Math-driven rules changes


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
But it would matter if on page 60 the trade price of Copper was 50gp/pound, when on page 62 an item that contains ten pounds of Copper is valued at 400gp, and over on page 63 there's a general rule that boots made of Copper always cost +100gp (regardless of weight), but back on page 61 Aluminum is only priced as an add-on to laser pistols (and lacks a per pound price).

People were responding that the two bolded contradictions wouldn't show up. So they were answering a part of your question.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
But it would matter if on page 60 the trade price of Copper was 50gp/pound, when on page 62 an item that contains ten pounds of Copper is valued at 400gp, and over on page 63 there's a general rule that boots made of Copper always cost +100gp (regardless of weight), but back on page 61 Aluminum is only priced as an add-on to laser pistols (and lacks a per pound price).
People were responding that the two bolded contradictions wouldn't show up. So they were answering a part of your question.

To add to this, the answer to Nefreet's question

Nefreet wrote:
...if Materials themselves were being handled more uniformly in Starfinder.

is that special materials aren't handled in Starfinder at all (which, one could argue, is more uniformly). Items are price-balanced by their power/usefulness on a case-by-case basis, not by the amount of a given material they contain.

Scarab Sages Developer, Starfinder Team

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fardragon wrote:
No, I think you are. "Special materials" aren't really a thing, apart from the fluff text. Items are priced based on their effectiveness, not what they are made out of.

That's not exactly true. There are special materials for weapons, so as to allow for things like cold iron and silver weapons and ammunition, to bypass specific foe's DR.

Pricing is done simply by weapon or cartridge.

Buying a silver bullet doesn't mean the whole thing is silver. It means enough is silver to allow you to bypass DR/silver. We don't try to define that in ounces, so the price is dioceses from any bulk silver costs. And it includes processing the silver into a weapon format, so it's not just a materials cost anyway.


Question now that DR was mentioned and I recently talked about this with a friend.

Are we keeping the whole "enough magic bypasses DR" rule of pathfinder? And if so, does it work the same with ranged weapons as it does in pathfinder?


As a result of having only mid-casters in core, spell save DCs lag behind class ability DCs if they're still calculated as they were in Pathfinder. What has been done to account for this? Are there fewer negates and more partials on a successful save in Starfinder? How often should a spellcaster expect to see enemies make their saves? How often should non-spellcasters expect enemies to save against their class abilities?

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Belltrap wrote:
As a result of having only mid-casters in core, spell save DCs lag behind class ability DCs if they're still calculated as they were in Pathfinder. What has been done to account for this? Are there fewer negates and more partials on a successful save in Starfinder? How often should a spellcaster expect to see enemies make their saves? How often should non-spellcasters expect enemies to save against their class abilities?

DCs in general were too high in Pathfinder (both monster DCs vs PCs with a weak save and PC DCs versus everything). However, that part was fixed in other mathematical ways, leaving the disparity between 10+spell level + stat and 10 + 1/2 level + stat, and we've handled that as well, in a way that also helps keep those lowest-level spells at a more useful DC.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Belltrap wrote:
As a result of having only mid-casters in core, spell save DCs lag behind class ability DCs if they're still calculated as they were in Pathfinder. What has been done to account for this? Are there fewer negates and more partials on a successful save in Starfinder? How often should a spellcaster expect to see enemies make their saves? How often should non-spellcasters expect enemies to save against their class abilities?
DCs in general were too high in Pathfinder (both monster DCs vs PCs with a weak save and PC DCs versus everything). However, that part was fixed in other mathematical ways, leaving the disparity between 10+spell level + stat and 10 + 1/2 level + stat, and we've handled that as well, in a way that also helps keep those lowest-level spells at a more useful DC.

All of my magic DCs are 10+1/2 level+stat? Just like the class abilities?

Scarab Sages

So how was the save va DC handed? Are saving Throw bonuses higher to compensate for Save DCs? Is spell/ability focus still in the game? Save boosting feats?

