check, you deal 1d4 additional damage and the target is
flat-footed. This damage increases to 1d8....

The fact that you made your Bluff, Intimidate, Stealth, or whatever check already, means you are locked into the Trick Attack. If this fails, you then proceed and make your attack roll as usual.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then walk

Squeeky the operative can walk to the corner and then do the attack part of the trick attack.

Those are both valid actions Squeeky can take.

You keep trotting out this nonsense but you don't make it clear what you actually mean.

Are you claiming that Squeeky can walk to the corner and then decide to (a) either walk again, or (b) perform a trick attack?

Or are you claiming that before the Squeekster moves, they have to decide they are going to take a Full Action, or a Move and Move action?

Anyway, how exactly is Squeekykins going to perform a Bluff, Intimidate, or Stealth check against an invisible opponent that may or may not be in that space? That seems to place restrictions against Trick Attack.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I move here and its 5 feet away thats going to be a guarded step. I move here and attack and its 10 feet away it's not.

From what you've been saying, it seems you don't like to use terms like "I'm going to take a guarded step" or "I'm going to move up to my speed" because you "prefer to see combats described".

So if you only move 5 feet, it will be a guarded step. If you move more than 5 feet then it can't be a guarded step, it more than likely would be moving up to your speed. You say you don't need to explain this since your actions speak for you.

Concerning Trick Attack, from what you have said, during play you would move your character up to its speed and then perform a Trick Attack, no doubt describing this along the lines of "Starknight rushes across the map, deceives his opponent with a wicked taunt and slicing into him doing massive damage!"

So what happens when your opponent is 5 feet away? "Starknight steps out of cover, taking a noiseless step, unobserved by his opponent he slices into him doing massive damage!"

Unfortunately, your GM states, "Oh, that's unfortunate BigNorseWolf, since you only moved 5 feet you took a guarded step. That means you didn't perform a Trick Attack because you can't include a guarded step as part of a Trick Attack."

Trick Attack states while you don't have to move, but if you do then "you can move up to your speed". It doesn't say you can take a "move action", it specifically calls out "you can move up to your speed". You can't take a guarded step, you can't use a move action to stand up, or crawl.

This is one reason why, as a player, you need to communicate with your GM as to what you are doing. You can by all means flourish it with a nice descriptive explanation but you need to describe your actions for your turn. It helps in all sorts of situations such as if there is an unexpected AOO, if there is difficult terrain or an unexpected pit trap the character might be unaware of, etc, etc.

I'm sort of new to the Starfinder forums and I don't know the posters that well but the impression I'm getting is that BigNorseWolf is basically trolling. Replies to him appear to just be Feeding The Troll.

Am I wrong in this impression? Currently I'm mostly ignoring his posts but sadly the few treads I've noticed in which he participates seems to get somewhat inflated, off-topic, and the signal-to-noise decreases alarmingly. In a previous thread I was reading, it seemed that BNW believed that if he repeated the same thing ad-infinitum then it became true. Have I just caught him on a bad day or can I expect this on a regular basis? I'm sure now and then he adds something to the conversion but is this just due to random chance?

If his table plays the way he describes, fair enough, but I'm glad I'll never get to play at that table.

A lot of the issues discussed in this thread don't seem to have a direct answer but that just means it comes down to GM interpretation. It's good to get some new viewpoints all the same.

Nerdy Canuck wrote:
I actually don't think they do - drones don't have the full set of actions a regular character does, and only get granted specific actions from the Limited/Expert/True AI class features; none of these provide a reaction.

Reading those sections on pages 75 and 76, Limited AI, Master Control, Expert AI, True AI, seem to suggest that drones don't have a reaction.

But if you read Shock Wave on page 79, you will see that it does mention reactions for the only time.

Page 79 wrote:

Shock Wave (Ex)

Whenever your drone is reduced to fewer than 10 HP, it
immediately shuts down and unleashes a shock wave
of electricity as a reaction (even if it is deactivated or
destroyed by the attack).

The drone has to wait until level 11 to get this. Does this mean they get reactions from level 1? It seems more like an exception.

Looking at page 248, Reactions, we are told

Page 248 wrote:

You gain access to most reactions through feats, items, and

class features, but an attack of opportunity is a reaction that is
universally available to all characters.

Is a drone considered a character? Does it have a character sheet :) It has a section in the Player Character Folio.

So, down to the GM if a drone can take a reaction. I might say that a Combat Drone could take AOO but otherwise no.

How would GMs handle the following situation.

A hero is attacking a monster. She can see that the monster has taken a far amount of damage but she is not sure just how much longer the monster will last. One more hit? Two more? The hero also wants to move away and help out somewhere else so she would also like to move as soon as the monster is dealt with.

So, the hero has a number of choices, but let's just consider two of them.

