Five Differences Between Starfinder Rules and Pathfinder Rules

I think that there should be healing magic on the technomancer list, but it should be about genetic manipulation, hacking nanobots, or boosting pharmaceuticals instead traditional magical healing. With readily available ultra tech medicine, healing magic in general is less necessary.

2) I think this was a missed opportunity. "Armor Class" has always been an amalgamation of two distinct concepts: avoiding a blow entirely, and having armor/shields/parries render a landed blow completely non-damaging. Splitting Armor Class into two numbers would have been better served by making one of them a dodge and the other one a parry. Making a distinction between energy and kinetic attacks seems less worthwhile.

I kind of like the idea of splitting up AC as 'failed to hit' and 'hit, but failed to damage,' like Mutants & Masterminds or GURPS do, with defense and damage resistance/toughness numbers for everyone.

John Kretzer wrote:

Okay..mmmm

1) Looks interesting...

2)Makes sense in a modern type game.

3 & 4) Meh I liked them...but can live without them. Though concern for a general dumming down the system now exists.

5) and this is to me a mistake....could be a very big one.

Mind if I ask you why do you consider #5 a mistake?

1) this was start of what really screwed up the Forgotten Realms. Every mess up thing they didcould be traced back to the decision to link all magic to the a single source.

2) It makes thing flat and boring.

3) I dislike separating out mechanics from flavor and vice versa. The best game system is where they support each other. This just seems like the opposite step in which I prefer my RPGS to be.

4) it cheapens Divine caster by removing the Divine. It cheapens Arcane by just having the psychic come along and just thinks and does the same thing.

5) it makes character cookie cutters of each other and reduces flavor of choices.

Looking at hit points as fatigue exhaustion ect is a poor model to me. If you do not look at characters as super heroes. Hit points are health. If not then on surprise attack that is critical hit just kill the character. It would certainly bypass any kind of fatigue exhaustions system. It is also critical hit which means just that. So a surprise critical hit should mean death in any kind system that does fatigue exhaustion system. Hit points equal health. Any other kind of model falls apart. Characters at higher levels are super heroes. They can do inhuman things. That is why the majority people play. They want the characters to do heroic things. So embrace hit points being health.

If you want more simulationsist game try Blades Iron Throne and Crimson Exodus. These games have decent detailed damage system. If you do not want keep track all damage rules then Symbaroum has grittier feel using hit points. Also Blades in Dark comes to mind.

For those stuck in the DM versus Character mode I would suggest Decent. The board game by Fantasy Flight. The game is designed for player vs DM.

AS a DM you would always win in any kind rpg. Simply have the 5th level party run into an arch devil and his devil/Baylor friends. After all the part is going to cause problems as they level up so just kill them now. Fights over.
The job of any good DM is for the characters to have fun and tell an engaging story. It is not you versus characters.
Ask yourself how many party wipes has Matt Mercer had on critical roll. None. The finale battle from a season ago had huge Red Dragon as the enemy. If his goal was to wipe the party, have the dragon use its fly movement to move in and out range of the of PCs. He did not do that. It was more important for the players to have good time and be engaged than kill them. The Dragon could have done this by flying, attacking, then moving out range.

Any how enough of rant today

Dave2

The reason PF HP cannot be exhaustion and your 20th level fighter is actually surviving several greatsword swings to the face is because effects that require drawing blood (such as injury poisons) apply to every hit. It remains to be seen whether riders apply to damage to SP only, but it seems pretty silly to have it be the case since debuffing at the tail end of a fight is near useless.

This was not observation about the current Starfinder system but there was a post indicating someone looked at Pathfinders Hip Points as Stamina fatigue kind of thing. I think the design for Starfinder is fine with Stamina, Hit Points, and Resolve is because it was designed that way. If you take an existing system such as Pathfinder or D&D and try to view hit points that way in the system it does not work to me.

Dave2

A lot of people here seem to be approaching these differences as "Paizo took the hacksaw to Pathfinder" rather than "Paizo built the game differently."

I think the rest of the system is probably going to support these changes.

And on the topic of bleeding damage, you can totally receive bleeding wounds that aren't incredibly damaging, just as you can receive non-bleeding wounds that really hurt. Bleeding out really does exhaust you.

Mashallah wrote:

John Kretzer wrote:

Okay..mmmm

1) Looks interesting...

2)Makes sense in a modern type game.

3 & 4) Meh I liked them...but can live without them. Though concern for a general dumming down the system now exists.

5) and this is to me a mistake....could be a very big one.

