Design-Balance Suggestion for Starfinder


General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is an inherent problem in the "math" of Pathfinder/d20.

Imagine you have two level 3 fighters. One has a +7 to hit and the other a +13. As GM, you've got one number, Armor Class, that's going to matter how much they hit the monsters. You've got to make the AC too easy for one of them, or too hard for the other.

There is no downside to designing your melee hero to be the +13 guy, just "optimal" choices. The "math" of the game mostly reinforces the idea that the rules reward the "optimized" more than they reward the +7 guy, because good role-playing is not really stat-dependent, but the combat is.

Maybe one way to make Starfinder better is to make stats and combat scale less linearly, and more like rock-paper-scissors? What if as you scale up one value to get better, another value(s) diminish slightly. Or put another way, what if you have a "Pool" to allocate between accuracy, damage and number of attacks.

Using the example of the two fighters, maybe the +7 to hit guy has that +7 because he hits for more damage, or attacks more often, whereas the +13 guy got his very high accuracy in exchange for slower, less damaging attacks.

In Pathfinder, the +13 guy is strictly better than the +7 guy. In Starfinder, maybe they both can have a place.

Thanks for reading.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Um... no. Generally in pathfinder third level fighters do not just have random +6 bonuses to hit with no cost to anything else. Sure, it's entirely possible that two third level fighters have +13 and +7 attacks (although they do seem a bit high, but it's fine.) But this is because either
1. The + 13 guy allocated more of his stuff to accuracy than the +7 guy, for instance if he made his weapon masterwork rather than buying better armor, or chose weapon focus rather than dodge. Like you suggested, there is a balance, with the +7 guy having a far better AC than the + 13 guy.
2. The +3 guy is simply in a higher power game, such as if the GM gave them a higher point buy for ability scores or put better rewards in their dungeon, enabling him to get masterwork weapons that the +7 guy doesn't have.
Neither of these are problems with the system.


Sounds like you'd like Mutants and Masterminds. It's a good system...and it is very much too different from Pathfinder for the dev team to even consider poaching material from it, I imagine.

Silver Crusade

M&M is OGL, and Owen (and Erik Mona weirdly enough) has experience in the system. However, I don't think you need a trade out in a class based system.


Their experience isn't the issue, the issue is their insistence on maintaining backwards compatibility with pathfinder and 3.5.

Drastic changes to the system math aren't in the cards.


Sundakan wrote:

Their experience isn't the issue, the issue is their insistence on maintaining backwards compatibility with pathfinder and 3.5.

Drastic changes to the system math aren't in the cards.

Not necessarily. If they up weapon damage, instate armor as DR and wound thresholds as core mechanics it would make a significant difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Upping weapon damage and instating Armor as DR and Wounds as core options makes rocket tag an even bigger issue at even lower levels, so no thanks to that from me at least.


It'd still make things significantly different. I recall hearing they were raising damage for weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe it'll be easier to revive; just bag the head and stick it in a growth tank a few days?

DR specifically would be a bit of an issue; far too many things (and there's no way magic wouldn't go up in damage to follow after all) ignore it entirely.

Now if armor offered Hardness...


Sundakan wrote:
Upping weapon damage and instating Armor as DR and Wounds as core options makes rocket tag an even bigger issue at even lower levels, so no thanks to that from me at least.

IMHO in most games it is easier to survive at mid-levels than it is at low and high levels but it can vary a lot with the game and game system.

The main problem I have with PF is the managed encounter system or preference vs a more like real life type situation where most parties think that no matter what they have a chance at every encounter and if they do not then there is a problem.
ie Godzilla happens and low and mid level PC's should get out of the way and not expect since it is an encounter that they should be able to defeat it.

MDC


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

The main problem I have with PF is the managed encounter system or preference vs a more like real life type situation where most parties think that no matter what they have a chance at every encounter and if they do not then there is a problem.

ie Godzilla happens and low and mid level PC's should get out of the way and not expect since it is an encounter that they should be able to defeat it.

Well, that's very much an adventure design issue, not a system issue.

Personally, I like "real life type situations" where Godzilla happens and the low level PCs get squished like all the rest of the screaming extras. :)

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

thejeff wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

The main problem I have with PF is the managed encounter system or preference vs a more like real life type situation where most parties think that no matter what they have a chance at every encounter and if they do not then there is a problem.

ie Godzilla happens and low and mid level PC's should get out of the way and not expect since it is an encounter that they should be able to defeat it.