(a) Take a Full Action (Full Attack) and make the two Attacks at a -4 penalty. Hopefully that should finish off the monster, the hero can move away next turn.

(b) Take an Attack action, hope to take down the monster now and if so she can move away this turn.

Case A
Now, what happens if the monster is defeated with the first attack? Would the GM allow the Full Attack to be turned into a Attack and Move action?

Personally, I think I would allow this. The player made the first attack roll with a -4 penalty, it hit and dealt with the monster. I would say that they player can now take a move action, she has already accepted the first attack would incur a -4 penalty and since it worked, there's no need for the second attack. I don't think the rules actually allow this but I'm of the opinion that "GMs should say 'Yes'" more so I would allow it.

Case B
What happens if the monster survives the first hit. Should the GM allow the player to turn the Attack action into a Full Attack action so the player can make a second Attack?

In this case I would say no. A Full Attack incurs a -4 penalty, if the player didn't accept that before rolling, then no matter if the first attack hit or missed, a second attack wouldn't be allowed. It wouldn't matter if the first attack would have still hit with the -4 penalty or if the first attack would have still missed with the -4 penalty. Before rolling the player has to announce if it was an Attack (with no penalty) or a Full Attack (with -4 penalty).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

I do know most people get into 5e from their Starter Box thing (Which was released before the full game somehow!) since it gives them character sheets, dice and a beginner-tier adventure. Lost Mine of Phandelver is probably the most played 5E module BY FAR!!

Also I consider that Box to SUCK compared to the Paizo ones which include pawns, bases, colored maps, mats and pregens.

This product is gonna be important to get new people into PF2.

I would agree.

The only item in the 5e box that was superior than either the Pathfinder or Starfinder Beginner box was the adventure/mini-campaign Lost Mines of Phandelver.

Compared to the intro scenario provided in the Paizo Beginner Boxes (which was basically the same scenario for both Pathfinder and Starfinder), the 5e adventure was a complete mini-campaign (and a good one at that). It wasn't just a "how to play" introduction that's in the Paizo products.

Nearly everything else in the Paizo Beginner Boxes are vastly superior to the 5e product. As you say, it contains Pawns and bases, a Battle Mat, wonderful Pre-generated Character Sheets and so on.

Mind, it would be nice if the PF2 Beginner Box didn't introduce a "simplified" rules version this time. While the entirety of the rules can't be included, I would still prefer to see the full game explained, not a cut-back simplified version. It doesn't have to include all the classes, races, spells, etc, but I would prefer to see it cover the same game as the full version of PF2.

breithauptclan wrote:

I'd prefer to keep the existing arc system rather than making turrets have their own firing area. It integrates with the existing rules better. But that 60 degree firing direction is interesting.

I like the idea of an emergency change of turret arc during the gunnery phase. Maybe two even. Both change the turret's current arc by one before firing. One imposes a -4 penalty to the attack roll. The other is a push action that costs a resolve point, but has no penalty.

Using the existing Forward/Port/Aft/Starboard arcs would mean if you allowed the turrets facing to move two arcs, it means you've removed all limitations and it's back to where it currently is.

e.g. If a turret is pointing into the forward arc, the with just a change of one arc, you could cover all the arcs except for the Aft arc. Allowing a turret to rotate two arcs means it can point in any direction.

This seems too flexible, it's not worth the overhead of new rules to make such a small change to the existing rules.

As for integrating with existing rules, consider the turret as a ship with a forward facing gun that can only fire into the forward arc. You can turn the turret only by one facing each turn.

But they are your house-rules so go with what you think would be best.
Using RP points is a good idea.

breithauptclan wrote:

What I want to keep:

I like the idea of turrets to cover arcs that don't have fixed-arc weapon ports. Many of the ship frames that the players are actually able to use don't have aft weapon ports. Sure, they can buy one. But some of these frames also have a turret mount.

I like the idea that turrets have limited capabilities to change their facing.

While it would add complexity, I might look at the idea that a turret has a firing arc of only 60 degrees (so, like the forward or aft arc). During a turn, they can only rotate 60 degrees.

Now, if they are required to turn during the Engineering Phase or the Gunnery Phase is something that would require testing. Initially I might just try the turret facing can be rotated (with respect to the ship's facing) by 60 degrees during the Gunnery Phase.

I'm not sure about allowing more than 60 degree turns of the turret, since allowing 120 degree turns mean the turret could to point in any new direction except in the opposite direction they started from. Maybe allow it to be done with a difficult skill check but even success incurs a penalty to the Gunnery roll (-4 maybe?).

It does mean a new overhead is required since the turret facing is required to be tracked and it might be difficult to see the direction it is actually facing. Having extra die rolls and decisions to make will slow combat down as well.

But, something to think about, not only for turrets but for the other points you mention.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I haven't followed the entirety of the previous thread, I would say that as a GM, I would favour procedure 2 mostly but allow procedure 1 under certain circumstances.