Mind if I ask you why do you consider #5 a mistake?

1) this was start of what really screwed up the Forgotten Realms. Every mess up thing they didcould be traced back to the decision to link all magic to the a single source.

2) It makes thing flat and boring.

3) I dislike separating out mechanics from flavor and vice versa. The best game system is where they support each other. This just seems like the opposite step in which I prefer my RPGS to be.

4) it cheapens Divine caster by removing the Divine. It cheapens Arcane by just having the psychic come along and just thinks and does the same thing.

5) it makes character cookie cutters of each other and reduces flavor of choices.

The divine is deliberately removed from the mystic, so they have the option to be atheists. I never liked that the forgotten realms forced clerics to pick a god. Limits creative freedom.

Also, we now have "technology" as our alternative type of magic. My theory is the Mechanic functions as a caster. The only difference is how thier "spells" work.

I and my friends have MANY problems with the removal of iterative attacks;

• Damage reduction. How would that be calculated? As (I'm assuming) it would no doubt be all added together, making DR basically useless.

• People who wield two melee weapons, or wish to go guns akimbo. Would there be things for them, or is their designs screwed over by saying "well, you can choose which ones you attacked with" and just have a bonus thrown into the single-roll pool.

• Attack chances. Why should all future attacks of your turn be spoiled by the first? In perspective, think of it this way; "Oh, you failed your first roll, which means all other shots or swings you take MUST MISS." Quite honestly, it would be a nightmare.

• Crowd Control! Me and my group are unanimous on this aspect being overlooked the most. The beauty of iterative attacks is the ability to divide up your attacks onto however you wish. Which is ESPECIALLY useful when being flanked or surrounded. Let's take an example of a powerful barbarian surrounded by weakling goblins; with no iterative attacks, the Barbarian would only bare down on ONE goblin that he knows is equally as weak as the others, and just rains ALL his blows on him. Goblin paste, sure; but the others are stabbing at his heels while he waits to swing at the next one. Tedious if they're truly weak, and dangerous if they're strong enough to poke him to death with swords.

• Maneuvers. There are actions that I like that replace attacks, like Quick Dirty Trick to gain the edge for my next onslaught, or prepare the enemy to be debuffed against my allies' abilities, while giving out a few good swings. Without iterative attacks, I have to do one or the other.

I understand what it's trying to bring across, like Star Trek and their form of combat is very simplistic and only really lets out a phaser or punch before the enemy gets their shot; no real combos to be had in that setting I grant you. Not to mention with Kasathas being a STANDARD race, it would be a direct pick for anyone wanting a lot of attacks.
But think of it this way; what of the players that want the Star Wars end of the spectrum, in which there's combos aplenty with a lightsaber or similar weapons, or even tactics while with a blaster? What if a player REALLY wants to emulate Greivous and spies the Kasatha and say "Ooh, quadsabers! YAY!" but only to find out that it's not as grand as they were hoping? (On that note, I would give heavy penalties to multiarmed combatants instead, like -4 on every swing for their TWF penalties)
On the whole, I'm really looking forward to it, especially since (from what I understand) that there will be a sort of conversion method for SF –> PF and back, so I hope this conversion method works out at least to bring iterative attacks back as at least an optional rule, because even my group is excited by this, but they're seriously bummed by this attack rule change (especially when we tried the unchained version of the rule and immediately fell out with that rule altogether; it was not fun for us, really).
Still; long post is long, and the group and I are looking forward to it regardless. ^_^

Some stuff.

1. Why would it be all added together? They are still separate attacks.

2. There probably are rules for this, we'll just have to wait and see what they are.

3. What? Missing on your first roll doesn't make the second roll miss, they're still separate rolls.

4. No reason to believe this isn't still possible.

5. The whole combat has been changed, not just attacks, there's no reason to assume that systems which interact with attacks have not been changed to accommodate the changes to attacks.

At least for crowd control it seems like a lot of weapons have burst options for line or cone effects.

A lot of weapons look to deal energy damage which at least gets around DR though we dont know about energy resist yet :P

I am super curious about TWF as well and really want to know what is to stop the Kasatha from wielding a rifle with two SMGs as back ups to lay down ridiculous suppressive fire.

I am not sure what you are saying about attack chances, just that missing one attack ends your turn instead of having another shot or two to land something?

I and my friends have MANY problems with the removal of iterative attacks;

• Damage reduction. How would that be calculated? As (I'm assuming) it would no doubt be all added together, making DR basically useless.

