Wrath's page

Yeah, the biggest issue then really becomes affording it. Especially since part of the assumption for Starfinder seems to be that you'll be picking up and using dropped gear for 1/10th cost. So you wind up needing to produce at least a fair bit more money from what should logically be less valuable drops. Have fun hunting the local wildlife to extinction, and/or wiping out the indigenous peoples if any.

Or the colony pays them in guns and equipment for doing the jobs and dangerous work that adventurers do.

Claxon wrote:

Eh...that gets dicey though.

Because then you have something like "One player runs back to Absalom station for supplies while the other do their best to hold back the coming disaster until their supply of Ultra-Bombs arrive from the station".

There are ways to make it work short term, but as a player it strains believability for me when you have access to FTL but are always under a time crunch and can't ever stop for gear.

As for a Kingmaker style game in Starfinder, I think it would focus on exploring an unknown world and administering the arrival of new people but doesn't need to focus on scarcity. You can do a lot with founding a settlement on a new planet without scarcity being the main issue.

Well, FTL isn't instant.

If your adventure locale is in the Vast it could be anywhere from a week to 5 weeks to get to Absalom and back - longer if you're not going to Absalom.

PCs are assumed to have a ship, but that's not a necessity. They could be stranded with a damaged one. The campaign set up could lack one as part of the premise. A newly established settlement could have scraped up the money to get passage out, but not to have a ship of its own or to get common supply runs.

It does kind of break the system though, since regular gear upgrades are assumed. Which falls back into "colony surviving on their own" not being a kind of campaign SF lends itself to. Despite being a pretty common SF trope, even in settings with FTL.

Nah, you can just work,around that by having the colony developing technology as it manages to bring newer systems and buildings on line.

“Hey, we’ve managed to find a local supply of bruzenium 4! In a few weeks we’ll have the materials we need to mod that armour of yours. Also, Franger Jones says the Cordilon Reactor is nearly ready to switch on, so hopefully I can get those charged Springer Coils for the new rifle you’ve been hankering for”

Access to levelled gear just comes with successful levelled ng of the colony (pretty much like playing an RTS computer game).

Shinigami02 wrote:

Does Hard Sci-Fi count?

Really, given the focus on having access to shops and gear drops, it can be rather difficult to have something like a colonization campaign, or anything else where realistically you won't have access to shops or UBP income for a prolonged period. Particularly if it's in such a way where you won't realistically be fighting enemies with leveled equipment (like most colonization campaigns would be, since if they have leveled gear chances are good the planet you're on isn't really available for colonizing. Depending on your group's ethics you'd probably be fighting mostly animals even.)

There was never an option in Starfinder since you have FTL-ish Drift Drives. It takes a week from anywhere to get to Absalom Station. So unless you lost your Starship, you were never going to have a problem of "don't have access to stuff". Scarcity campaigns don't really work in a setting with FTL. You can make them work for a short while with the setup of "Hey, you've become stranded on this planet because your ship ran out of fuel/the engine broke/etc" but that only lasts for a limited amount of time in a believable manner. I also suspects that's not what most players sign up for with Starfinder.

Ignoring the fact that you could be running in a setting that isn’t golarion specific, then the week to Absalom station has just been shown to be a “when everything goes right”timeline.

There’s a whole swagnof things that can happen to a ship in Drift space that will prevent it reaching the destination it wanted. Including a prolonged stint of travel in the doldrums. Or running into a pocket of planar matter, or being invaded by rift beast s feeding on the power conduits etc etc

So if you wanted to make travel for help really difficult for the PCs, it’s not that hard.

And then of course, there’s the very real option that Starfinder rules are just being used in a non Paizo specific setting. In which case you can do whatever.

Meh, in Pathfinder I just ran adventure paths. In all honesty no one was ever at their WBL in those games. And apart from kingmaker, having enough down time to actually craft anything of use just never came up. The ones we played through were all time sensitive for most part.

I used to get around it by just allowing a gear respec at level 8 and again at level 13. Literally sell whatever you didn’t want and then gear up to WBL. You couldn’t have any one item worth more than 1/4 of your total wealth.

It was a bit unrealistic but for the most part my group in those days were happy with it as it just let them do the thing they wanted most with their characters.

I think there was one one or two times where it turned out a charcater had gear above expected wealth at the point we did the respec.

I’d have more trouble running it like that with the groups I run with now though. They like the games to run more immersive than that.

Well, the 3.0 and 3.5 and pathfinder WBL charts were based around the orbital sizes of atomic structure. I mean it had a reason, but it doesn’t seem to be much more than that.

The way Pitheca is running things isn’t much different to society play. The only difference being not everyone can now buy that rare drop, like they do in society play.

It is a very effective way to keep loot evenly split, if that’s something your group worries about.