Well, that's very much an adventure design issue, not a system issue.

Personally, I like "real life type situations" where Godzilla happens and the low level PCs get squished like all the rest of the screaming extras. :)

I think it's more an issue with those parties/players. Play once with a GM who throws encounters which you can't survive at you and you learn to break those notions really fast. Published adventures tend to do this rarely, but that shouldn't stop a GM from tweaking things to occasionally make the PCs realize that running is a viable option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Funny thing is...it's not, generally speaking.

Enemies that are too strong to fight are usually bigger, or faster, or both than your PC. Or use spells or ranged weapons.

Running is a losing prospect in Pathfinder. Now THAT would be a good design change.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:
Upping weapon damage and instating Armor as DR and Wounds as core options makes rocket tag an even bigger issue at even lower levels, so no thanks to that from me at least.

Not necessarily. With armor as DR, maybe it only works to a degree. Like an energy weapon suffers the DR. Physical weapons bypass, so a knife stab is still effective if it hits. Physical bullets might bypass,but definitely do less damage than energy normally.

Just a thought


That is the exact opposite of solving the problem.

Imagine, if you will, you have a character in Pathfinder. He has DR 15/-. Hell, he has energy resistance 20 to every element (including negative energy) too.

But he has 10 AC.

That character will experience 1 of 2 outcomes in any given combat.

1.) He's invincible.

2.) He's getting SLAMMED by every attack with no chance of evading, because the big monsters with high damage but low accuracy are hitting for 20 damage a hit after DR.

Both are boring. The first because god mode is only amusing for a short time, and the latter because every fight being a knock down drag out "Kill it in two rounds or I die"-fest is frustrating.

Making it possible is doable, but would require vast tweaks to the system math. Ones which, again, don't make sense for a game touting backwards compatibility as one of its main features.


With fights so often rocket tag, by the time you realize you're seriously outclassed, you've probably got several people down. How long do weak encounters last against your party? How many would escape if they tried to run in round 2?

Of course the GM can set things up so any given too tough encounter can be escaped or avoided. That's usually what people mean when they complain about this - My first level party saw a giant through the trees and charged it, then complained when they died.

I'm cool with that kind of thing. I generally prefer not to fight even weak random monsters, unless I've got some reason to or can't avoid it.

Some level of discretion needed is fine - whether it's running or avoiding the fight in the first place. But the GM can't just throw killer encounters at the party. They have to be set up to be survivable, by running or avoiding or something. And they shouldn't be blocking the party's goal. There shouldn't be strong character motivation to take them on anyway. If they're holding the MacGuffin the party needs, there has to be a way to get it. "They're too tough, let's go home. We'll just have to let the plague run its course." is not a satisfying conclusion to the night's gaming.

All of which means the "more real life type situations" really are just as managed as the standard balanced encounters. Just a little more subtly. And, wrestling this back towards the topic, it's still a matter of adventure design, not system design and thus isn't likely to be addressed in Starfinder.


He'll never be able to run in round -3, let alone round 1, without big changes from what was in the rest of the d20 system.

For the most part it's as Sundakan states earlier: If you can't win against it, it's stronger and faster than you, or at least will nuke you at range for same effect.

But there's another aspect to that: Because "whether or not you can win" is heavily dependent on hitdice/level, very often something you can't win against is *also* something you have little hope of hiding against or ambushing. Perhaps its perception cannot beat you personally, the stealth guy's bonuses once items and class abilities are factored in, but at best it just means you could leave the rest of your comrades to be eaten!

Take "godzilla" as you mentioned, for example! A "Mogaru" has 100ft speeds, +45 perception, +66 for certain CMBs, 79 base CMD, ranged attacks, detection abilities, and immunities all over! You have to run, says the GM; hope you're not trying to escape out of its 60ft reach though, it has combat reflexes! You have to run, but that's almost certain death, while at least maybe, MAYBE, if all of you were optimized enough and full attack, and everyone gets a few crits....

This is why for many longtime players, the best hope is to go all-out and hope some swing of the dice will go your way; natural 20's enabling you to hit and possibly do significant damage, a natural 1 letting the enemy fall to a save, etc. Because if you waste your actions running, that's just that many less rounds worth of chances to survive you're simply throwing away against something with blindsight, darkvision, flight 120' and enough battle capability that you wanted to bug out to begin with!