This relates to some of the criticisms in the solarion thread in that it looks like crush, and most save or sucks are too low of a DC to be reliable against a monster of equalivent CR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

While I was running Iron Gods, I hit an issue with the spell Resist Energy really trivializing some encounters.

In Starfinder it seems like a lot of weapons deal elemental damage and even moderate appropriate energy resistance can really derail an encounter, its bad enough for players if their build specializes in one type of energy for flavor reasons, but NPCs don't usually have a back up plan at all.

Has energy resistance been revaluated and rebalanced or will players blithely ignore a fusilade of laser bolts since they are packing FR 30 off a second or third level spell?

Scarab Sages Developer, Starfinder Team

Resist armor (lesser, normal, and greater) replace resist energy, and handle the granting of energy resistance (or DR) differently. It covers two energy types (or the three genetic damage types), making it applicable against more different weapons during a fight, but grants less total resistance, and takes higher-level spells to grant more resistance.

All of which was included in combat math and play testing.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Cool just curious, I noticed there was a bit less resistance and immunity in the preview bestiary and I was wondering was this a big change.

Very pleased to hear it was thought about.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Fardragon wrote:
No, I think you are. "Special materials" aren't really a thing, apart from the fluff text. Items are priced based on their effectiveness, not what they are made out of.

That's not exactly true. There are special materials for weapons, so as to allow for things like cold iron and silver weapons and ammunition, to bypass specific foe's DR.

Pricing is done simply by weapon or cartridge.

Buying a silver bullet doesn't mean the whole thing is silver. It means enough is silver to allow you to bypass DR/silver. We don't try to define that in ounces, so the price is dioceses from any bulk silver costs. And it includes processing the silver into a weapon format, so it's not just a materials cost anyway.

To be fair that was also the case in Pathfinder, or so I was led to believe. A silver dagger was coated with silver, not made out of solid silver - otherwise it wouldn't be stong enough to function. I figured "alchemical" was a reference to the process of electrolysis, used in silver plating. It would contain a couple of grams of silver at most, and the cost was for the process.

The Exchange

I hope to find players that won't do math only, because, it's a RPG, not the Space math contest.

Radiant Oath

4 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonvan wrote:
I hope to find players that won't do math only, because, it's a RPG, not the Space math contest.

I'm not sure of your point. Is it that because you only care about certain aspects of the game you don't want others to care about the rest of it? The math behind the engine is a vitally important part of the game, and it being well thought out can literally only help all other aspects of the game. I genuinely can't understand why you posted in this thread as all you are doing is showing your own ignorance and small-mindedness.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonvan wrote:
I hope to find players that won't do math only, because, it's a RPG, not the Space math contest.

While I don't get hip-deep in the math, and most of my group don't, I certainly appreciate that it's been done. I can love the majesty and grandeur of the Empire State Building without knowing the math behind its construction -- but there DAMNED sure better be plenty of math behind its construction. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
dragonvan wrote:
I hope to find players that won't do math only, because, it's a RPG, not the Space math contest.

For information about what happened to the last sci-fi character to win a space math contest, see Adric in the classic Doctor Who.

Silver Crusade

Tangentially math related, how is currency being handled? Does each Pact World retain their own or due to Abadarites... being Abadarites, does everyone use the same?

And is it physical currency you can find or does everyone just have cards and bank accounts attached?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

Tangentially math related, how is currency being handled? Does each Pact World retain their own or due to Abadarites... being Abadarites, does everyone use the same?

And is it physical currency you can find or does everyone just have cards and bank accounts attached?

There's probably more than one currency, but the pact worlds standard is "credits", a digital currency that can be compiled into "credsticks" for ease of transport (no longer implausible to carry a huge fortune in your back pocket).

There's also UPBs (universal polymer base), which trades with credits at a 1:1 ratio. UPBs are the basic building blocks for craftable items, if I remember correctly.

Silver Crusade

Huh, interesting. Thankies.