The price is close to triple the previous value at each increment

The issue I was trying to point out at the beginning of this aside is that loot is often an item like a gun. The other characters will often pick up said gun and use it. The caster that doesn't want to use a gun has to take his share of loot (in guns) and sell them, for which he gets a megar return. If he then is expecting to buy large amounts of spell gems to fill actions in combat that he isn't shooting, with the credits he got for the guns he's sold, he's going to run short very quickly.

Some people have been proposing that a character can do this and be just fine based on wbl charts. At character creation maybe, but unless a gm is going to drop quite a few spell gems instead of guns you won't be able to keep this statagy up.

The issue basically boils down to this. If you are selling stuff instead of using it starfinder punishes you. You can't expect to do this constantly and not fall behind characters that don't do this.

Then perhaps you could run it like my groups do. If an item drops and someone can use it, we calculate the equivalent monetary cost and ensure that others get that amount eventually. It’s a tally system.

Eg soldier picks up a gun worth 2000 credits. He decides to keep it.
Soldier doesn’t get any of the funds from selling loot until the 2000 credits is accumulated (either through credits or other guys picking up gear as well)

And I’ll also point out once more - if a person decides to deliberately ignore gear they can use because they decide they want to buy gear that isn’t dropping, then that is their issue, not everyone else’s. If a player says “I refuse to use that gun that’s an improvement to my gear, because I want to use more spell gems” well that’s really their cross to bear.

Wrath wrote:

Azalah wrote:

Now see, if party members actually cared about each other and weren't greedy, then they would all chip in to buy that spellcaster some spell gems to make sure he can do his job properly.

Too bad all adventurers are greedy and would never do such a thing unless they got something in return at that exact moment.

Another way to look at it - my soldier wants to constantly lay down Burt fire on full auto..

Burt fire?

Lol.

I’ve never been happier to make a spelling error

Now see, if party members actually cared about each other and weren't greedy, then they would all chip in to buy that spellcaster some spell gems to make sure he can do his job properly.

Too bad all adventurers are greedy and would never do such a thing unless they got something in return at that exact moment.

This conversation will go downhill very fast if you start this up.

Wealth is divided equally among the group. They then choose to spend it in what is best for their goals within the group.

If the caster decides he wants to blow a tonof it on consumables, yay for him, but he has to balance their useage against the cost outlay.

If the soldier decides he doesn’t want to buy healing droughts (or their equivalent) then he has to balance that with techniques and tactics to avoid the need to dip into healing from catsers that goes beyond their spell slots.

No one should be required to lose out on their own potential wealth in order for another player to meet their agenda

Another way to look at it - my soldier wants to constantly lay down Burt fire on full auto. I want people to start chipping in for my batteries and ammo clips.

That’s not a reasonable request

Let's not forget that WBL is also "self-replenishing" by nature. If you blow up 20k credits in spell gems in a very tough fight, you're supposed to regain these credits over time through your next encounters, with some of that regained wealth in hard credits, and the rest in the form of other consumables.

.

Yeah.....that’s not true.

If someone decides to spend all their wealth on consumable items and another party member spends it on retainable gear, why should the consumable guy get rewarded with more loot?

WBL is a guide of how much you’ve earned in that level. How you spend it is up to you.

Does Wealth by Level even apply in Starfinder? Or only during character creation?

That is, should the GM be concerned about party wealth, during play, from level to level? Or does it not matter after character creation, provided you stick to appropriately leveled items?

Not sure, in all honesty

In Pathfinder it was used as a guide to building adventures to get an idea on loot that should be dropped. I’m guessing it’s the same for this game but I haven’t really gone into it.

Obsess is certainly a strong word. I would agree that you shouldn't obsess.

But, also, looking at the chart for light armor, I see that the highest KAC level 6 armor is +6/+8/+5. The highest KAC level 8 armor is +9/+11/+5. Given that a level 8 monster is rolling around with a potential +19 to hit, that's a difference between hitting your KAC on a 4 or on a 7. It isn't a game breaking difference (they still hit more than half the time with a single attack) but that is a potential 15% reduction in the damage you take (over time).

Should you obsess over that? Probably not. But it's not the same as it not mattering. I'm all for conceding that the numbers aren't the most important thing, but that isn't the same as saying they aren't important, at all. It's a game built on numbers and imagination. That 15% could save your character's life. If you can afford it, I'd say it's sometimes worth it, at least generally. I think it's probably a bad idea to upgrade every item every single level. There is probably a sweet spot around every 2-4 levels where you should make the effort if you haven't seen a better item drop organically.

Every three or so levels isn’t going to break the bank either I guess. Assuming you’re able to stay close to WBL in a game.

Now that items have levels attached to them, are there any "durable" goods anymore? You have to replace most things every few levels just to stay current!

How much of this is the iPhone trap though? Do you really need to replace your items with stuff every few levels? Are the incremental increases that significant that players are going to be dropping serious cash just trying to keep up.

So Pathfinder you could assume roughly three combats a day lasting four rounds each. So something like 12 rounds of rage, over 12 alchemist bombs, or 12 divine favors was a magic number for abilities.