Starfinder needs to work hard to repair this, as it's an easy temptation to fall for when it comes to ship battles, where many people want "bigger has more people and is better in every way"; lest "ram the bastards" be every group's only remaining solution even in space! Because if your little transport shuttle can't outrun a battleship, you may as well let them tractor you in and hope there's enough antimatter left to make your deaths worth it!

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

That's assuming that the too hard to fight enemy is actively trying to kill you. It could be there, and even notice you, but you're beneath its concern. If you attack it, sure game over, but if you slowly back away non-threateningly, then you don't provoke the lazy drowsy godzilla and you get to leave.

Also there's situations where you don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun your redshirts. If it has combat reflexes, then sure, a few people don't make it out, but the heroes can.

Also, lots of monsters are tough enough that you want to run from, but they won't one hit kill you. So suck up the AoO and run. Sure, if it has grab, you're in trouble, but otherwise, if it doesn't kill you in one hit, you can often get away.

Also, sometimes, it's not a single overpowering godzilla you're avoiding, but superior numbers, like x10 your party size, but not pushover mooks. If you're 10th level, you'd be wise to run from 100 8th level guys.


JoelF847 wrote:

That's assuming that the too hard to fight enemy is actively trying to kill you. It could be there, and even notice you, but you're beneath its concern. If you attack it, sure game over, but if you slowly back away non-threateningly, then you don't provoke the lazy drowsy godzilla and you get to leave.

Also there's situations where you don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun your redshirts. If it has combat reflexes, then sure, a few people don't make it out, but the heroes can.

Also, lots of monsters are tough enough that you want to run from, but they won't one hit kill you. So suck up the AoO and run. Sure, if it has grab, you're in trouble, but otherwise, if it doesn't kill you in one hit, you can often get away.

Also, sometimes, it's not a single overpowering godzilla you're avoiding, but superior numbers, like x10 your party size, but not pushover mooks. If you're 10th level, you'd be wise to run from 100 8th level guys.

As for "suck up the AoO", that again assumes that once you've taken that hit you can either outrun them or they won't bother to chase. Or use ranged attacks if they have them.

And by "redshirts", you mean "slower party members", right? The "heroes" are the ones who run faster or sooner. Or do you generally bring disposable NPCs along with the party to run first and soak AoO for you? Not my preferred style of play.

So, as I said earlier: The GM sets up situations you can avoid or run away from. What we're really talking about here is not mindlessly attacking everything you see.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

thejeff wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:

That's assuming that the too hard to fight enemy is actively trying to kill you. It could be there, and even notice you, but you're beneath its concern. If you attack it, sure game over, but if you slowly back away non-threateningly, then you don't provoke the lazy drowsy godzilla and you get to leave.

Also there's situations where you don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun your redshirts. If it has combat reflexes, then sure, a few people don't make it out, but the heroes can.

Also, lots of monsters are tough enough that you want to run from, but they won't one hit kill you. So suck up the AoO and run. Sure, if it has grab, you're in trouble, but otherwise, if it doesn't kill you in one hit, you can often get away.

Also, sometimes, it's not a single overpowering godzilla you're avoiding, but superior numbers, like x10 your party size, but not pushover mooks. If you're 10th level, you'd be wise to run from 100 8th level guys.

As for "suck up the AoO", that again assumes that once you've taken that hit you can either outrun them or they won't bother to chase. Or use ranged attacks if they have them.

And by "redshirts", you mean "slower party members", right? The "heroes" are the ones who run faster or sooner. Or do you generally bring disposable NPCs along with the party to run first and soak AoO for you? Not my preferred style of play.

So, as I said earlier: The GM sets up situations you can avoid or run away from. What we're really talking about here is not mindlessly attacking everything you see.

By redshirts I actually meant the Star Trek meme - we are talking about a game with starships and such. But it could also be disposable drone robots, summoned badgers, illusions/holograms, or whatever, be creative.

As for still not being able to get away from something after you suck up the AoO, we're talking about situations you can get away from. You can always say, "but what if you're going up against a god and whatever you do, they can still kill you with infinite power."


How heroic...
Well, that and it requires you to actually have those things.
Worst case scenario: said things would be available but the party willingly does not use them because of how the twelve extra turns worth of movement and attacks per round for all the various gundrones would slow the game down.