I imagine thats relatively the same anywhere with trade goods and somesuch having morr value outside the pact worlds. im sure the vesk have thwir own form of currency very similar to creds while the Swarm simply has no need of an economy based in such a way.


David knott 242 wrote:
dragonvan wrote:
I hope to find players that won't do math only, because, it's a RPG, not the Space math contest.

For information about what happened to the last sci-fi character to win a space math contest, see Adric in the classic Doctor Who.

But just think how much cooler the world would be if he had saved the dinosaurs!


Fardragon wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
dragonvan wrote:
I hope to find players that won't do math only, because, it's a RPG, not the Space math contest.

For information about what happened to the last sci-fi character to win a space math contest, see Adric in the classic Doctor Who.

But just think how much cooler the world would be if he had saved the dinosaurs!

"Now I'll never know if I was right." :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

I guess someone on Facebook recently reminded me of the "Ghost in the Machine" consolidation of senses into a particularly elegant form, which was pretty cool. In Starfinder, low-light vision means you can see normally in dim light, no doubling and stuff. Blindsense and blindsight are catchalls for imprecise and precise senses (a la intrigue's definitions) that aren't vision and you just describe how it comes about so you know how to beat it, so echolocation of bats would be blindsense (auditory) and tremorsense would be blindsense (vibrations). But why is it a "Ghost in the Machine?"

So we had files with some notes in them that we wrote before tackling any section, and since I was on a roll, I had finished several sections and Owen asked me to tackle senses. I saw a cryptically worded note at the top of the file, that when I deciphered it, seemed to be the most beautiful Gordian Knot solution to different kinds of senses I had ever seen, a seeming holy grail to fix the problems plaguing the senses in Pathfinder for a decade. What I derived from those notes, after I fleshed it out, was essentially what I just wrote here. So we got to a meeting where people had read it, and everyone was saying things like "This is an awesome idea, Mark" or "Hmm, I have to consider this, where is this new paradigm coming from?" And I deduced something from the fact that, after a few minutes, everyone on the team had made such a comment: Nobody had written the beautiful maddeningly-difficult-to-decipher notes that had started me on my path to this solution. Because they ALL asked me about it. And when I said, "I was just deciphering and working out somebody's notes. Whoever you are, you're the real hero" everyone agreed that they hadn't written those notes. Woooo, spooky! Ghost in the machine.

I believe, in your future, you will travel back in time and leave yourself the mysterious note.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are odd-level attribute feat prerequisites still a thing? I'm just asking because I had some free time so I decided to delve into the math of the point buy/leveling system with regards to attribute scores and efficiency. Basically, I took a large range of attribute scores, found most of the permutations of how you end up with that score at max level, and gave them an efficiency score based on how many point buy points and level ups it took to get there for each permutation compared to the final modifier bonus. The changes for Starfinder (the level up bonus change, the inflection point on level up bonus at 17, and the flat point buy) make for a fairly different paradigm than Pathfinder.

Going to my original question with regards to feat prerequisites, this matters because Starfinder hates odd low to mid level attribute scores compared to Pathfinder, which doesn't particularly like them. While atypical, there is sometimes a value in Pathfinder to a starting score of 17 with the way level up attribute boosts work. This is gone in Starfinder. In Starfinder, an odd of 17 or below is literally a pure waste of a point unless odd feat prerequisites exist, since both 16 and 17 turn into an 18 on level up.