Has that changed a lot? I've heard combats are closer to 6 rounds each. I have also heard that you should expect to get hit a lot.

I think these differences would strengthen it. After all, it is a different game.

For my experience at least, the answer to your questions is yes.

Combats run between 5 and six rounds (dependent on number of enemies).

You definitely get hit pretty easily, but the ability to self heal stamina helps here.

You also tend to hit the enemy very easily too. Which is good because lots of classes are 3/4 BAB.

Yeah, I guess if that’s where you think you’re wanting to be as the soldier, it might work.

I just don’t see them starting out with a 14 intelligence unless they have a very specific design in mind to skill up.

I see it as way down the line from Dex, Con and Wisdom, all of which add to saves at least.

But then, I’m also not worried about a character only having 50%chance of passing a skills test, honestly. It actually makes the dice important game again.

Why are we assuming the soldier has an intelligence of 18?

Wrath wrote:

The obsession with maths and perfectly balanced classes also delivered 4th edition.

That turned out a little differently than the devs expected, despite addressing nearly every issue that folks were complaining about for 3.5

Ehhh there was more to it than that. I could get into a heavy rant about hasbro's attempt at turning D&D into a boardgame while forgetting the reasons the game got popular to begin with (5th ed. is soooo much better because they remembered). About it's aggravating marketing, bear trap OGL, false promises and seeming distaste for its own community.

But neither the time and place for it.

Yeah, I was there for all of it. The way they treated us like we were idiots and hadn’t been having fun because our game sucked was the worst of it.

But ultimately, it was the feel of each class being the same with just a different name attached that really killed it.

If the game had been good, it could have survived those initial faux pas marketing stunts. But it was all balanced numbers and so many uses per day to ensure balance was maintained . There was no soul to,it, just maths.

Which is why I feel HWalsh’s approach is fraught with traps. Maths is just a part of designing a good game.

The obsession with maths and perfectly balanced classes also delivered 4th edition.

That turned out a little differently than the devs expected, despite addressing nearly every issue that folks were complaining about for 3.5

I wouldn’t call it a cartel.

There’s barely twenty people who post in these threads with regularity. 4 of them seem to regularly disagree with you. (If you’re correct about the “same three folks” statement above)

There’s probably a few more who just don’t care enough to post about the disagreement.

As for maths being the only way to prove an items worth in a roleplay game, that’s a very poor metric for so many aspects of the game.

As much mileage comes from inspiration provided and situational play between a group.

If it all only came down to math, roleplay games would suck.

I’m of the opinion that if it doesn’t have a mechanical reason or the player isn’t going to later try and leverage advantage from it, then just leave it as charcater choice.

However, if the player is later trying to leverage reputation that gives advantage somehow (because they were a total bad @$$ and didn’t even whimper during torture) then some form of roll or expenditure of resource needs to be made.

I really like the idea of spending resolve that was mentioned above. Perfect example how those points could be used outside normal expectations. But that becomes a house rule.

Otherwise it’s a fort save or will save (GMs call) which falls less in the house rule domain and more in the GM applying current rules to unusual situations.

Wrath wrote:

CeeJay is also ignoring the very large group of people who buy the modules because they don’t have time to design their own game.

Admittedly I do think if you don't have time to adapt modules to work for your table, you should probably think about whether RPGs are really for you.

Quote:

large numbers of people are buying the modules that Paizo produce.

Of course. I'm one of them. I have several SFS modules and all of the Dead Suns content to this point. I just adapt the content.

Quote:

I will go so far as to say that CeeJay is on the minority for play style in this hobby.

I make no claims either way. All I'll say is that if you want to get the most out of this hobby as any other, you have to be willing to invest some time and effort to make it work for your group.

What an amazingly arrogant statement.

I will say that I currently play a number of systems where I don’t have to modify the content in the prepublished adventures in order to make it enjoyable for my group.

That includes both pathfinder and fifth edition.

However, what these last few posts of yours has certainly demonstrated to me is your complete lack,of understanding of the player base in the hobby world. It explains a number of your previous statements in other threads. It also makes much of what you have to say worthless in discussions about game play issues or balance.

You have a firmly concreted stance of “I don’t have an issue so it can’t be a problem”, and then dismiss any other style of play than what you use as irrelevant and wrong.

You may not find a problem with the game, and that’s fine. But your arrogant and dismissive attitude towards other people’s experiences and findings is unpalatable.

Wrath wrote:

1. Or on the opposite wall of the zero g environment. Or flying past using boots etc.
2. It’s a 20 foot range, so if you’re on the opposite side it’s pretty good. Particularly for things like energised fences
3. Which is crap for the soldier but may make a difference for the non full ban classes (though not likely given how low AC values for enemies are). Also, if you’re directly above them you lift them ten feet into the air and then they drop, possibly prone and possibly taking falling damage. That would depend on your GM I guess
4. If you are below the cliff or ledge that they are on, you can pull them off the ledge or cliff. They could in fact fall up to 20 feet (range of the effect)
5. I can think of a fight in the first AP where the final boss begins flying around in room where dragging it ten feet down could be really useful, especially if it can crash into something on the way.