Although you do bring up one good point: Gonna need some weapons to deal with all those space gods; eldritch and otherwise. There's a lot of those 'deity' things in space settings - including pathfinder's - so safe travel across the stars is going to need something you can mount on fighters that can at least harm those entities, even if it might require charged shots at smaller scales.


Are we sure it's going to be backwards compatible? I had the impression it would not be directly compatible, but would take a reasonably small amount of conversion one way or the other. That conversion may also include combat maths changing.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Are we sure it's going to be backwards compatible? I had the impression it would not be directly compatible, but would take a reasonably small amount of conversion one way or the other. That conversion may also include combat maths changing.

I think the interpretation is "small amount of conversion = backward compatible"

Pathfinder is considered backward compatible with 3.5, but they do have distinctive rule differences.


MMCJawa wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Are we sure it's going to be backwards compatible? I had the impression it would not be directly compatible, but would take a reasonably small amount of conversion one way or the other. That conversion may also include combat maths changing.

I think the interpretation is "small amount of conversion = backward compatible"

Pathfinder is considered backward compatible with 3.5, but they do have distinctive rule differences.

Indeed. It was stated the level of differences between Starfinder and Pathfinder would be similar to the difference between Pathfinder and 3.5. Additionally, I have read that the effort towards compatibility would be mostly on the monster end, as opposed to the players.


Steven "Troll" O'Neal wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Are we sure it's going to be backwards compatible? I had the impression it would not be directly compatible, but would take a reasonably small amount of conversion one way or the other. That conversion may also include combat maths changing.

I think the interpretation is "small amount of conversion = backward compatible"

Pathfinder is considered backward compatible with 3.5, but they do have distinctive rule differences.

Indeed. It was stated the level of differences between Starfinder and Pathfinder would be similar to the difference between Pathfinder and 3.5. Additionally, I have read that the effort towards compatibility would be mostly on the monster end, as opposed to the players.

More than likely, Starfinder is a game that if you know Pathfinder, you'll be able to handle Starfinder classes and mechanics with no further difficulty than it would be to master a new Pathfinder sourcebook.


Hopefully a bit more than that or I worry for the ship combat!


trying to run but can't away you say? just four little words "beam me up scottie"


JoelF847 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Personally, I like "real life type situations" where Godzilla happens and the low level PCs get squished like all the rest of the screaming extras. :)
I think it's more an issue with those parties/players. Play once with a GM who throws encounters which you can't survive at you and you learn to break those notions really fast. Published adventures tend to do this rarely, but that shouldn't stop a GM from tweaking things to occasionally make the PCs realize that running is a viable option.

Of course! There's more than one kind of railroading, one of them being willful player narrows mindedness.

There are four kinds of encounters, not just the one.

*1* Encounters solvable by brute combat (fighting, magic, alchemy, whatever)

*2* Encounters solvable by intellectual prowess (puzzle solving, skill checks, diplomacy, bluffing, intimidation, political intrigue, and so on)

*3* and *4* Encounters solvable only by running away or surrendering (not as dramatic or heroic for the PCs, but these situations still increase tension and can effectively scare the arrogance out of players)

The trick, however, is to avoid tipping off the players as to what kind of reaction you are expecting. And course the best situations are encounters with multiple solutions of varying effectiveness, and different consequences for a given party's reaction.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
trying to run but can't away you say? just four little words "beam me up scottie"

>You can't it creates interference around itself

>You can't you're out of range
>You can't you're underground, well okay sure you normally can underground but not this underground
>You can't there's a shield
>You can't, WE have a shield
>You can't uh, right now, um, hey bob did the writers actually explain why we can't this time? What do you mean no? So they just don't?

Honestly sometimes I think there was as much "you trapped" reason for transporters (vs "get back to the shuttle") as there was for the supposed cost-cutting official reason. Because in the end, at the very least, if nothing else the shuttle would still be *there* ... and possibly capable of blasting their predicament.


very handy for the DM that doesn't want his npc to run (beam) away all the time I suppose.


This is Space Opera folks. High drama is the name of the game. Sometimes that's thrilling heroics, tense negotiations, skin-of-the-teeth getaways, or noble sacrifice. And if you pick the wrong one, good luck. I myself like that.


>Sorry, the correct answer in this AP was Orange
>But our options were to fight, negotiate, or check out her panties?
>Hey man don't blame me. Spacerocks fall, you're the ones who all screwed up.