The other major change is the system goes from punishing attribute min-maxing at creation efficiency-wise to rewarding it. In Pathfinder, starting with a 20 in a stat nets a character fewer overall attribute bonuses in return for that focus, but is neutral on level up. So if you wanted a final score of 20 in a stat, the most efficient use of points would be to buy a 15 or 16 and then put your level up boosts into it, and roll over the significant point buy savings from buying the 20(with racial) into secondary stats. Almost the opposite is true in Starfinder, if you want a 20, you are better off buying that 20 at creation and ignoring it at level up from an efficiency standpoint, since there is no overall attribute bonus cost due to the flat price scale. (It is 100% more expensive to go from 18 to 20 with level ups than with point buy) I would say in most class guides youre going to be looking at basically wizard arrays with 2 starting stats above 10 than most classes which usually have 4 stats above 10. The name of the optimization game is now how much inefficiency in your main stat/secondary stat do you want compared to the value of your quinary and senary stats (since that's where the level ups go if you don't level your primary/secondary) and how low of starting stats can you handle in your secondary and tertiary stats. I would expect to see high, odd, starting primary stats (19/21) that max out at level 15 rather than 20 (similarly how most builds ignore the attribute boost at 20 in pathfinder).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
Almost the opposite is true in Starfinder, if you want a 20, you are better off buying that 20 at creation and ignoring it at level up from an efficiency standpoint, since there is no overall attribute bonus cost due to the flat price scale. (It is 100% more expensive to go from 18 to 20...

Except I think they have stated that you cannot have higher than an 18 at the end of character creation so starting with a 20 is not possible IIRC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gilfalas wrote:
Calth wrote:
Almost the opposite is true in Starfinder, if you want a 20, you are better off buying that 20 at creation and ignoring it at level up from an efficiency standpoint, since there is no overall attribute bonus cost due to the flat price scale. (It is 100% more expensive to go from 18 to 20...
Except I think they have stated that you cannot have higher than an 18 at the end of character creation so starting with a 20 is not possible IIRC.

That's somewhat unfortunate, as a 18 is really bad starting score with this system. Either you buy up to a 22 which was literally the worst efficiency I calculated, or you buy up to a 20 and be forced to drop 2 level ups in bad stats. I guess if you are playing society and never hit 15 it doesn't matter, but wasting a level 15 level up is pretty big penalty for non-society play. The 18 w/two level ups matches 16 w/3 which doesn't waste the 15 level up. Pretty much is just going to limit optimal arrays to 16/16/12/10/10/8 and 16/14/14/10/10/8 using a 2/2/-2 race. Makes themes useless from a stat standpoint except to move around to counter a -1 racial penalty as some have.


Wanna read, gotta dot instead.


Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the hard cap on starting attributes was to allow more diversity.

Although still at a slight disadvantage, a race that takes a penalty in an attribute can start with the maximum value (18) in that attribute. Doing so means that the only option they have for attributes depends on their theme. Still allows variety, just not as much.


BretI wrote:

I think the hard cap on starting attributes was to allow more diversity.

Although still at a slight disadvantage, a race that takes a penalty in an attribute can start with the maximum value (18) in that attribute. Doing so means that the only option they have for attributes depends on their theme. Still allows variety, just not as much.

If that's what they intended, what Ive heard of themes having only a +1 makes it not really fulfill that goal, as below a 19 having an odd value attribute is functionally worthless, i.e. theres no meaningful difference between 18/11 and 18/10 unless you are trying to meet an odd feat prerequisite or corner cases with ability damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Belltrap wrote:
As a result of having only mid-casters in core, spell save DCs lag behind class ability DCs if they're still calculated as they were in Pathfinder. What has been done to account for this? Are there fewer negates and more partials on a successful save in Starfinder? How often should a spellcaster expect to see enemies make their saves? How often should non-spellcasters expect enemies to save against their class abilities?
DCs in general were too high in Pathfinder (both monster DCs vs PCs with a weak save and PC DCs versus everything). However, that part was fixed in other mathematical ways, leaving the disparity between 10+spell level + stat and 10 + 1/2 level + stat, and we've handled that as well, in a way that also helps keep those lowest-level spells at a more useful DC.

Can you clarify what you mean here? I can't reconcile this with the ENworld preview of the mystic or the First Contact monsters. Spells seem to fall slightly behind (for highest level spells, lower level and lowest level spells simply don't keep up), and the saves for monsters in First Contact are pretty... robust, with few exceptions, like the poor security bot.