My view would be based on the premise that if the character (not the player) gained some knowledge due to (say) moving first, then you can't go back and suddenly incorporate the move into a full action.

So, if a character walks around a corner and notices something going on (that they would have been unaware of) then they couldn't change the move to be part of a full action.

If a character double moved to be adjacent to an enemy and then the player says "Well, I can't attack since I've used up my action". I would be happy to allow that to be changed to a Charge if someone reminded them of what Charge does allow.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Basically, I try and make House Rules to make the game more fun, which includes fun for people who like Wisdom for what it does currently. Removing Will Saves from it and giving it nothing back feels punitive to, say, Druid players, and that's a good thing to avoid.

Additionally, I don't want to just replace the 'Charisma isn't good enough' problem with a 'Wisdom isn't good enough' problem. It's strongly debatable that, even with Perception, absent Will Saves Wisdom is just not quite as good as many other stats.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning behind the suggestion, much appreciated.

I haven't checked the latest PF2 rules but is Initiative still (mostly) based on Perception (which is based on Wisdom)?

If so, then for me, that gives another boost for WIS, so I'm liking your idea more and more.

Thanks to everyone who made suggestions in this thread! It was an unexpected find :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
And the GMG. Perhaps Mark & co. can manage to slip a Cha-to-Will-save option in there... I'd adopt it quicker than thought.

What a great idea. That would be wonderful, and a similar idea could be a way to introduce it to Starfinder as well :)

Roswynn wrote:

Without an official Holy Writ, though... I'm not against Wis-to-Will enough to propose the change to my players and fix the inevitable incoherences that would emerge in other rules bits all the time.

I'm fine either way. I would prefer official support for the former, but I can totally live with the latter.

I have no objection to using WIS for WILL, it's more a case to make CHA useful for something other that social skills. Since WIS has Perception, it seems it (WIS) could release WILL saves for use under CHA.

But I agree, having it official, even as an optional rule would be super.

Gwaihir Scout wrote:
I'm running Starfinder for people who aren't really gamers, and they're constantly getting tripped up over move vs. standard actions. I think the three action system from Unchained and PF2 would be great for them, not to mention add a little sorely-needed mobility to the game.

I would add that for new players, three actions might be too much for them to deal with. It might slow them down even more since they have too many choices as to what they could do.

How would you deal with Spells? Would they still take a single action? Is there going to be a limit on the number of spells that can be cast? It seems that the complexity introduced by such exceptions could make it more complex than the current Action / Move / Swift option.

As for mobility (assuming I understand the issue you refer to), why not say that a player doesn't have to end their move action to take another action. Meaning that you can take a standard/swift action before, after or during a move action (i.e. like D&D 5e).

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'm disappointed Charisma didn't get anything, but it does leave me free to just continue using my 'Pick Wisdom or Charisma, apply whichever you like to Will Saves. You may change this choice when you level up, and only then.' House Rule.

I do like the idea of making the WILL save based on CHA instead of WIS.

Could I ask why you offer the choice of using either Wisdom or Charisma? Doesn't this still encourage CHA to be the dump stat for those who don't need CHA to be a primary or secondary stat?

Mark Seifter wrote:
I am interested to finding brand new things for Charisma to do (I would have been fine with Charisma to Will, since Wisdom gets the ever-useful-including-initiative Perception and to me it makes more sense now that we have rebranded Charisma as force of personality rather than "You sure are pretty," but it wasn't popular)

I like the idea of trying to make all Ability Scores to be important in some way and making WILL based on CHA seems a step in that direction, so it's a shame to hear the choice wasn't popular.

It's also to late now to try and encourage PF2 to go in that direction, the book is with the printer now so we're not going to see any changes at this point in time.

But then, there's always house-rules :)

Another note of thanks. Your videos are much appreciated and have been very helpful so keep up the good work.

It does seem to be an odd omission.

As for using a copy machine. Well, yes you can but that wasn't the question.

Does the Spell Cache require a standard action "Activate an Item" or "Use a Special Ability" to activate it?

Since it is a Supernatural Ability, page 262 says "If a supernatural ability doesn’t specify what type of action is required to activate it, it requires a standard action."

Page 119, under Technomancer, says "While you don’t need your spell cache to cast your spells, once per day, you can activate your spell cache to cast any one spell you know and are capable of casting, even if you’ve expended all your spell slots for that spell’s level."

Does this mean it will take an action to retrieve the held spell and then a second action to cast the spell, or does it mean you spend one action to actually cast the spell held in the Spell Cache?

If it is just the one action, then does it count as a "Cast a Spell" action or does it count as "Use a Special Ability" action. This might make a difference when it comes to provoking AOO since Spell Cache is a supernatural ability.

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>