Bringing Out the Big Guns in Starfinder

Critical hits have been changed to a natural 20 is always a critical (no confirmation roll, and no threat ranges beyond 20), and on a critical all damage (yes ALL DAMAGE -- no exceptions) is doubled.

I think the only thing I don't really like so far from everything I've heard is the no confirmation roll. I felt that was a very good mechanic that scaled "hitableness" vs accuracy with the likelihood of critting.

It stopped the lowly inept character that can only hit on natural 20 against ninja mc flipping pants from critting every time he hits said ninja.
Which is unrealistic as you're more likely to graze such a character.

Not that I can't just add it back in home games easy enough.

So two questions:

1, Was this done purely for simplicity's sake or for another reason?

2, Is x2 the only multiplier or are there more damage levels?

Thanks.

Owen, how does "item creation" work?

I think it is one of the most broken things in Pathfinder and hope it is different in Starfinder.

I could also imagine, that you can´t manufacture some things at all without heavy industrial machines and even then, it won´t be possible if you are no expert.

Thx a lot. :-)

As I read it somewhere else you don't need feats and as material basic units of a universal compound which you can use to craft everything

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Critical hits have been changed to a natural 20 is always a critical (no confirmation roll, and no threat ranges beyond 20), and on a critical all damage (yes ALL DAMAGE -- no exceptions) is doubled.

I think the only thing I don't really like so far from everything I've heard is the no confirmation roll. I felt that was a very good mechanic that scaled "hitableness" vs accuracy with the likelihood of critting.

It stopped the lowly inept character that can only hit on natural 20 against ninja mc flipping pants from critting every time he hits said ninja.
Which is unrealistic as you're more likely to graze such a character.

Don't worry: if you wouldn't have hit without the auto-hit from the 20, it isn't a crit.

Lemartes wrote:

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Critical hits have been changed to a natural 20 is always a critical (no confirmation roll, and no threat ranges beyond 20), and on a critical all damage (yes ALL DAMAGE -- no exceptions) is doubled.

I think the only thing I don't really like so far from everything I've heard is the no confirmation roll. I felt that was a very good mechanic that scaled "hitableness" vs accuracy with the likelihood of critting.

It stopped the lowly inept character that can only hit on natural 20 against ninja mc flipping pants from critting every time he hits said ninja.
Which is unrealistic as you're more likely to graze such a character.

Don't worry: if you wouldn't have hit without the auto-hit from the 20, it isn't a crit.

Sweet. That works. Thanks. :)

The blog only really talks about energy weapons as far as firearms go. Where do the slugthrowers fit into all of this?

Sweet!

The blog only really talks about energy weapons as far as firearms go. Where do the slugthrowers fit into all of this?

Probably under: full automatic projectile weapons or ,many more categories of high-tech weapons.

It isn't a deal breaker so far, after all there are lots of other games where the granularity of weapons isn't nearly as fine as it is in others.

If it is set up where 4 pounds of sharp steel swung by a 6 foot tall warrior does the same dice of damage as 8 pounds of steel swung by a 12 foot tall warrior... well, I would hope there are other rules to justify it.

And no, it doesn't make any more sense for tech weapons. Bigger energy weapons should be throwing more energy and causing more damage. Or hitting more of a surface area with the same amount of energy per square inch, still causing more damage. Except maybe a monowire whip, or something similar.

However, I did prefer the old 3.0 way of doing weapons where a longsword was just a shortsword to a large creature and a greatsword to a small creature, so perhaps I could wrap it in my headspace from that angle when I see the final rules.

Don't worry: if you wouldn't have hit without the auto-hit from the 20, it isn't a crit.

This is good though.

When you roll for a crit in Starfinder, do you roll double the dice and add double the modifiers or do you double the total after the fact? I infer that you don't roll double the dice and then add the modifiers like in 5e D&D.

This is great. Advance tech means more weapon levels because of capitalism. I am feeling the SciFi already.

This is great. Advance tech means more weapon levels because of capitalism. I am feeling the SciFi already.

Be careful, somewhere out there is surely a planet that practices communism where everyone has the same kind of rifle

Rhedyn wrote:

This is great. Advance tech means more weapon levels because of capitalism. I am feeling the SciFi already.