2. But it would rely on them already being right up against it.

3. But is also costing the damage the Solarian himself is doing. Unless you've got like...a dozen...PCs with pistols I don't think there is a net gain there.
4. Actually, you couldn't. They'd impact the ground if you were below them and stop. Black hole can only pull in a straight line and is stopped by any hard object.

2. Or ten feet away if you’re also ten feet away.

CeeJay is also ignoring the very large group of people who buy the modules because they don’t have time to design their own game.

Paizo makes the majority of its money from its adventures, not the rules. It’s why they make the rules free (eventually this will happen for Starfinder)

What that tells me is large numbers of people are buying the modules that Paizo produce. The expectation being they should work really well with the rules as written. The most that may need changing is the odd equipment drop that may not suit any one in the group.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that CeeJay is on the minority for play style in this hobby.

Wrath wrote:

Back to graviton stuff.

Situations where graviton mode can be great,

- zero G environments. Pulling the enemy off the wall leaving them floating in space and possible accelerating to a bad place.
- any situation where there’s dangerous environmental factors that you pull them into (quicksand, head vents, electric fences, laser traps, mine fields to name some)
- when the Solarian is above the targets. If he’s on the ceiling through suction boots or the Solarian ability and he just lifts the enemy up and then drops them again. Even more effective if his companions have readied actions to shoot the enemy mid lift. This even works if the Solarian is on a balcony above them.
- if the enemy is on a cliff or ledge.
- if an enemy is flying

Those are just ones I can think of and that’s only dealing with the one power everyone’s seems to whinge about.

The issue there is that Black Hole can only pull. So several of those situations are very, very limited.

1: Yeah, handy there (Though it requires you to be already floating yourself)
2: Black Hole can only pull. You'll need to be in that environmental effect yourself or on the other side of it (Which is an issue when Black Hole only pulls a short duration)
3: The readied actions could not be Full Attacks. Your soldier would actually be better off going with 'shoot them in cover' than 'Ready a single better attack'. You'd also be depriving the group of one of their primary damage dealers by doing so.
4: Again, it can only pull. You can only do that if you jump off the cliff first and take them with you or if you've gotten flight.
5: They'd need to be flying at a rather low height for you to yank them into melee range.

While the mental image of a Solarian suiciding off a cliff with an enemy like it's SSB is entertaining, it's also a very limited situation.

1. Or on the opposite wall of the zero g environment. Or flying past using boots etc.

How the hell do,you know how much of the playing audience is outside society play?

It could be 50 percent or more for all you know, at which point it’s more than relevent

Aaaaaaand point missed.

Which perfectly demonstrates what I’m saying.

Oh well.

Wrath wrote:

But then you also come on here and argue against folks who have issues with the game because they run it unmodified.

On account of I'm not convinced "running it unmodified" should be the thing the system is judged by, given that it's basically designed to be adapted to your player group.

But it should work both ways.

There are people who run games where the world is balanced according to the he players. (That’s you)

Then there are people who run games where the world exists outside of the players.

There’s are lots and lots of people in the second category. The Adventure paths and society games are in fact written to cater for that group.

There’s are general guidelines and tactics for the enemies because they think completely independently of the players.

Changing those tactics or the scenario so your players will do well puts you in category one.

It’s a fun way to play, for sure. But you’re arguing from a perspective of blindness in regards to the other camp.

Back to graviton stuff.

Situations where graviton mode can be great,

- zero G environments. Pulling the enemy off the wall leaving them floating in space and possible accelerating to a bad place.
- any situation where there’s dangerous environmental factors that you pull them into (quicksand, head vents, electric fences, laser traps, mine fields to name some)
- when the Solarian is above the targets. If he’s on the ceiling through suction boots or the Solarian ability and he just lifts the enemy up and then drops them again. Even more effective if his companions have readied actions to shoot the enemy mid lift. This even works if the Solarian is on a balcony above them.
- if the enemy is on a cliff or ledge.
- if an enemy is flying

Those are just ones I can think of and that’s only dealing with the one power everyone’s seems to whinge about.

Wrath wrote:

You’re running games that deliberately cater to things.

Yes. It's because I take deliberately catering to your table to be a basic part of the exercise. Most certainly this is part of my "bias." Quite frankly this wouldn't be a hobby if I couldn't do it.

Absolutely, I 100% agree with you and aplaud you for doing so.

But then you also come on here and argue against folks who have issues with the game because they run it unmodified.

I think I see one potential difference between HWalsh and myself.

I have run (and played in) 0 adventures-as-written, from Dead Suns or SRS.