Very good question, however since a lot of weapon have energy based damage, DR would be useless anyway. If we take the lvl 5 soldier picture that is floating around her damage types are: Fire or Bludgeoning when using melee, Fire, Cold or Electricity with her ranged weapon.

• People who wield two melee weapons, or wish to go guns akimbo. Would there be things for them, or is their designs screwed over by saying "well, you can choose which ones you attacked with" and just have a bonus thrown into the single-roll pool.

Two-weapon fighting and iterative attacks have nothing to do with eachother. We'll have to see how it's being implemented, especially because there is a 4 armed base race, which could multifight technically.

• Attack chances. Why should all future attacks of your turn be spoiled by the first? In perspective, think of it this way; "Oh, you failed your first roll, which means all other shots or swings you take MUST MISS." Quite honestly, it would be a nightmare.

This simply requires a bit of re-imagining how a combat round goes. Instead of throwing 4 attacks in 6 seconds where the 2nd, 3d and 4th would get less precise, you're now doing 1 (or 2) attack(s) instead.

• Crowd Control! Me and my group are unanimous on this aspect being overlooked the most. The beauty of iterative attacks is the ability to divide up your attacks onto however you wish. Which is ESPECIALLY useful when being flanked or surrounded. Let's take an example of a powerful barbarian surrounded by weakling goblins; with no iterative attacks, the Barbarian would only bare down on ONE goblin that he knows is equally as weak as the others, and just rains ALL his blows on him. Goblin paste, sure; but the others are stabbing at his heels while he waits to swing at the next one. Tedious if they're truly weak, and dangerous if they're strong enough to poke him to death with swords.

So you use the move thing that doesn't provoke, get them all in the cone attack from your flamethrower (or similar AoE weapon) and blast them all in one go :). I think this is something we're not going to have to worry that much about. Martial artist will probably have to use feats to get their multiple opponent attacks in.

• Maneuvers. There are actions that I like that replace attacks, like Quick Dirty Trick to gain the edge for my next onslaught, or prepare the enemy to be debuffed against my allies' abilities, while giving out a few good swings. Without iterative attacks, I have to do one or the other.

We don't know how maneuvers are going to work, but if it's anything like the operative you get to roll a skillcheck as part of the maneuver, so you're actually gaining here.

I understand what it's trying to bring across, like Star Trek and their form of combat is very simplistic and only really lets out a phaser or punch before the enemy gets their shot; no real combos to be had in that setting I grant you. Not to mention with Kasathas being a STANDARD race, it would be a direct pick for anyone...

It really depends on how they are going to implement multiweapon fighting if Kasatha are going to be the cookiecutter race.

If you're in melee, you've already lost.

If you're in melee, you've already lost.

According to what was shown so far, melee combat is significantly more damaging than ranged.

Steven "Troll" O'Neal wrote:

If you're in melee, you've already lost.

According to what was shown so far, melee combat is significantly more damaging than ranged.

Precisely, higher risk. Sure, you have the opportunity to dish it out, but unless you're a true tank you'll get as good as you give.

Steven "Troll" O'Neal wrote:

If you're in melee, you've already lost.

According to what was shown so far, melee combat is significantly more damaging than ranged.

Well there are other disadvantages there, in this universe it's pretty much expected that everyone in combat will have a gun unless it's some kind of non-intelligent creature, so charging headfirst doesn't work as well since you're likely to take half a dozen shots to the face for at least two rounds, potentially causing a lot of damage. Of course it's a situationally powerful tool but it's not likely that you'll always be running headfirst into combat unless you want to build a character specifically to do so.

I and my friends have MANY problems with the removal of iterative attacks;

• Damage reduction. How would that be calculated? As (I'm assuming) it would no doubt be all added together, making DR basically useless.

• People who wield two melee weapons, or wish to go guns akimbo. Would there be things for them, or is their designs screwed over by saying "well, you can choose which ones you attacked with" and just have a bonus thrown into the single-roll pool.

• Attack chances. Why should all future attacks of your turn be spoiled by the first? In perspective, think of it this way; "Oh, you failed your first roll, which means all other shots or swings you take MUST MISS." Quite honestly, it would be a nightmare.

• Crowd Control! Me and my group are unanimous on this aspect being overlooked the most. The beauty of iterative attacks is the ability to divide up your attacks onto however you wish. Which is ESPECIALLY useful when being flanked or surrounded. Let's take an example of a powerful barbarian surrounded by weakling goblins; with no iterative attacks, the Barbarian would only bare down on ONE goblin that he knows is equally as weak as the others, and just rains ALL his blows on him. Goblin paste, sure; but the others are stabbing at his heels while he waits to swing at the next one. Tedious if they're truly weak, and dangerous if they're strong enough to poke him to death with swords.