Or perhaps to look at it another way, why not just standardize spells at DC (10+half class level + stat), and just limit the effects by spell level?

Because let's be honest, any save effect against an Ellicoth is going to be a struggle, going with 1st or 2nd level spells seem just flat non starters. +13 or +8 is rough on a DC 20 class ability at level 10, let alone DC 16 for tossing a 1st level spell, or even DC 18 for a 3rd (the maximum spell level a mystic or technomancer is going to be throwing).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Belltrap wrote:
As a result of having only mid-casters in core, spell save DCs lag behind class ability DCs if they're still calculated as they were in Pathfinder. What has been done to account for this? Are there fewer negates and more partials on a successful save in Starfinder? How often should a spellcaster expect to see enemies make their saves? How often should non-spellcasters expect enemies to save against their class abilities?
DCs in general were too high in Pathfinder (both monster DCs vs PCs with a weak save and PC DCs versus everything). However, that part was fixed in other mathematical ways, leaving the disparity between 10+spell level + stat and 10 + 1/2 level + stat, and we've handled that as well, in a way that also helps keep those lowest-level spells at a more useful DC.

Can you clarify what you mean here? I can't reconcile this with the ENworld preview of the mystic or the First Contact monsters. Spells seem to fall slightly behind (for highest level spells, lower level and lowest level spells simply don't keep up), and the saves for monsters in First Contact are pretty... robust, with few exceptions, like the poor security bot.

Or perhaps to look at it another way, why not just standardize spells at DC (10+half class level + stat), and just limit the effects by spell level?

Because let's be honest, any save effect against an Ellicoth is going to be a struggle, going with 1st or 2nd level spells seem just flat non starters. +13 or +8 is rough on a DC 20 class ability at level 10, let alone DC 16 for tossing a 1st level spell, or even DC 18 for a 3rd (the maximum spell level a mystic or technomancer is going to be throwing).

I'm guessing its addressed through feats that haven't fully been revealed yet. There was a mention of Weapon Focus providing more benefit to lower BAB classes I think. So a similar spell focus could provide, for example, your highest two level spells a +1 for DCs, +2 for your next two, and +3 for your lowest two. But this is pure speculation based on that one comment.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
I'm guessing its addressed through feats that haven't fully been revealed yet. There was a mention of Weapon Focus providing more benefit to lower BAB classes I think. So a similar spell focus could provide, for example, your highest two level spells a +1 for DCs, +2 for your next two, and +3 for your lowest two. But this is pure speculation based on that one comment.

Very shrewd, as I might expect based on your analysis posts in kineticist threads over the past few years. That isn't exactly right (it's actually even better than that, eventually) but the magnitude and delivery vector of the DC boost are right on the money.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:

Are odd-level attribute feat prerequisites still a thing? I'm just asking because I had some free time so I decided to delve into the math of the point buy/leveling system with regards to attribute scores and efficiency. Basically, I took a large range of attribute scores, found most of the permutations of how you end up with that score at max level, and gave them an efficiency score based on how many point buy points and level ups it took to get there for each permutation compared to the final modifier bonus. The changes for Starfinder (the level up bonus change, the inflection point on level up bonus at 17, and the flat point buy) make for a fairly different paradigm than Pathfinder.

Going to my original question with regards to feat prerequisites, this matters because Starfinder hates odd low to mid level attribute scores compared to Pathfinder, which doesn't particularly like them. While atypical, there is sometimes a value in Pathfinder to a starting score of 17 with the way level up attribute boosts work. This is gone in Starfinder. In Starfinder, an odd of 17 or below is literally a pure waste of a point unless odd feat prerequisites exist, since both 16 and 17 turn into an 18 on level up.