100% of my experience comes from running or playing in homebrew adventures tailored to a specific party that draw liberally from Paizo products but do not use them verbatim.

I do wonder how much of a difference that makes. It would seem, quite a bit. I don't know what to say about the over-a-hundred sample combats thing because it's largely meaningless without context and detail.

(I'm not much impressed by claims about running in a "very good home game," which as pertains to general claims about the system is not super-meaningful. I'm running a "very good home game" at this moment wherein we're having a metric @&!%-load of fun, doesn't mean I think I'm qualified to demand things from Paizo or define how the system will work for other people.)

And this is where you are still blind to your own bias.

You’re running games that deliberately cater to things. This means you could well be compensating for poor game design.

I think there’s an issue when the game is run as is, using modules designed by the developers with their rule set in mind.

And before you go off on your “game developers are only human too” rant, remember that this is exoeri need by people running multiple modules from multiple authors across multiple developers.

When the sample size is large and disparate in nature, and it is presenting issues from a number of different players, then that means there is some substance to the claims being made.

You however, still insists on arguing from your own game that you are homebrewing and modifying to ensure your friends are having fun.

That’s a pretty weak position to argue from in all honesty.

Some of the graviton modes in a Star Wars style setting are going to much more viable than folks are giving them credit for.

There’s no railings in Star Wars for the most part and they regularly have strings on high platforms and across elevator shafts and around into for space hangars.

For my part, I saw a Solarian pull 3 enemies from out of cover after flanking them. This allowed his companions and some NPCs shoot them without the cover advantage.

The same Solarian pulled an enemy into the the middle of an elevator shaft and it fell three stories. It’s a complicated situation, you’ll need to read the Legendary planets AP to get full gist of why that fight is happening.

As is, I haven’t read anywhere in the setting of the game where there are safety railings etc. Nothings to say Starfinder isn’t similar to the Star Wars universe thematically.

Having said that, I’d like to see that particular revelation be enabled to work in both directions. Either a pull or a push. Effectively the Solarian draws a well of gravity to him during combat but then relases it like a magnetic coil eruption that cause the huge solar flares in the sun. It pushes enemies away if you want, or you could still use it to pull them.

I’m sure it gets even muddier when you consider many folks accessing and putting things up on sights hosted overseas from countries not bound by US law.

I saw a Solarian in play up to level 5 before the group changed games. For that particular game he was perfectly fine in comparison to the other classes in play. We didn’t have an issue with its balance at all.

And he didn’t even follow the build threads!

No. That isn't what it is boiling down to. A magic gun does not a spellcaster make.

Spell casters do things other than damage with their spells.

Does everyone seriously think that the only way to solve problems is supposed to be 'do hit point damage' to it?

And here is where the problem lies.

Let’s say you have spells that allows you to solve a threat in combat without damage. Charming or dominating or fearing them or whatever method it is.

Now in one action you have removed a threat from the game, no matter how many hit points it has. It may have taken a combatant based class two or three rounds to have the same effect.

So, now we start putting in classes that can effectively drop that,type of spell more frequently, as is the current request for this thread.

Every round in a combat there’s a potential for the caster to remove one or more threats using just one spell slot or action. No matter how many hit points.

What if the group is trying to talk their way out instead?

Well, there’s a few ways to boost your skills in diplomacy and intimidate etc that means you can use skills to achieve this.
If you start adding spells that remove the need to make skill checks, then you’re destroying the build potential for whole other classes.
If you start increasing the number of times a caster can spam the “boom I win.”spell then you are really starting to impact on the effectiveness of other classes.

Even if it’s a spell that boosts skills instead of just wins the roll, you are making other players investments into their characters almost worthless.

Please take in to account that the classes need to be balanced not just for what is currently available in the game, but for what might potentially come out in the future. Limiting the amount of casting you can do may well be a design philosophy put in place to mitigate future abuse of the system

Starfinder has also made skills more important again. There aren’t spells out there that just completely negate the need for them any more.

Hopefully this trend continues. If not....well it sucks to be the guy invested in hacking skills and information gathering when the caster beside him just waved his fingers and the computer spews out answers, or his chosen deity just whispers the meta plot into his ear.

Remember, spell slots aren’t just used for combat. The more slots provided combined with a growing list of utility spells that are bound to come, the less that skill checks will become important.

Having said that, the designers are doing ok so far, having spells provide bonuses to skill checks rather than just replacing the need for it all.

I'm going to marvel at the vastly different playstyle some other people have from me when they think time stop is a broken 9th level spell. IMO time stop is a workhorse spell of that level, about average of what you should expect. Not great, but it gets the job done.

It's certainly not nearly as strong as shades, gate, wish, mage's disjunction, and the like.

Time stop is just the example someone used above. On its own it’s perfecly fine. Combined with summons and other spells it becomes unbalancing compared to what other players are able to do.

The point I’m making is it doesn’t matter how many spell slots you give casters, it’s the tools you provide that they can spend spell slots on.