• Maneuvers. There are actions that I like that replace attacks, like Quick Dirty Trick to gain the edge for my next onslaught, or prepare the enemy to be debuffed against my allies' abilities, while giving out a few good swings. Without iterative attacks, I have to do one or the other.

I understand what it's trying to bring across, like Star Trek and their form of combat is very simplistic and only really lets out a phaser or punch before the enemy gets their shot; no real combos to be had in that setting I grant you. Not to mention with Kasathas being a STANDARD race, it would be a direct pick for anyone...

You and your friends seem to be assuming the removal of iterative attacks was done in a vacuum -- that is, no other rules were changed. That seems rather unlikely.

If you're in melee, you've already lost.

Back in Dragonstar, people turned more and more to melee combat at higher levels. My elf got himself Str 22 to carry a minigun and still be at light encumbrance, but that also made him absurdly good in melee. Something like that might well apply here too.

If you're in melee, you've already lost.

Is that the game they want to make and you want to play?

Doesn't seem to me like the first is true.

The reason PF HP cannot be exhaustion and your 20th level fighter is actually surviving several greatsword swings to the face is because effects that require drawing blood (such as injury poisons) apply to every hit. It remains to be seen whether riders apply to damage to SP only, but it seems pretty silly to have it be the case since debuffing at the tail end of a fight is near useless.

One way around this would be if vitality(?) worked like Starcraft 1 Defensive Matrix -- it absorbs the great majority of the physical damage, but a little bit always leaks through -- usually not enough to kill you by itself, but still giving a way for things like injury poisons to get in.

so if we have no iteratives, no power attack, no deadly aim, no rapid shot and no AoO for dropping and swapping weapons... that makes everyone a switch hitter?

Steven "Troll" O'Neal wrote:

If you're in melee, you've already lost.

Is that the game they want to make and you want to play?

Doesn't seem to me like the first is true.

I'm used to playing ranged characters and support roles, so I'm a tad biased.

so if we have no iteratives, no power attack, no deadly aim, no rapid shot and no AoO for dropping and swapping weapons... that makes everyone a switch hitter?

Not surprising at all, really. It's a world with both guns and monsters.

so if we have no iteratives, no power attack, no deadly aim, no rapid shot and no AoO for dropping and swapping weapons... that makes everyone a switch hitter?

Power Attack seems like it isn't a thing anymore, but Deadly Aim in some form still is- the 5th level Soldier character sheet that was shared earlier has it.

Torbyne wrote:

so if we have no iteratives, no power attack, no deadly aim, no rapid shot and no AoO for dropping and swapping weapons... that makes everyone a switch hitter?

Power Attack seems like it isn't a thing anymore, but Deadly Aim in some form still is- the 5th level Soldier character sheet that was shared earlier has it.

Oh, so it is. that might be where that +2 on the frostbite is coming from. i know Mark said those numbers are off but man oh man do those guns look sad.

I bet that TWF and other such abilities reduce the penalties for the full attack. Sufficient advancement might even make a full attack a Standard Action.

I don't know where Geordan Gallagher is coming from with any of his concerns though. There is nothing that says the attacks are one roll, just the same penalty for each.

i know Mark said those numbers are off but man oh man do those guns look sad.

I have to admit that I'm having a hard time seeing where I should get excited about firefights.

I bet that TWF and other such abilities reduce the penalties for the full attack. Sufficient advancement might even make a full attack a Standard Action.

I don't know where Geordan Gallagher is coming from with any of his concerns though. There is nothing that says the attacks are one roll, just the same penalty for each.

Torbyne wrote:

i know Mark said those numbers are off but man oh man do those guns look sad.

I have to admit that I'm having a hard time seeing where I should get excited about firefights.

Well, if you are playing Obo, you get excited when you see enemies whip out laser pistols because you know they cant hurt you and you can double your attacks per round when you are slaughtering them in melee.

actually, since she has some version of Cleave that seems to allow an extra attack in some fashion than getting the AoO plus two melee swings and a cleave... Melee might be far more brutal than i was already thinking it was. And actually, Cleave could be a very important feat for melee characters now that it grants an ellusive extra attack, even if its just at a lower penalty than a standard full round attack.