Barring literally anything else, certainly nothing beats SAT-style multiple choice questions!


Matthew Shelton wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Personally, I like "real life type situations" where Godzilla happens and the low level PCs get squished like all the rest of the screaming extras. :)
I think it's more an issue with those parties/players. Play once with a GM who throws encounters which you can't survive at you and you learn to break those notions really fast. Published adventures tend to do this rarely, but that shouldn't stop a GM from tweaking things to occasionally make the PCs realize that running is a viable option.

Of course! There's more than one kind of railroading, one of them being willful player narrows mindedness.

There are four kinds of encounters, not just the one.

*1* Encounters solvable by brute combat (fighting, magic, alchemy, whatever)

*2* Encounters solvable by intellectual prowess (puzzle solving, skill checks, diplomacy, bluffing, intimidation, political intrigue, and so on)

*3* and *4* Encounters solvable only by running away or surrendering (not as dramatic or heroic for the PCs, but these situations still increase tension and can effectively scare the arrogance out of players)

The trick, however, is to avoid tipping off the players as to what kind of reaction you are expecting. And course the best situations are encounters with multiple solutions of varying effectiveness, and different consequences for a given party's reaction.

Honestly I think the trick is tipping the players off to which approach they need to take here, without making it seem too obvious. Hiding that this is an encounter they can't expect to win through fighting is a quick way to a TPK.


Even then the "desired" solution should at most be "Probably this order of ease/effectiveness", rather than absolutes, most especially in regards to those latter two

Obviously there's exceptions such as berserking skeletons being rather unlikely to take prisoners or understand "surrender", but players will very quickly realize if "the wrong answer" is being shielded off by highly resilient train-tracks rather than simply being a suboptimal or unexpected way of solving the problem.

Hell sometimes it's downright blatant, such as absolute "attacks don't work" handwavium that's not backed by the system mechanics but merely your own "nuh uh".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're going for 3/4 it's absolutely imperative you try to convey to players that this A.) AN option and B.) You're not going to screw them for taking it.

"The soldiers move with an air of confidence and competence that borders on the frightening, even after seeing your own display of battle prowess. They train weaponry more advanced than anything you've seen on you, fingers just off the trigger. Their leader steps forward and raises his hands in a gesture of peace, however, and signals he wishes to negotiate. *Dialogue*"

That kind of thing.

As opposed to "A dozen heavily armed men and one unarmed thing surround you. What do?"

The former makes it pretty clear that playing along for a bit is probably prudent, and victory is not guaranteed or barely even possible if you fight.

The latter screams "WOO MOB COMBAT!"


Yeah, I think we've all at least had one TPK where a surrender became "you're all tortured to death the end"

Kinda like how you can tell who's had their weapons permanently disappeared after being made to "leave them at the door" for some kind of meeting more than once or twice in their gaming career - usually by their immediate and lethal response to such requests in the future after learning it was just a fancy way of saying "your GP or your HP".


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Upping weapon damage and instating Armor as DR and Wounds as core options makes rocket tag an even bigger issue at even lower levels, so no thanks to that from me at least.

IMHO in most games it is easier to survive at mid-levels than it is at low and high levels but it can vary a lot with the game and game system.

The main problem I have with PF is the managed encounter system or preference vs a more like real life type situation where most parties think that no matter what they have a chance at every encounter and if they do not then there is a problem.
ie Godzilla happens and low and mid level PC's should get out of the way and not expect since it is an encounter that they should be able to defeat it.

MDC

Thing is, RPGs aren't designed to simulate rseal life, but to simulate novela, gilms, cómics and other fictions.you are there to be Conan or Beowulf, not a random germsnic barbarian who died from infection two days after a minor wound in real life II century.

And while héroes have yo run sometimes from powerful enemies (The Balrog of moría being a prime example, but also the first dencounter with a dragon in Skyrim, or Han/Luke fleeing from Darth Vader first time they met, etc) it is often more a scripted thing made to advance the plot than a random encounter made so the Gm can satisfy his desires yo "win a fight" here and there.


Jamie Charlan wrote:
He'll never be able to run in round -3, let alone round 1, without big changes from what was in the rest of the d20 system.

It also makes certain tropes (likecthe heavy Armor fighter) literally unplayable, as they don't have the mobility or resources needed to outrun an enemy or Hide from them, effectivrñy becoming the sacrificial redshirt

This is why this kind of encounters work better when they are obvious: the wizard NPC warns you that "swords are no more use here now", and shouts "run, you fools" while the GM tells the players not to toll initiative because it's going to be a chase scene.


