Okay if you are both level 3 that means that her maximum damage without magical weapons is
Okay, it sounds like the following is true:
1 was already known before Paizocon, the thing that seemed more up in the air - which Paizocon playing wouldn't reveal - was if this was a firm Starfinder design principle or if they might maybe make 9th level caster at some later point if they feel they can do it right. 3 seems like it might make 'some good stuff' even more important - if there's no concentration checks, will they still have an equivalent of casting defensively? If not then it means being threatened could do a lot more to shut down spellcasting, which I guess isn't necessarily a bad thing but still feels somewhat wrong.So Starfinder stuff is leaking now that people played it at Paizocon
I'm eh on the first one, I realize this is better balance but all the flavor of Wizards and Druids are basically gone. I hope conversions for PF classes are out so I can still put in space!Druid enemies into future games I run
- No full casters, Technomancer and Mystic are both 6th level casters
- This means saves are going to be a lot lower for the top end spells, so I hope the classes get some good stuff to make up for that.
- Hitpoint/vitality system to allow easier healing without magic
- AoO are simplified, spell casting, moving out of threatened square, something else I can't recall are the only things that trigger it. Using healing items, like stimpacks, does not trigger AoO reportedly
- no concentration checks. If you lose the spell from damage, you lose the spell
- full attacks don't do iteratives, you just get an extra and everything takes a slight penalty, like two weapon fighting in current Pathfinder rules
- Traits are now backgrounds, more like 5E
I like the second one.
Third is fine, but I don't like the no concentration check thing
I really am iffy on 4, I'll have to see the rules myself to see how they compare.
I like five a lot
That was my thought on defensive casting as well. I hope it's a thing still. Otherwise Mystics and Technomancers will almost never be built as gishes. Which is sad, I like gish.1 was already known before Paizocon, the thing that seemed more up in the air - which Paizocon playing wouldn't reveal - was if this was a firm Starfinder design principle or if they might maybe make 9th level caster at some later point if they feel they can do it right. 3 seems like it might make 'some good stuff' even more important - if there's no concentration checks, will they still have an equivalent of casting defensively? If not then it means being threatened could do a lot more to shut down spellcasting, which I guess isn't necessarily a bad thing but still feels somewhat wrong.
Okay, it sounds like the following is true:
- The DM has let people take a feat at level 1 by trading out a weapon proficiency or something (you got the better deal out of this though. Alert is way better than the dual-wielding feat)
- The barbarian has gotten the rules for dual wielding confused
- The barbarian missed the text that makes the vast majority of barbarians use Str
- The barbarian is super wrong about how their resistance while raging works
- You're only getting 2 significant fights a day or the barbarian missed the text about only having 2
- You either rolled stats or had a crazy point buy
Sit down with your DM and the other players and explain the rules issues and the rp issues. If the others are going to be difficult, just do it with the DM.
Okay if you are both level 3 that means that her maximum damage without magical weapons is
1d8+4 , as she can't have more then strengh 15 as a elf.
So her avage damage is 9+7 per turn or 8 per attack leaving her with 16 outgoing.
Your damage on the other hand is 1d8+2/3 (depending on your strengh and if you have duelling fighting style or not) and 2d8 further damage from the smite so in the barebone version you deal around 8ish damage per turn compared to her 16,
But then you might use your sppells for that, like using command to force her to throw her weapons away...
SureCan I PM you guys about this and invite both of you? I talked with the dm but i want to make sure that my points are clear on why the barb is so broken right now.
SureCan I PM you guys about this and invite both of you? I talked with the dm but i want to make sure that my points are clear on why the barb is so broken right now.
I mean, what powers are you thinking of?I'd also like to hear this.
I've started plotting out a crossover between D&D 5E and Worm, and I'd like some advice on how to put a few of the Worm powers in D&D terms. PM me if you think you can help.
Looking back on this, I think I'm going to go with the following thanks to your suggestions:I'd change this to:
Shark Kinship: You can cast Animal Friendship and Speak with Animals an unlimited amount of times, but you can only target or speak to sharks with these spells.
Wisdom is your spellcasting ability with these spells.
This seems more than a bit harsh on the player. It practically forces the party spellcaster to waste a Spell slot on Create Water when in non watery areas.
Maybe change it to something that gives them resistance to Cold damage and undersea environments, and then gives then vulnerability to fire damage and desert environments?
I did a roundabout question about it on Paizo's forum (the AoO simplification was mentioned in a blog post), and it sounds like casting defensively is gone, but AoOs are now clarified to happen directly after the triggering action, meaning you don't lose the spell (if it has a casting time of 1 standard action - or less, presumably) since you get off the spell and then get AoO'd - plus, most healing touch-range spells and "a few other touch spells" specify they do not provoke.That was my thought on defensive casting as well. I hope it's a thing still. Otherwise Mystics and Technomancers will almost never be built as gishes. Which is sad, I like gish.