I'm guessing cleave is now an AoE, since that seems to be the way to get extra attacks now.

You and your friends seem to be assuming the removal of iterative attacks was done in a vacuum -- that is, no other rules were changed. That seems rather unlikely.

Well, we don't understand the Starfinder's system yet (obviously because it's not released yet), so we were basing it off of the Unchained Rule that removed iterative attacks (Pathfinder Unchained, Page 110-111) as a reference guide of what it would possibly be like. We didn't like the way it handled, and it made attacks a little less straightforward than iteratives, especially on how it was done to instigate multiple attacks registering; (Hit over target AC by 5 or more) and it also means that any hits of 4-to-exact AC only getting one attack and ending it there, without even letting the future attacks get their chance to hit.

We kind of don't like that mindset in which any attacks that you could've rolled being decided by a single roll only. We had it a bunch of times in which or melee expert swung and missed all but the last one or so, so if it was decided by one roll, they would've never gotten that lucky hit. Lucky hits deserve a chance to happen, after all.

Starfinder may not be like this, and may even operate awesomely from what we're expecting when it comes out, but I'm just expressing our worries about such a removal as a sort of paranoia that the group and I have about it.
Still, we hope that it at least has a good conversion system or optional rule that would allow iteratives, just in case it doesn't turn out as good.

Hey, folks! I just want to hop in and remind everyone that Starfinder is a different game from Pathfinder. I see some folks interpreting these blog tidbits as if they were complete rules and direct plug-ins to Pathfinder, but they're not—this is a high-level, sound-bite summary of some differences between two different games. So if you're thinking "Preposterous! How would that work with X?", please keep in mind that there's a high likelihood that:

a) X is no longer in the game, or has been replaced by something else.

b) X functions differently in Starfinder, and will be spelled out in the other 300,000 words in the book. :)

Speculation is awesome, but I don't want folks to get too freaked out about what *might* be in the book. There will be plenty of time to sharpen those pitchforks once you know for certain exactly where we messed up. ;)

Also, having run some Pathfinder monsters in Starfinder, I can confirm that it truly is a quick at-the-table conversion—one you'll get a sneak peak at on Free RPG Day!

Speaking as someone who ONLY wants to steal ideas to add to his Pathfinder homebrew campaign...

1. OK. We use a modified version of the wound point/vitality point system anyway. It did not work as originally presented, but when we added the CON bonus back to vitality points and made wound points scale (1/2 CON + BAB), it works better. VP heal quickly, but if you lose WP, you're in trouble. Makes it both realistic and flexible. So I see where they're going with it.

2. Interested to see how this works in action, and curious why they wouldn't just use DR for energy. I will probably figure out a way to backwards convert to DR if they don't include this.

3. Intriguing. For characters with traditional fantasy weapons (swords and bows), I don't see any way around iterative attacks. But for guns and other advanced weapons, this might be a better way to go. I'm really interested in seeing how these rules interplay with the new weapons introduced, but I'll stick with iterative attacks for anyone using a sword.

4. I think I like this. Too many things provoke an AoO in Pathfinder. There are a lot of little rules and mechanics that might be affected, though. I think things like drinking a potion should definitely not provoke an AoO. I'll have to look closely at other things, though, and see what the impact would be for Pathfinder.

5. This is mostly just an issue of style, but I like my magic coming in separate flavors. I will probably rule that "Starfinder magic" is psychic magic and give it thought and emotion components.

Again, I think there are a lot of people like me (and some of the previous commenters) who are looking for *backward* compatibility more than anything else. (My homebrew world may be visited by laser-pistol-wielding aliens at some point, and characters may even have a chance to explore advanced, off-world civilizations, but the core setting is still sword-and-sorcery.) I really hope the SCRB addresses this.

I'm guessing cleave is now an AoE, since that seems to be the way to get extra attacks now.

If attacks are so tightly controled than i would expect that an AoE effect is actually a lot stronger than just a free separate attack as one would net you a single extra attack and the other could grant you numerous extra attacks.

... Daydreaming about dual wielding flamer throwers to layer down the AoEs/have charming fireside conversations with your fellow PCs.