The other major change is the system goes from punishing attribute min-maxing at creation efficiency-wise to rewarding it. In Pathfinder, starting with a 20 in a stat nets a character fewer overall attribute bonuses in return for that focus, but is neutral on level up. So if you wanted a final score of 20 in a stat, the most efficient use of points would be to buy a 15 or 16 and then put your level up boosts into it, and roll over the significant point buy savings from buying the 20(with racial) into secondary stats. Almost the opposite is true in Starfinder, if you want a 20, you are better off buying that 20 at creation and ignoring it at level up from an efficiency standpoint, since there is no overall attribute bonus cost due to the flat price scale. (It is 100% more expensive to go from 18 to 20...

We actually had a stat system that was even friendlier to stat spreading than this one earlier on, but while the veteran playtesters could handle it (and some of our clever playtesters from Germany reverse-engineered the various benefits of the system), the less veteran playtesters found it too hard to build characters (complexity was a tad higher than current point buy system), so that was a dealbreaker. The current system works extremely well for level-ups, but for initial stat assignment, I recommend doing something like "Either build as normal or take one of these arrays" where you build a few arrays that are less min-maxed but have a few more overall "points" maybe adding something like 16 14 14 14 10 8 before theme as an option. I mostly agree with your analysis of the best starting builds but I happen to think 18 in your prime stat might also be useful to get 20 at level 10 and 22 at level 20, pre items. Either way, adding a flatter option is one way to incentivize a bigger spread.


Mark Seifter wrote:
We actually had a stat system that was even friendlier to stat spreading than this one earlier on, but while the veteran playtesters could handle it (and some of our clever playtesters from Germany reverse-engineered the various benefits of the system), the less veteran playtesters found it too hard to build characters (complexity was a tad higher than current point buy system), so that was a dealbreaker. The current system works extremely well for level-ups, but for initial stat assignment, I recommend doing something like "Either build as normal or take one of these arrays" where you build a few arrays that are less min-maxed but have a few more overall "points" maybe adding something like 16 14 14 14 10 8 before theme as an option. I mostly agree with your analysis of the best starting builds but I happen to think 18 in your prime stat might also be useful to get 20 at level 10 and 22 at level 20, pre items. Either way, adding a flatter option is one way to incentivize a bigger spread.

I am doing a bit more detailed look at arrays now, since the 18 hard cap makes that manageable. The blessing and curse of this system is that there really aren't that many efficient arrays as compared to pathfinder. (As in there are 5 arrays with an 18 for a plus +4/+2 race, 3 for a +2/+2 race, and 2 for a +2 race, which seems to cover most the bases, and about twice those numbers for a max of 16, and a max of 14 is about 10, with a few extra from halting early). Not being able to sell into the negatives, the flat cost and inflection point making odds undesirable really cuts down on the number of arrays you are working with. I am not a huge fan of making it simpler, but I recognize I'm probably in the minority in that, since playing with the math behind the system is a big draw to me but for most people just bogs things down. And houseruling stat generation is fairly common anyways.

But quickly looking at some of the arrays, buying an 18 isn't as bad an option as I thought amongst the available options, which was probably intentional. (18s are the most inefficient option I looked at, but 16s weren't much better, nor anything else less than buying a very high number.) Its basically trading 15 levels of +1 in your secondary/tertiary stat for 10 levels of +1 in your primary (the 18 looks better in the +4/+2 arrays which makes sense). I can see a lot of people making that trade. The shortfall of losing the overall bonus does happen early though, levels 5 through 10.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Calth, I may have interpreted what I've seen incorrectly, but my impression is that races no longer get direct +2/+2/-2 to ability scores, but rather get +x point buy/+y point buy/-z point buy to specific scores. That's why you can't have scores bigger than 18 at character creation - it's not "buy a 16 and then increase the score by 2 to an 18" but instead "It's 2 points cheaper for you to increase this score to whatever you want, max 18."