In other words, there’d be no problem with full progression casters, as long as the spells remained in check. At which point casters would complain about how weak the spells were more than likely.

For those very keen to play full casters though, there are rules in the book for converting Pathfimder material over to Starfinder.

Use at your own risk

I mean spells like Time Stop existed in the CRB. Pathfinder shipped broken from the very beginning.

But you're correct that it's not so much "spell levels" that are the problem, as much as it is what individual spells can do.

Some spells should simply never exist, others need clarification so that they aren't as able to be abused (simulacrum of the wizard still has half the creators spell casting ability....or you could say simulacrums don't possess magical or SU abilities).

And you have to keep in mind that even existing 6th level spells in Starfinder are only balanced around being able to do it a limited number of times per day. The Technomancer can use a 6th level spell to deal 13d12 damage to a main target and 10 other targets, the only way to balance that against the damage soldiers can do with their gun is not let the caster do it every round.

Yep, and all it takes is for someone to drop Time Stop back in the game and voila. Even with the current spellcasters as they are, you now have something to make things too swingy.

Caster drops time stop then pops a bunch of summons or deployable items on the board (mines and weapon deployables). While that stuff may not be in game at the moment, it’s only a matter of time. (Pun intended)

If you introduce casters with level 9 spell abilities, you just need to make the power levels of their spells similar to the level six casters. So getting 3d12 damage etc should still only be coming up atbthe top levels of the spell casters careers.

But I think there’s more issues there too. It comes down to future combinations of feats, equipment and spells. If this game turns into the juggernaught of expansions that Pathfinder has, its inevitable that broken things will sneak in.

9th Level casters didn’t break the game in Pathfinder. It was stupid spell design and feat combinations that did that.

Add in the effect of being able to buy scrolls of those spells and you suddenly had issues where casters could just replace most key features of other classes and remove narrative elements from the game.

That is still a very likely scenario to occur in Starfinder even with only six levels of spells.
It only takes a few supplements to be released with new spells and feats and suddenly you find casters dominating the game again.

@CeeJay,

Your argument works both ways.

For you to have started this thread believing there aren’t issues is understandable. But for you still be in that position after a number of people have said there are is less so.

None of which means jack squat. Your group obviously likes the game. They have no issue with stuff in the game.

My two groups do. So we don’t play it.

Again, given how many other game systems are out there, why bother chasing something you don’t enjoy?

Which brings me nicely to the point where I’ll bow out of these threads, since I no longer plan on playing the game. May all of you enjoy whatever game you play.

Wrath wrote:

Now let me again talk about my experience.

I’ve run two published AP sections from two different publishing companies who’s job it is to design adventures

I will only discuss the combat part of those (as indeed all my points to date have been about) since it’s the core mechanic which really turned our group off.

The monsters and NPCs in those games were designed to the rules in the Alien Archive. This was able,to be done because a) the first module was written by the very people who wrote the alien archive which were using the rules before the public got hold of them and b) the second module was using the same rules as the alien archive because a number of publishing companies also had access to those rules prior to the public getting access to them.

I ran one of my groups for 4 sessions and they got to level 3 at the end of the first part of the Paizo module. I had five players in that group.

I ran a second group for 9 sessions and got through to level five evuentually in a second AP I’ve already mentioned to you. We honestly nearly quit by level 3of that one as well but I convinced th m to take a short two week break and come back to it. By level five the five players in that group also thought the combat was not up to par.

So I have DMd 14 sessions with ten different players using official and third party modules which in turn used official rules for combat and NPC design.

Is this fixable?

(Is it worth fixing?)

I’m sure our group could come up with a plethora of new house rules to adjust the big issue they had, but why sink my time into it?

The whole thing felt stale to them combat wise. It’s a core mechanic.
Instead, we just went back to playing games we already enjoyed.

Nothing we try is a perfect fit for us. We do definitely tinker with things and implement house rules where necessary. But never for entire systems of the game.

As I stated earlier, I’m going to mine Starfinder for some ideas on computer stuff and some other elements and overlay those onto Fragged Empire. I’ll try that and see what happens. The base mechanics of Fragged were pretty fresh but it really lacked guidance and depth as a system. I’ve got a far better concept on how fix some of that having read Starfinder and the 40k roleplay books too. Most that is purely from a DMs perspective and ease of running games.

But, Fragged has a similar issue with its enemy design that Starfinder has. They have different stat styles and even some different mechanics in how they’re handled. Given the response to Starfinder in my groups, I get the feeling it will end up with a similar outcome.

Wrath wrote:

Actually, I’m basing it off the stats of critters in the bestiary book.

Stats for which you have little in-play context by your own account.

Quote:

But hey, keep telling me my stuff is limited and your homebrew is correct.

My "homebrew" consists of reading the rules and having played the game for more than a few sessions at a stretch. We established that part last go-round, remember? I'm not insulting you, I'm just stating a fact: you're simply not in a position to make broad definitive statements about how the system works. And you cannot generalize how combat works from looking at attack bonuses in the Alien Archive, which goes to the discussion we just had about the limits of "theory."