Hey, folks! I just want to hop in and remind everyone that Starfinder is a different game from Pathfinder. I see some folks interpreting these blog tidbits as if they were complete rules and direct plug-ins to Pathfinder, but they're not—this is a high-level, sound-bite summary of some differences between two different games. So if you're thinking "Preposterous! How would that work with X?", please keep in mind that there's a high likelihood that:

a) X is no longer in the game, or has been replaced by something else.

b) X functions differently in Starfinder, and will be spelled out in the other 300,000 words in the book. :)

Speculation is awesome, but I don't want folks to get too freaked out about what *might* be in the book. There will be plenty of time to sharpen those pitchforks once you know for certain exactly where we messed up. ;)

Also, having run some Pathfinder monsters in Starfinder, I can confirm that it truly is a quick at-the-table conversion—one you'll get a sneak peak at on Free RPG Day!

Are you sure its a different game though? I keep hearing rumors that it is actually Pathfinder 2.0 :P

Are sharpened Pitchforks analog? I wouldnt want the technomancer hacking my gear in the middle of a wild accusation...

Also, can you give us a yes/no on this; is X that was in Pathfinder but isnt in Starfinder TWF? Can we not Grammaton Cleric, Dante's Ebony and Ivory, Trinity and Neo? umm... True Grit? i think double pistols are featured elsewhere too...

I'm reposting this, since I was misremembering how we broke out reactions in general and AoO in specific in the final version of the rules when I made the original off-the-cuff post.

Three things make this not an issue.

First, reactions resolve directly after the triggering action. So if you cast a spell and someone readied to shoot you if you cast, if the spell has a casting time of 1 standard action you get the spell off before the AoO gets made.

Secondly, most touch-range healing spells specify they do no provoke attacks of opportunity (as do a few other touch spells including some offensive ones).

Third, you lose the spell only if an attack successfully hits your AC or you fail a save against it. For example, if someone lobs a grenade and you are caught in the area while casting, but you make your save against it, that doesn't cause you to loose the spell.

[An earlier version of this post noted that all AoO were resolved after the triggering event, but while that is true for readied actions and most other reactions, it is not for attack of opportunity -- this is one reason we have to write down rules, especially after going through 6 versions of ho things work in development, rather than just trusting out memories].

Also, can you give us a yes/no on this; is X that was in Pathfinder but isnt in Starfinder TWF? Can we not Grammaton Cleric, Dante's Ebony and Ivory, Trinity and Neo? umm... True Grit? i think double pistols are featured elsewhere too...

Two-weapon fighting has no advantage on attacks made per round without taking a feat. If you do take a feat (Multi-Weapon Fighting, which has no prerequisites) you don't gain additional attacks, but do take a lessoned penalty when making a full attack while welding multiple weapons.

Well, we don't understand the Starfinder's system yet (obviously because it's not released yet), so we were basing it off of the Unchained Rule that removed iterative attacks (Pathfinder Unchained, Page 110-111) as a reference guide of what it would possibly be like.

We did not use that system, or base what we did off that system.

Torbyne wrote:

Also, can you give us a yes/no on this; is X that was in Pathfinder but isnt in Starfinder TWF? Can we not Grammaton Cleric, Dante's Ebony and Ivory, Trinity and Neo? umm... True Grit? i think double pistols are featured elsewhere too...

Two-weapon fighting has no advantage on attacks made per round without taking a feat. If you do take a feat (Multi-Weapon Fighting, which has no prerequisites) you don't gain additional attacks, but do take a lessoned penalty when making a full attack while welding multiple weapons.

Sounds good to me, thanks!

Torbyne wrote:

Also, can you give us a yes/no on this; is X that was in Pathfinder but isnt in Starfinder TWF? Can we not Grammaton Cleric, Dante's Ebony and Ivory, Trinity and Neo? umm... True Grit? i think double pistols are featured elsewhere too...

Two-weapon fighting has no advantage on attacks made per round without taking a feat. If you do take a feat (Multi-Weapon Fighting, which has no prerequisites) you don't gain additional attacks, but do take a lessoned penalty when making a full attack while welding multiple weapons.

So, a Kasatha wielding 4 pistols would still only make 2 attacks per round? Is this absolutely correct?

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Also, can you give us a yes/no on this; is X that was in Pathfinder but isnt in Starfinder TWF? Can we not Grammaton Cleric, Dante's Ebony and Ivory, Trinity and Neo? umm... True Grit? i think double pistols are featured elsewhere too...

Two-weapon fighting has no advantage on attacks made per round without taking a feat. If you do take a feat (Multi-Weapon Fighting, which has no prerequisites) you don't gain additional attacks, but do take a lessoned penalty when making a full attack while welding multiple weapons.

So, a Kasatha wielding 4 pistols would still only make 2 attacks per round? Is this absolutely correct?