Mark Seifter wrote:
Calth wrote:
I'm guessing its addressed through feats that haven't fully been revealed yet. There was a mention of Weapon Focus providing more benefit to lower BAB classes I think. So a similar spell focus could provide, for example, your highest two level spells a +1 for DCs, +2 for your next two, and +3 for your lowest two. But this is pure speculation based on that one comment.
Very shrewd, as I might expect based on your analysis posts in kineticist threads over the past few years. That isn't exactly right (it's actually even better than that, eventually) but the magnitude and delivery vector of the DC boost are right on the money.

Interesting. Sounds like buffing is like a two-handed build (virtually no investment for it to work), while offensive casting is a little more like archery- a feat to shore up DCs, a feat for dealing with spell resistance if it sticks around. But, in return, save based casters can get better use out of low-level slots than they could before?

If I were to throw something together off the top of my head, it would be a limited ability to set the DC of a spell to 10 + 1/2 level + modifier, regardless of the spell level. Sounds like you folks came up with a better solution, though. Looking forward to seeing it!


Mark Seifter wrote:
Calth wrote:
I'm guessing its addressed through feats that haven't fully been revealed yet. There was a mention of Weapon Focus providing more benefit to lower BAB classes I think. So a similar spell focus could provide, for example, your highest two level spells a +1 for DCs, +2 for your next two, and +3 for your lowest two. But this is pure speculation based on that one comment.
Very shrewd, as I might expect based on your analysis posts in kineticist threads over the past few years. That isn't exactly right (it's actually even better than that, eventually) but the magnitude and delivery vector of the DC boost are right on the money.

That sounds pretty good. It was honestly somewhat disappointing that, unless you were a Magus, low level spell slots quickly became useless for combat in Pathfinder.


Mashallah wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Calth wrote:
I'm guessing its addressed through feats that haven't fully been revealed yet. There was a mention of Weapon Focus providing more benefit to lower BAB classes I think. So a similar spell focus could provide, for example, your highest two level spells a +1 for DCs, +2 for your next two, and +3 for your lowest two. But this is pure speculation based on that one comment.
Very shrewd, as I might expect based on your analysis posts in kineticist threads over the past few years. That isn't exactly right (it's actually even better than that, eventually) but the magnitude and delivery vector of the DC boost are right on the money.
That sounds pretty good. It was honestly somewhat disappointing that, unless you were a Magus, low level spell slots quickly became useless for combat in Pathfinder.

Mesmerist did all right in a pinch by lowering saves, but yeah. And with more spell swaps, you can afford to trade low- level save spells for utility and buff options instead.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Calth, I may have interpreted what I've seen incorrectly, but my impression is that races no longer get direct +2/+2/-2 to ability scores, but rather get +x point buy/+y point buy/-z point buy to specific scores. That's why you can't have scores bigger than 18 at character creation - it's not "buy a 16 and then increase the score by 2 to an 18" but instead "It's 2 points cheaper for you to increase this score to whatever you want, max 18."

That was in the old system, where everything (level ups, items, race, and theme) gave you more point buy, and point buy extended up to higher numbers than in Pathfinder. It was lovely, but too complicated for those who weren't already immersed in Pathfinder point buy.


In the new system your racials change your starting value in an ability score.

For example, a shirren starts with 10 str, 10 dex, 12 con, 10 int, 12 wis, and 8 cha.

Meaning that if a Shirren wants 14 con, it will only cost it 2 points, whereas a race with a starting value of 10 needs to pay 4 points to get to 14.

It also means that if a shirren wants less than 12 con, they get no bonus points from decreasing it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Nefreet wrote:
So if Mithral was solely priced at 500gp/lb, for example, then that answers my question, and I am happy.

I believe what is being said is that you can't make Mithral Full Plate unless an item called "Mithral Full Plate" exist.

Mithral might or might not have a gp value, but there will be no "+1000 gp for light armor" or "500/lb" price associated with making something mithral.