Oh, ok, that's a lot better. I like this rule change, then. High risk/high reward, not just pumping up items and feats into raising the roll arbitrarily high to cast defensively.I did a roundabout question about it on Paizo's forum (the AoO simplification was mentioned in a blog post), and it sounds like casting defensively is gone, but AoOs are now clarified to happen directly after the triggering action, meaning you don't lose the spell (if it has a casting time of 1 standard action - or less, presumably) since you get off the spell and then get AoO'd - plus, most healing touch-range spells and "a few other touch spells" specify they do not provoke.
IMO, Lycanthropy should be a curse, "You can shape shift when you want and do awesome stuff with no real penalties" something else that's similar in some manners but different in others. This curse can be milder with certain forms / creatures, or under certain situations, but it should never be a direct upgrade or 90%+ buffs.So, what's y'alls opionions on were creatures and what are some of the more stupid or awesome ones you've seen or come up with?
It depends on what form of Lycanthropy it is;IMO, Lycanthropy should be a curse, "You can shape shift when you want and do awesome stuff with no real penalties" something else that's similar in some manners but different in others. This curse can be milder with certain forms / creatures, or under certain situations, but it should never be a direct upgrade or 90%+ buffs.
Not too familiar with them, a casual Google search says they're a fancy PF name for Insect Lycanthropes (odd considering there's never been problems with other PnP games using the term to cover things like Were-Reptiles or Were-Birds or whatnot) and nothing else so I'd say "Same thing". Lycanthropy was often seen mythologically as either a plague / curse / punishment upon its bearer (Most forms of Werewolves), or associated with evil beings (such as Werehyenas), with cases otherwise (such as the divine Wereleopard) often only lumped into the "Were" category because people aren't familiar with the various other terms / types of "Has the ability to transform into an animal / possesses a blend of human and animal features" so they hear "They can become an animal / have animal traits" and immediately go "Ah, Lycanthrope.".
Aye, but I'm not sure Wulver is necessarily the best example as from the look of things it appears to constantly be in a sort of intermediary stage between "human" and "hybrid" form (bearing the head and exceptional body hair, but no more) with Werewolves generally seen as shape shifters either in possession of at least two stages (Human and Hybrid or Human and Animal in the very least) or the result of one being fully turned into another.It depends on what form of Lycanthropy it is;
Wulver - Wikipedia
I feel as though arthropods generally get the short stick when it comes to MM's, one of the last types of creature that can universally be summed up as "Bad Guys" / "Naturally Evil".
Hmm, then what about the various (non-European)were-kitties?Aye, but I'm not sure Wulver is necessarily the best example as from the look of things it appears to constantly be in a sort of intermediary stage between "human" and "hybrid" form (bearing the head and exceptional body hair, but no more) with Werewolves generally seen as shape shifters either in possession of at least two stages (Human and Hybrid or Human and Animal in the very least) or the result of one being fully turned into another.
In both Indonesia and Malaysia there is another kind of weretiger, known as Harimau jadian. The power of transformation is regarded as due to inheritance, to the use of spells, to fasting and willpower, to the use of charms, etc. Save when it is hungry or has just cause for revenge, it is not hostile to man; in fact, it is said to take its animal form only at night and to guard the plantations from wild pigs.
Variants of this belief assert that the shapeshifter does not recognize his friends unless they call him by name, or that he goes out as a mendicant and transforms himself to take vengeance on those who refuse him alms.
Somewhat similar is the belief of the Khonds; for them the tiger is friendly, and he reserves his wrath for their enemies.
A man is said to take the form of a tiger in order to wreak a just vengeance.
I feel as though arthropods generally get the short stick when it comes to MM's, one of the last types of creature that can universally be summed up as "Bad Guys" / "Naturally Evil".
My point in that regard was more that a lot of times when Insects (Lycanthropic, Anthropomorphized, Gigantic, otherwise) are portrayed, they're almost always going to be lumped into two categories: Evil (probably ~66-80% of the time when not simply Gigantic or Natural) or Neutral (everything else and the remainder of Gigantic / Natural). A few mammals get this schtick still, as do Snakes, but they're generally the final holdouts and most probably stem in some part due to either (in the mammal's case) being seen as pests or outright giving people the heebie-jeebies.The sample werewasp is CN and a cleric of Calistria, the CN elven goddess (who's sacred animal is, of course, the wasp). It's not alignment that makes it a curse, but it notes when someone transformers, they should lose control of their character til they're untransformed.
So your wasp form may not be evil, but it's still running around with a mind of it's own. That's the curse.
As said, those tend to fall more under something else in the Therianthropy blanket but are tl;dr'd into "Were-" because - as far as most Westerners are concerned - if it can take a human form and a not-human form it's a Were. Sorta like how Minotaurs and a lot of other "Animal Head Human Body" creatures were slowly turned into more anthropomorphic versions of their hybrid animal over time in popular culture despite there being quite stark mythological differences between "Helenistic Minotaur" and the general category "Anthropomorphic Bull".Hmm, then what about the various (non-European)were-kitties?
Like these;