Actually that's terrible; there's no reason to think it's not some level one liar trying to have you butt out.

Because "obvious" also means "looks believable"


Jamie Charlan wrote:

Actually that's terrible; there's no reason to think it's not some level one liar trying to have you butt out.

Because "obvious" also means "looks believable"

Yes there is. The fact that your GM told you not to roll initiative but play a chase is a good hint, but in any case, if you think Gandalf is a level one liar and you don't trust him, then the point is moot because your character is still in The Shire as they never believed they should run to hide that Ring.

The thing is: combats are there to give action to the common storytelling, to advance the plot, and because they are fun. Combats where you have to flee can fulfill all of those, such as the Balrog, and they keep the PC under the impression that there are stronger things out there. Random encounters in a table that the PC cannot defeat do not help the storytelling, do not advance the plot, and often aren't fun, they are just frustrating by either presenting an invulnerable threat you can't damage, or anunstopable force that you can't survive.

The only thing those random unbeatable encounters do, is to placate the bloodlust of adversarial GM that want to win a combat to the PCs and flex their muscles to show off that they are in control of the game and the PC lives.


So super accurate builds and super damaging builds being mutually exclusive build goals? Not sure how to model that well in a system... a degree of success system perhaps? investing in a high static modifier to damage giving you a great baseline when you land a hit but the accuracy character gets to add a multiplier of his base weapon die for every 5 or 10 points he exceeds the enemy's AC, something like that? That just ends with the accuracy guy landings lots of hits, some for small amounts and some for large amounts while the "THF" gets a few huge hits in.

What about exceeding your targets AC by X amount allows you to inflict a free status effect, nauseated or disarmed or something? It gives the accurate player a cool thing to do that is different from AM BARBARIAN's thing.

But really though, Pathfinder has a lot invested into its combat rules so when a player invests into combat abilities they are able to do a lot more. In your above example of two fighters... why does one of them not have the same +13 to hit, what did they do with their character options? You could build a bard or investigator or inquisitor or any number of other builds that could match +7 to hit while also having spell casting and class abilities that add in the option to do things out of combat. good luck doing that as a combat focused Fighter. So in that case i would say yes, one player chose to play as Smashy McCrushface, got their +13 to hit and +200 to damage... and then sits there yawning when not smashcrushing faces. The +7 to hit PC still lands hits, probably does damage too and does a whole host of other things that lets them participate in the game outside of combat rounds. So who is playing wrong? is the +7 player not participating or enjoying combat? Is the +13 player just checked out and not doing anything between combats? I think what you are describing is more of players not understanding they can pick classes as a chassis to be the concept they want or gamers who come to the table expecting different kinds of campaigns.

Optimal as you are using it is, "I can win combats solo." Thats not what pathfinder is suppose to be though, its a team game. Optimal to me would be, "I can pull weight in combat, pick up the slack in social situations and crush knowledge checks to figure out the plot"


I agree there is a problem with Accuracy and damage being tied. Nit just fir PC, but also for monsters. Hill Giants and ogres should not be extremelly accurate just becsuse they are devastating, but don't think the system is going to be so different for that being possible


I posted this idea in another thread but it makes more sense here. for multiple armed alien monsters I had an idea of giving them a cumulative additional -2 for every action per arm they use. so if you have 4 arms and shot 4 lasers you would get -8 to each roll (with mutli weapon fighting) so if you had 12 arms you would fire a small barrage but probably hit very little. I think it makes sense from a logical standpoint because the more limbs the more brain power your using to operate them.


In a cybermagic setting it's not unreasonable (especially with psychic magic or psionics in play) to have a mental 'sidekick' (like a tulpa or alter or other thoughtform, but more subservient to the host) which exists to control the extra limbs and perform tasks as needed without dividing the attention of the main personality. The sidekick might inhabit a physical AI unit worn or carried on the person, jacked into the cybernetic limbs. Or maybe it's a magical construct integrated into the limbs (basically making the cyberlimbs an intelligent magic item). Or it could be a purely mental/psychic enchantment, an artificially induced multiple personality, able to control whatever part/s of the body the spell has allowed it to.


That would be a good way to offset the penalties^^

Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Design-Balance Suggestion for Starfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Starfinder General Discussion