Armoury has lots of gadgets but that's dwarfed by the real world. Presuming I get the GM to agree a real world device can be bought in-game, what real world currency to credit conversion ratio is generally used? As I'm British, I'd prefer from Pound Sterling but US Dollars is fine.
Nothing anybody says is going to be remotely accurate for the simple fact that most things in Starfinder don't have a real world equivalent.
Also, the nature of supply and demand would ensure that even for those things that do have analogs, could be priced VERY differently simply due to the setting.
Take insurance for example. Someone started a thread asking how that would work in Starfinder. Easy answer: It wouldn't. No one would ensure adventurers, and magical healing makes it kind of moot.
In short, it'd be impossible to make a determination. Just too many variables.
Agreed - I think looking at this as a currency conversion thing is looking at it the wrong way.
Nothing anybody says is going to be remotely accurate for the simple fact that most things in Starfinder don't have a real world equivalent.
Also, the nature of supply and demand would ensure that even for those things that do have analogs, could be priced VERY differently simply due to the setting.
Take insurance for example. Someone started a thread asking how that would work in Starfinder. Easy answer: It wouldn't. No one would ensure adventurers, and magical healing makes it kind of moot.
In short, it'd be impossible to make a determination. Just too many variables.
Do mercenaries/private security/military contrasters have insurance?
How about salvagers?
Private Investigators.
Professional Hunters.
Bounty Hunters?
Explorers?
If the answer is yes then "Adventures" would be able to get insurance.
I never said otherwise, merely that they wouldn't likely be categorized as adventurers specifically.
I never said otherwise, merely that they wouldn't likely be categorized as adventurers specifically.
Sorry if I came across as caustic.
I can think of way for the "adventure" profession to work in-universe.
If I'm mistaken adventure's guilds exist in the setting with the Pathfinder Society being the most famous of them.
First we answer the question what is an adventurer.
An Adventure is an itinerant mercenary,bounty/monster hunter, and object or data retrieval agent.
The term "Adventure " a euphemism, who's usage was started by the Mercs to establish a more positive image and attract a higher class of clientele.
Before the advent of "Adventures" these Mercs were viewed rather negatively and were referred to by a number of negative epithets,the most famous and enduring of which is Murderhobo.
Adventure Guilds provider their agents with insurance as part of benefits that they get for guild membership.
The Starfinder Society comes across as less of an adventure's guild than it's predecessor, being more motivated by knowledge than profit.
Don't forget that "Adventurers" have a tendency to possess great personal power. Starfinder ( or Pathfinder ) aren't quite superhero settings, where random individuals may possess power that is completely unavailable to nation-states. . . but they aren't quite that far off, either.
Societies have a strong incentive to get as many of these wonderfully, dangerously talented individuals into socially-acceptable roles as possible. After all, the alternative tends to involve the society being overthrown once a sufficient number of them get it in their head that it would be better than the alternative.
Here's a question...
How literally do we take game mechanics?
Because the answer to the question is going to determine just how "super" is the Pathfinder/Starfinder setting supposed to be?
I see no reason not to take them literally, with the proviso that everyone understand that Stamina and Health do not necessarily represent literal slabs of flesh. A level 20 PC really is that powerful, they aren't only that powerful because the plot says so.
What does being higher level represent in-universe.
Is Level skill, or a quantification of that X-factor that sets the extraordinary apart from the mundane?
I see no reason not to take them literally, with the proviso that everyone understand that Stamina and Health do not necessarily represent literal slabs of flesh. A level 20 PC really is that powerful, they aren't only that powerful because the plot says so.What does being higher level represent in-universe.
Is Level skill, or a quantification of that X-factor that sets the extraordinary apart from the mundane?
Yes. ;)
I don't see those things as being different, or at least necessarily different. Talent without Skill ( ie, Training ) is useless, after all. I mean, some characters might rely more on natural ability, and some more on hard work and discipline, but by the time you've hit Level 20, the difference is long since irrelevant.
So, once again, a Level 20 character really is that powerful and able to shake the world. Whatever the origin of their "super powers" is unimportant, because one power source is as good as another. Starfinder is a setting where you can learn or buy "super powers", but its the skill and dedication that make the difference.
I see Level as the "X-Factor" or how heroic,epic,larger than life a character is quantified.
To me level just being a measure of skill doesn't make since, especially when hit points are factored in;How do people just get more resilient?
How much of the setting's physics/metaphysics do the rules approximate?
Is Starfinder by default an Rpg-mechanics verse.
Lately I've been questioning if magic users even in universe actually need material components, magi in so many settings is describe as channeling energy.
Material components are seeing more like an mechanical-artifact rather than an in setting requisite.