If I were that kasatha, I might be holding two pistols, one melee weapon, and a utility item of some kind, or potentially two melee weapons and one two-handed ranged weapon for one particular fun build, or one unwieldy doshko and one laser doshko so I can swap out when I move up and when I can full attack, and a few other possibilities. Those four arms really open up your options for some amazing combos, but they don't double your attacks over other characters and leave non-kasatha in your dust.

Sadly that makes no sense at all. If you were a race that had four arms you would be likely to learn how to use all four arms to shoot four guns.

Mashallah wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Also, can you give us a yes/no on this; is X that was in Pathfinder but isnt in Starfinder TWF? Can we not Grammaton Cleric, Dante's Ebony and Ivory, Trinity and Neo? umm... True Grit? i think double pistols are featured elsewhere too...

Two-weapon fighting has no advantage on attacks made per round without taking a feat. If you do take a feat (Multi-Weapon Fighting, which has no prerequisites) you don't gain additional attacks, but do take a lessoned penalty when making a full attack while welding multiple weapons.

So, a Kasatha wielding 4 pistols would still only make 2 attacks per round? Is this absolutely correct?

If I were that kasatha, I might be holding two pistols, one melee weapon, and a utility item of some kind, or potentially two melee weapons and one two-handed ranged weapon for one particular fun build, or one unwieldy doshko and one laser doshko so I can swap out when I move up and when I can full attack, and a few other possibilities. Those four arms really open up your options for some amazing combos, but they don't double your attacks over other characters and leave non-kasatha in your dust.

That sounds both fair and fun. i assume that dual wielding rifles is out for them as well?

About that -4... Since attacks work differently now... Say our attack bonus is +12 or something. Whereas in Pathfinder you would make 2 attacks, 1 at +12 and 1 at +7, in Starfinder you'd make 2 attacks at +8?

Or is it more like 1 at +8 and 1 at +3?

I imagine it's both at +8.

Sadly that makes no sense at all. If you were a race that had four arms you would be likely to learn how to use all four arms to shoot four guns.

And I imagine they can use all four arms to shoot four guns...just not in the same round. But if there are more unique special qualities for weapons to possess (which seems likely), it might still be worthwhile?

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Also, can you give us a yes/no on this; is X that was in Pathfinder but isnt in Starfinder TWF? Can we not Grammaton Cleric, Dante's Ebony and Ivory, Trinity and Neo? umm... True Grit? i think double pistols are featured elsewhere too...

Two-weapon fighting has no advantage on attacks made per round without taking a feat. If you do take a feat (Multi-Weapon Fighting, which has no prerequisites) you don't gain additional attacks, but do take a lessoned penalty when making a full attack while welding multiple weapons.

So, a Kasatha wielding 4 pistols would still only make 2 attacks per round? Is this absolutely correct?

If I were that kasatha, I might be holding two pistols, one melee weapon, and a utility item of some kind, or potentially two melee weapons and one two-handed ranged weapon for one particular fun build, or one unwieldy doshko and one laser doshko so I can swap out when I move up and when I can full attack, and a few other possibilities. Those four arms really open up your options for some amazing combos, but they don't double your attacks over other characters and leave non-kasatha in your dust.

That sounds both fair and fun. i assume that dual wielding rifles is out for them as well?

You could swing that; it's one of the other "few other possibilities". There's no huge reason I didn't list that one; the first option I sort of adjusted from Mashallah's initial 4 pistol build and the other two are based on kasatha weapon lineups I've seen, but I've also seen dual big guns, especially if the big guns have different AoE shapes and damage types (maybe one for pinpoint targeting a single foe and another for a wide spread of damage to an area).

EDIT: Ninjaed by Luthorne's correct guess about why weapon variety/flexibility is powerful.

Torbyne wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Also, can you give us a yes/no on this; is X that was in Pathfinder but isnt in Starfinder TWF? Can we not Grammaton Cleric, Dante's Ebony and Ivory, Trinity and Neo? umm... True Grit? i think double pistols are featured elsewhere too...

Two-weapon fighting has no advantage on attacks made per round without taking a feat. If you do take a feat (Multi-Weapon Fighting, which has no prerequisites) you don't gain additional attacks, but do take a lessoned penalty when making a full attack while welding multiple weapons.

So, a Kasatha wielding 4 pistols would still only make 2 attacks per round? Is this absolutely correct?