(Hmmm. Do I want to know what happened to enemies being too "easy" to hit to the point where players were supposed to not care about armour, earlier claims which your most recent outing more-or-less directly contradicts? Probably not, I guess? If this is a fresh theoretical angle you've derived from reading the Alien Archive since that's fine, I just think you should be forthright that that's all it is.)

Creatures are easy to hit, which again makes leaving your own cover to shoot them almost pointless.

For the few fights we had where the enemy AC was high, the less combat oriented classes were very restricted in what options were available. Basically debuff. Now we didn’t have too many fights like this, but the ones we did have lasted for quite a few rounds longer than many roleplay games. Again, this is the mechanical design of the game. It’s a stated design goal in fact. So now you face situations where some players are pretty much doing the same action each round (which isn’t perceived as doing much to the enemy) for 4 or five rounds or about 30minutes of real time.

Now let me again talk about my experience.
I’ve run two published AP sections from two different publishing companies who’s job it is to design adventures

I will only discuss the combat part of those (as indeed all my points to date have been about) since it’s the core mechanic which really turned our group off.

The monsters and NPCs in those games were designed to the rules in the Alien Archive. This was able,to be done because a) the first module was written by the very people who wrote the alien archive which were using the rules before the public got hold of them and b) the second module was using the same rules as the alien archive because a number of publishing companies also had access to those rules prior to the public getting access to them.

I ran one of my groups for 4 sessions and they got to level 3 at the end of the first part of the Paizo module. I had five players in that group.

I ran a second group for 9 sessions and got through to level five eventually in a second AP I’ve already mentioned to you. We honestly nearly quit by level 3of that one as well but I convinced th m to take a short two week break and come back to it. By level five the five players in that group also thought the combat was not up to par.

So I have DMd 14 sessions with ten different players using official and third party modules which in turn used official rules for combat and NPC design.

My experience is more than enough to make a judgement on a game system on whether I think it’s worth pursuing compared to the myriad of other games out there.

From what Youve states so far, you’re running homebrew games while making adjustments that you feel need to be made.

You have every right to enjoy your game, but do not denegrate my opinion on the game by saying my experience is limited so therefore wrong.

And all of that is just talking about the issues with combat and NPC design that my players had. None of it comes from “this needs to be pathfinder and it’s not” because apart from me and one other player, the groups I run with don’t do pathfinder any more.

There are other omissions in the system which the groups didn’t like, but they are far more subjective than the combat stuff so I haven’t bothered mentioning them in this thread.

Wrath wrote:

Combat may end up far more static than you think, @Gustavo.

Moving to shoot the enemy often means also,giving up your own cover. The enemy almost always have a better chance to hit you than you do for them, and they deal more damage per attack based on weapon damage plus adds.

On that factor, staying in cover could mean the difference between getting your own shots off and getting out damaged into unconscious.

I will have a more informed opinion in a few weeks, we finished Strange Aeons today and will start Starfinder next week.

In my theoricrafted opinion, the answer to that problem you say, is more cover. Several pieces of cover so people can try to move from cover to cover, while trying to outflank tbe enemy. I'll report bank obce I have real gameplay experience

Yeah, dropping scattered cover to enable enfilade movement and cover runs will definitely help the mobility of a game.

As will destroyable terrain elements.

Or sections that provide complete line of sight blocking and possible flanking positions.

I guess it depends how much you get to design and how much you rely on prepublished adventures.

There’s a current trend of thought in the Starfinder threads that suggest full attacking is always the better option. If that train of thought permeates your group it will also kill fluid combat.

It’s all group dependent I guess.

Wrath wrote:

Combat may end up far more static than you think, @Gustavo.

Moving to shoot the enemy often means also,giving up your own cover. The enemy almost always have a better chance to hit you than you do for them, and they deal more damage per attack based on weapon damage plus adds.

They don't. This is highly dependent on what weapons and armor the party are using and the specifics of how the opponents are built. Wrath is trying to generalize from a very small sample of play.

I do wish more people were more aware of actions like Covering and Harrying Fire, though.

Actually, I’m basing it off the stats of critters in the bestiary book. But hey, keep telling me my stuff is limited and your homebrew is correct.

Having said that (see my above post), I suspect the new equipment book will be releasing things that provide all sorts of options for less combat intensive characters.

I’d also like to see more options along the lines of hacking and counter hacking in combat to make a difference, or deployable energy fields for mobile cover, troop tracking deployable sensors so you know where the enemy is etc etc.

Combat may end up far more static than you think, @Gustavo.

Moving to shoot the enemy often means also,giving up your own cover. The enemy almost always have a better chance to hit you than you do for them, and they deal more damage per attack based on weapon damage plus adds.

On that factor, staying in cover could mean the difference between getting your own shots off and getting out damaged into unconscious.