Skill makes you more resilent a lot of ways:
1. "I dodge better than before"
2. "I overcome pain better than before"
3. "I have stronger willpower"
4. "I make better use of my protective equipment"
5. "I am more proficient with use of defensive powers"
All of these are handled with the same abstraction of "higher stamina/hit points", because it would be dumb to use a dozen different defensive mechanics for different special effects.
Starfinder has to forms of Armor Class,three saves Reflex/Fortitude/Will.
Which amount to five defenses.
Hit-points and Stamina are two layers of resliance.
Two things are influencing my thoughts on level,classes and their power.
1. is a D&D article from the old official site, it's in the archive somewhere. The article said that no one on earth has ever posed the level of ability that hitting level 20 is meant to represent.
2. is Eberron which takes the stance that the PC classes are meant to represent extraordinary individuals.
A stance that I share.
The common diplomat,lawyer,negotiator,conman isn't an Envoy.
The common magic-user that the citizens of the Pact Worlds encounter is not a Technomancer or Mystic, they're something closer to a Magewright.
The common trooper or mercenary, isn't a Soldier.
The common Engineer isn't a Mechanic.
The common, spy,thief,tracker, isn't an Operative.
Even at first level someone with a PC class is beyond the average person in terms of ability and likely accomplishments as well.
How much time passes over the course of the Dead Suns adventure path? I'd say maybe six months.
In that time from you go from above average to superheroic, level 1 at the start of the AP to at least 11 by the end.
That's the speed at which Shonen battle/adventure manga can develop.
To me it makes the most since if level represents how epic/heroic a character is rather than skill.
The common diplomat,lawyer,negotiator,conman isn't an Envoy.The common magic-user that the citizens of the Pact Worlds encounter is not a Technomancer or Mystic, they're something closer to a Magewright.
The common trooper or mercenary, isn't a Soldier.
The common Engineer isn't a Mechanic.
The common, spy,thief,tracker, isn't an Operative.
And that's representing the AA's rules for building NPCs. Those common troopers are CR3 combatants, the engineer is a CR4 expert, the crack commando team is a group of CR12 combatants, etc. The PCs are extraordinary in the variety of skills they've picked up, an NPC will know a trick or two that they know, but a PC will know them all.
And that's representing the AA's rules for building NPCs. Those common troopers are CR3 combatants, the engineer is a CR4 expert, the crack commando team is a group of CR12 combatants, etc. The PCs are extraordinary in the variety of skills they've picked up, an NPC will know a trick or two that they know, but a PC will know them all.
The common diplomat,lawyer,negotiator,conman isn't an Envoy.The common magic-user that the citizens of the Pact Worlds encounter is not a Technomancer or Mystic, they're something closer to a Magewright.
The common trooper or mercenary, isn't a Soldier.
The common Engineer isn't a Mechanic.
The common, spy,thief,tracker, isn't an Operative.
What common troopers from the AA are you referring to?
Azlanti Aeon Guards
Azlanti Aeon Guards
Oh, I thought they were trying to play off a sort of real world common soldier as a CR3. Yeah, they are common, but are closer to Space Marines by fluff than anything else.
And that's representing the AA's rules for building NPCs. Those common troopers are CR3 combatants, the engineer is a CR4 expert, the crack commando team is a group of CR12 combatants, etc. The PCs are extraordinary in the variety of skills they've picked up, an NPC will know a trick or two that they know, but a PC will know them all.
The common diplomat,lawyer,negotiator,conman isn't an Envoy.The common magic-user that the citizens of the Pact Worlds encounter is not a Technomancer or Mystic, they're something closer to a Magewright.
The common trooper or mercenary, isn't a Soldier.
The common Engineer isn't a Mechanic.
The common, spy,thief,tracker, isn't an Operative.
Those with PC classes being the ones that know all the tricks is exactly what I had in mind.
From a stand point of game mechanics If I was going to represent the exceptional/mundane divide I'd do something like D&D 3.5s NPC classes.
Pcs,Npcs, and monsters really all should be built using the same rules, cr or cl has always seemed like a hassle.
Thrice great Hermes
"Lately I've been questioning if magic users even in universe actually need material components, magi in so many settings is describe as channeling energy.
Material components are seeing more like an mechanical-artifact rather than an in setting requisite."
I looked up in all the books for spells that have a material element. this is a really rough list of all of them.
Other than those listed below no spell needs any material component. My reason for this post is because I was curious if spells Did need components or not.
A couple of these are a bit of a stretch when it comes to material components but I wanted to list them for sake of completion... I do not own any Adventure path.
Junk sword, junk armor, fabricate scrap, reanimate, animate dead, animated armor, dismissal, explosive blast, raise dead,reincarnate, terraform, transfer charge.. I hope this helps clear things up.
Thrice great Hermes
"Lately I've been questioning if magic users even in universe actually need material components, magi in so many settings is describe as channeling energy.
Material components are seeing more like an mechanical-artifact rather than an in setting requisite."