That is what I understand is being said and is why when you asked about special materials, the answer was items not material.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Calth wrote:
I'm guessing its addressed through feats that haven't fully been revealed yet. There was a mention of Weapon Focus providing more benefit to lower BAB classes I think. So a similar spell focus could provide, for example, your highest two level spells a +1 for DCs, +2 for your next two, and +3 for your lowest two. But this is pure speculation based on that one comment.
Very shrewd, as I might expect based on your analysis posts in kineticist threads over the past few years. That isn't exactly right (it's actually even better than that, eventually) but the magnitude and delivery vector of the DC boost are right on the money.

So, does that mean there are not corresponding defense feats as well (great fortitude, iron will, and lightning reflexes?) because traditionally, the DC increase feats are washed out by the defense feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't entirely understand the purpose of having "math fix" feats instead of just setting up offense to have good numbers in the first place. What's the positive, there? As far as I can tell all it does is mean characters that make attack rolls or force saving throws regularly have fewer feats than characters that don't.


Lowering the skill floor and making such feats feel less like taxes for greater ones. It also allows for greater build variety and less christmas tree effect since you dont have to hunt for several obscure feats and rare magic items to make your twin pistol wielding mystic a viable combatant.


TarkXT wrote:
Lowering the skill floor and making such feats feel less like taxes for greater ones. It also allows for greater build variety and less christmas tree effect since you dont have to hunt for several obscure feats and rare magic items to make your twin pistol wielding mystic a viable combatant.

You're going to have to explain slowly- preferably with some diagrams- how having feats that are mandatory for your numbers to measure up, and intended to make up for deficiencies in the system that were intentionally not fixed (lower level spell DCs falling off, BAB and Save progressions diverging as levels progress), increases build variety. Seems like it would do exactly the opposite of that.

And "Christmas tree effect" is totally irrelevant to the discussion. It's a non-sequitur. The issue is having feats (or any option, really) that are math fixes intended to make up for unfixed problems in the game's engine. That has nothing to do with eliminating high level optimization- which is still 100% going to be a thing that happens. It's unavoidable with the content treadmill Paizo games run on and you'll be happier just accepting that instead of getting your hopes up that Starfinder will be something it's never claimed to be.


Yeah, I feel like those feats have the same problem as the Expertise and Defence feats in 4e had.
Those feats were math patches and all published monsters assumed that the players had those feats.
As such, they were virtually mandatory and them being free became a near-universal houserule.


I wonder if there are class features that might boost Saves a little by themselves, or it could be that since caster spell lists arent as defined in role as they were with cleric, druid, wizard, psychic etc spell lists; you can spend a feat to increase saves on offensive spells or instead pick an as yet unrevealed feat to boost buffing, battlefield shaping or some other indirect role for your spells. Or slowly build up all of the caster role feats in which ever order you want to define what kind of caster you are playing.


Mashallah wrote:

Yeah, I feel like those feats have the same problem as the Expertise and Defence feats in 4e had.

Those feats were math patches and all published monsters assumed that the players had those feats.
As such, they were virtually mandatory and them being free became a near-universal houserule.

On the other hand, there are additional approaches. Buff, heal, and shoot rather than throw out DC-based spells, saving those for vulnerable targets. Envoys can build for party assistance rather than attack, and mechanics can have their drone do the fighting. One or two feat taxes is fine by me.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
ryric wrote:
Calth, I may have interpreted what I've seen incorrectly, but my impression is that races no longer get direct +2/+2/-2 to ability scores, but rather get +x point buy/+y point buy/-z point buy to specific scores. That's why you can't have scores bigger than 18 at character creation - it's not "buy a 16 and then increase the score by 2 to an 18" but instead "It's 2 points cheaper for you to increase this score to whatever you want, max 18."
That was in the old system, where everything (level ups, items, race, and theme) gave you more point buy, and point buy extended up to higher numbers than in Pathfinder. It was lovely, but too complicated for those who weren't already immersed in Pathfinder point buy.

Any chance of seeing the old system sometime, if only in a blog post (like the unchained Automatic Bonus Progression rules)?

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Math-driven rules changes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.