While some classes are difenitely going to be moving more (close combat oriented), others are going to be static for most of the fight.

Which is pretty much how most of my Pathfinder battles ran actually.

And isn’t too much of a stretch beyond what most games systems run. (A mobile assault group supported by a static gun line)

Some of my players found that their best option in a gun fight was almost always trying to debuff the enemy rather than trying to damage the enemy. The harrying fire and suppressive fire ? Options both have static DCs of 15. In firefights where the enemy is entrenched in cover, they just missed more often than not against their KAC values. So debuff it is.

Now, that’s perfectly fine in and of itself, but once you’ve had a number of battles where you’re relegated to debuff, then it gets stale.

Again I’d like to emphasize that you don’t get an opinion until you actually play the game...we are all open to discussion and criticism from people who at least try it for a few sessions.

Which you have repeatedly told us you havent

His complaint is about the aspect of the system that happens outside of playing the game.

That is, the building of characters and how he loves complexity and problem solving in that aspect. You can do thatnall,day every day and never roll a dice in your life.

As such, he has every right to make a statement on why he doesn't like this system. He even went through the comparison for purely CRB in Pathfinder vs Starfinder and still finds it lacking.

I'm going to agree with his findings too. Starfinder is far more like 5e in that regard (and in quite a few others as well).

For me though, that's a positive in favour of Starfinder over Pathfinder. For the very reason it really helps prevent rules lawyers and munchkins from trying to break the system.

The problem of course comes down to this. My group has played quite a bit of 5e now and the players have seen or played through nearly every class combination possible. The shine is wearing off. At least Starfinder is going to continue growing the races and classes options at a faster rate than 5e.

@ceeJay - I'll absolutely concede you point about third party content. The one I ran was the first part of legendary planets . It's basically an AP that's been designed for fantasy based systems (Pathfinder and fifth edition) but they've shoe horned Starfinder into it.

It's more pulp sci fantasy than the setting in the core book, so some of the base skills are not overly useful already. I actually wrote a review on the module.

The content as far as story goes is perfectly fine. It would be a really good Pathfinder adventure actually. But it wasn't working overly well for me as DM for Starfinder.

However, despite those flaws the encounters were designed using the system in Starfinder, so our issue with combat wouldn't change really.

But it's a very fair point you make about using third party stuff to judge a system.

Sadly we found the official content ran the same.

Meh. It's a game. Plenty of people are finding it really awesome for them, so I think that's great.

I believe for my group, we're planning on using some of the design theories of Starfinder and putting them to the chassis of Fragged Empire. Fragged is a really robust game mechanically, but suffers from really poor layout and explanations on how things work in the book. Having read all the Starfinder stuff, I have a far better idea in how to effectively use Fragged.

So for me, none of my money was wasted in all honesty. It just didn't pan out for the group the way I'd hoped.

@ Sid de Squid - that's a needlessly aggressive response to something that's now been discussed for nearly 300 posts.

There's nothing you've said that hasn't already been discussed, without the arrogant and aggressive overtones.

Far as NPC creation stats go, when you're building enemies I feel like the base EAC/KAC values in the Alien Archive are there with the assumption that for the kinds of enemies who would use it, you are also equipping them with roughly level-appropriate actual gear, not just using the base values. Or if they're a form of critter that wouldn't use gear and you want them to be durable, they have some other defensive abilities or buffs.

Using custom-built NPCs on those assumptions, I certainly haven't had anything like Wrath's experience. Pre-built adversaries from the Alien Archive haven't felt that way either. If the system inherently encourages people to be indifferent to armour my players haven't got the memo and I've yet to feel it as a player myself (and I've spent equal amounts of time both sides of the screen at this point).

This is not to discount Wrath's experiences... but it does make me wonder if there's another explanation for them. The quality of adventure design can be a big factor, and Starfinder introduces so many different kinds of adventure hooks that it can be tricky to design scenarios for. I personally think Paizo's AP content is great for resources and ideas but there's not a ton of it that has tempted me to pick up and run as-is (and I would love to be able to do so... maybe I'll get to it with A Night in Nightarch). I also hear extremely varied things about third-party content claiming to be "Starfinder-compatible," though I can't speak directly to much of that.

So you're saying the game works well when you homebrew and add extras based off assumptions you've made that aren't outlined in the rules.

I mean, any game system will work well if you just change it to suit your style. But then it's not the same game system.

Honestly, if the game doesn't run particularly well using the content designed to be used with it by the expert game designers who,helped write the rules then I call that bad design.

So I shall reciprocate your own statements. I wonder if your experi nice differs because you're not actually running the game as written but rather homebrew it to gloss over some of the problems?

Which is fine to do, because it makes your game more fun for you.

But my time is too limited to be rewriting and redesigning systems, nor indeed homebrewing content. I need a system to work out of the box and be effective for the material written to use it, since that's all I have time for now.