I looked up in all the books for spells that have a material element. this is a really rough list of all of them.
Other than those listed below no spell needs any material component. My reason for this post is because I was curious if spells Did need components or not.
A couple of these are a bit of a stretch when it comes to material components but I wanted to list them for sake of completion... I do not own any Adventure path.Junk sword, junk armor, fabricate scrap, reanimate, animate dead, animated armor, dismissal, explosive blast, raise dead,reincarnate, terraform, transfer charge.. I hope this helps clear things up.
What I meant by "mechanical artifact", was that material components were a holdover from earlier D&D editions in game mechanics and setting lore in characters really did need material components for spells.
However as time and pop culture marched on, magic as channeled energy came to the for front. Material components outside of rituals faded out of public consciousness, magic was just a matter of Energy,Will,and Word.
I read a lot of the 3.5 supplements, the way that magic was described as working made material-components feel superfluous. Almost like the writers were trying hard to justify holding on to something that the setting had grown beyond.
Spells that transform or manipulate something,clearly need that object or force to be present for it to work.
Those with PC classes being the ones that know all the tricks is exactly what I had in mind.
From a stand point of game mechanics If I was going to represent the exceptional/mundane divide I'd do something like D&D 3.5s NPC classes.
Pcs,Npcs, and monsters really all should be built using the same rules, cr or cl has always seemed like a hassle.
Ah, I prefer the AA's approach of 'here's some target numbers and a guideline on how to fiddle with them'.
I enjoyed NPC classes existing as a thought exercise, you know: what can the average commoner do? the average warrior, the average mage? I prefer the freedom to stat out an NPC's combat statistics and leave their out of combat abilities more nebulous.
It also helps with situations at the table. For example: the PCs started shooting at someone I didn't expect them to shoot and didn't stat out.
In the old system, I could find a typical stat block with some digging, maybe I have stack of them ready to go, or try and build a character that might be as high as lvl 5 on the fly.
In the new system I can find a CR_ NPC's AC and hit points on a table and play by the seat of my pants. I've had to do that already, it works really well.
I've never enjoyed building monsters like PCs.
Ah, I prefer the AA's approach of 'here's some target numbers and a guideline on how to fiddle with them'.
I enjoyed NPC classes existing as a thought exercise, you know: what can the average commoner do? the average warrior, the average mage? I prefer the freedom to stat out an NPC's combat statistics and leave their out of combat abilities more nebulous.
It also helps with situations at the table. For example: the PCs started shooting at someone I didn't expect them to shoot and didn't stat out.
In the old system, I could find a typical stat block with some digging, maybe I have stack of them ready to go, or try and build a character that might be as high as lvl 5 on the fly.
In the new system I can find a CR_ NPC's AC and hit points on a table and play by the seat of my pants. I've had to do that already, it works really well.
I've never enjoyed building monsters like PCs.
I think that building monsters as a PCs could work, if everything just used the same mechanics,creature powers and abilities scaled by level like a lot of spells.
Do and to simplify things further you really only need five Nps/monsters.
The Warrior,The Talker,The Thinker,The Caster,and the Sneak.
I'm still left wondering what any of this really has to do with "Are PCs actually as powerful as they seem to be?"
Are they that powerful? Yes.
Is everyone that powerful? No.
Are there other people that powerful? Sure.
Does any of this require the actual practicality of building NPCs with the same mechanics as PCs? Nope.
It's a slight tangent but still in the same realm.
I wonder how literally we are supposed to take game mechanics, and in-universe what does being high level represent.
I've always found CR/CL a little annoying and feel that if PCs and NPs were built using similar rules it would make encounter building faster and easier.
You pick the monster's class, then set the level to point that is a threat to PCs. One level 4 monster is roughly as strong as four level one PCs. The Monsters abilities will scale with level like some abilities do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would the power level of PCs ( or anyone ) *not* be literal? What, exactly, would it even be otherwise? Them not *actually* being that skilled or capable, everyone just pretending they are?
Yesterday, I had no idea how to build this tier 2 gun. I killed a goblin this morning and had an epiphany...
I can walk through mundane fire and it only tickles...
A lvl 20 character can survive a tactical nuke point blank rules as written.
The rules are abstractions, and some people like to figure out how to interpret them into something more concrete.
Why would the power level of PCs ( or anyone ) *not* be literal? What, exactly, would it even be otherwise? Them not *actually* being that skilled or capable, everyone just pretending they are?
If we take the game mechanics literally rather than as a some vague,abstract, representation of what is taking place with in the setting then things get weird...
Take Hit Points for instance, if they are literal then a high level character should be able to jump off a multi-story building in the nude,with no enchantments effecting them, and survive with no significant.
Because their Hit Points exceed the damage inflicted by the fall.
Also, combat would be stop, go, stop, go, stop...