If I were that kasatha, I might be holding two pistols, one melee weapon, and a utility item of some kind, or potentially two melee weapons and one two-handed ranged weapon for one particular fun build, or one unwieldy doshko and one laser doshko so I can swap out when I move up and when I can full attack, and a few other possibilities. Those four arms really open up your options for some amazing combos, but they don't double your attacks over other characters and leave non-kasatha in your dust.

That sounds both fair and fun. i assume that dual wielding rifles is out for them as well?

You could swing that; it's one of the other "few other possibilities". There's no huge reason I didn't list that one; the first option I sort of adjusted from Mashallah's initial 4 pistol build and the other two are based on kasatha weapon lineups I've seen, but I've also seen dual big guns, especially if the big guns have different AoE shapes and damage types (maybe one for pinpoint targeting a single foe and another for a wide spread of damage to an area).

EDIT: Ninjaed by Luthorne's correct guess about why weapon variety/flexibility is powerful.

Wow, cool beans :)

Sadly that makes no sense at all. If you were a race that had four arms you would be likely to learn how to use all four arms to shoot four guns.

Eh. Not really. Number of weapons translating directly to number of useful attacks is a peculiar bit of leftover wargame DNA in the d20 system. It doesn't have much basis in real combat and it's been a problem for attack balancing (woo natural weapons) for almost two decades now. I'm happy to see Paizo moving away from it and more towards a more abstracted set of mechanics for combat (though I'm disappointed that we're still counting exact numbers of space-bullets ;p).

Torbyne wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Also, can you give us a yes/no on this; is X that was in Pathfinder but isnt in Starfinder TWF? Can we not Grammaton Cleric, Dante's Ebony and Ivory, Trinity and Neo? umm... True Grit? i think double pistols are featured elsewhere too...

Two-weapon fighting has no advantage on attacks made per round without taking a feat. If you do take a feat (Multi-Weapon Fighting, which has no prerequisites) you don't gain additional attacks, but do take a lessoned penalty when making a full attack while welding multiple weapons.

So, a Kasatha wielding 4 pistols would still only make 2 attacks per round? Is this absolutely correct?

If I were that kasatha, I might be holding two pistols, one melee weapon, and a utility item of some kind, or potentially two melee weapons and one two-handed ranged weapon for one particular fun build, or one unwieldy doshko and one laser doshko so I can swap out when I move up and when I can full attack, and a few other possibilities. Those four arms really open up your options for some amazing combos, but they don't double your attacks over other characters and leave non-kasatha in your dust.

That sounds both fair and fun. i assume that dual wielding rifles is out for them as well?

You could swing that; it's one of the other "few other possibilities". There's no huge reason I didn't list that one; the first option I sort of adjusted from Mashallah's initial 4 pistol build and the other two are based on kasatha weapon lineups I've seen, but I've also seen dual big guns, especially if the big guns have different AoE shapes and damage types (maybe one for pinpoint targeting a single foe and another for a wide spread of damage to an area).

EDIT: Ninjaed by Luthorne's correct guess about why weapon variety/flexibility is powerful.

I don't think it's about how many you can carry. It's about how many you can realistically target. I know movies make it look easy, but under normal circumstances you are trained (depending on who/what you train with) to put rounds into the target until they drop. Not every shot is a head shot and not every round instantly drops or disables a target. Aiming 4 weapons independently, even at the same target, would likely be quite hard without independently functioning eyes and a brain that could translate all that info as well.

Just my 2 cents, but there is a reason most fighting forces don't actually use 2 weapons (ranged at least) at once.

With melee weapons I'd argue that dual wielding is not about getting more strikes in, but simply a style for opening defenses for the *actual* strike that you make.

So other than the ability to hold more weapons/potentially do other things, there's no advantage to having 4 arms in combat in terms of attacking?

I get why you can't just get extra attacks in terms of game balance, but if there's no bonus for kasatha that other races don't get when wielding/firing multiple guns, that's going to lead to many very confused/disappointed players. A kasatha should definitely be able to pull four triggers at once.

Sadly that makes no sense at all. If you were a race that had four arms you would be likely to learn how to use all four arms to shoot four guns.

If you dont have enough eyes to focus on four targets you still might not be able to multi-task with all four of those arms at once... But in table top games its all an abstraction anyways.

Azten wrote:

Sadly that makes no sense at all. If you were a race that had four arms you would be likely to learn how to use all four arms to shoot four guns.

If you dont have enough eyes to focus on four targets you still might not be able to multi-task with all four of those arms at once... But in table top games its all an abstraction anyways.

We always assumed they had mouths under their headwear. They could be extra eyeballs for all we know.