Be careful, somewhere out there is surely a planet that practices communism where everyone has the same kind of rifle

I'm sure there are a few primitive worlds in the setting.

It isn't a deal breaker so far, after all there are lots of other games where the granularity of weapons isn't nearly as fine as it is in others.

If it is set up where 4 pounds of sharp steel swung by a 6 foot tall warrior does the same dice of damage as 8 pounds of steel swung by a 12 foot tall warrior... well, I would hope there are other rules to justify it.

And no, it doesn't make any more sense for tech weapons. Bigger energy weapons should be throwing more energy and causing more damage. Or hitting more of a surface area with the same amount of energy per square inch, still causing more damage. Except maybe a monowire whip, or something similar.

However, I did prefer the old 3.0 way of doing weapons where a longsword was just a shortsword to a large creature and a greatsword to a small creature, so perhaps I could wrap it in my headspace from that angle when I see the final rules.

I imagine larger enemies like giants will simply wield more powerful weapons instead of stuff like longswords, weapons with an item level around their CR.

I would probably reskin higher end weapons for large weapons and lower end weapons for tiny weapons when it comes to loot.

So an ogre might wield a corona laser pistol that would be refluffed as an ogre sized azimuth laser pistol. Meaning it would be a level 6 item that deals 2d4 damage.

For a pixie wielding a corona laser pistol I'd refluff it as a piexie sized version of the laser pistol that comes after the corona in the laser "tree".

I am hoping that you are either right, or close enough that I can justify it in the same way.

Stone Dog wrote:

Is there a synergy between Soldiers and weapon specialization possessed by other classes as was hinted at in an earlier blog, or is the Soldier simply happy everybody gets weapon specialization at 3rd level because the Soldier gets WS with more things?

The main thing is how expensive it is for other classes to get WS, since they must fist be proficient, and sometimes they must be proficient with multiple things.

So, for example, no class but soldier is automatically proficient with long arms or heavy weapons. Remember that small arms add half your level as specialization damage, but long arms and heavy weapons add your full level.

So at 3rd, a soldier gets to add +3 to long arms and heavy weapons attacks. A envoy who wants to do the same thing must take Longarm Proficiency, Weapon Specialization (longarms), Heavy Weapon Proficiency (which has a 13 Str, and small arms and longer proficiency as prerequisites), and then likely Versatile Specialization (so the envoy will be specialized in any other weapon picked up later on).

That means the envoy *can't* do that by 3rd level. Even a human envoy can't.

Now at 5th, a human envoy can have spent his 1st, 3rd, 5th, and human bonus feat -- that is, ALL feats, to have the same damage options as the soldier. Of course by now the soldier has 3 universal feats, and two combat feats, and a gear boost, and two style technique powers.

And the difference between small arms and long arms stays relevant. This isn't like Pathfinder where the difference between a +2 bane flaming morningstar and a +2 bane flaming two-handed sword is 2.5 hp per attack and double the critical change. The highest-damage 10th level small arm does 3d6 and gets +5 from specialization. The highest-damage 10th level longarm does 3d10 and gets +10 from specialization. The highest-damage heavy weapons do 2d12 in a cone or radius, and still gets +10 from specialization.

While other classes can chase the soldier in terms of feats, they begin at least 4 behind,...

This might have been answered elsewhere already... what about multiclassing? one level of Soldier and then the rest in Envoy sounds like it might be a good fit for a heavily armored, rifle user who has some buff options.

I am hoping that you are either right, or close enough that I can justify it in the same way.

If I had to guess, I would say larger size weapons do +1 damage per dice per size larger because that is basically how dice damage increases work now.

As far as I recollect Multiclassing was perfectly valid and pretty much like in pf

but be sure to link your archetype to your main class

I totally get what they are saying about scaled weapons in the blog but can someone science-y weigh in on Plasma being... i dunno, low enough charge or "cold" enough to not be dangerous? If it has enough energy in it to make the electrons go all crazy that doesnt seem like something you would shrug off. Maybe its just a teeny tiny bit of plasma though? Or is plasma really bad at transferring energy?

Yes, this is all very well, but will my Elf Technomancer still be able to shoot his shuriken catapult pistol?

Oh, btw, love the mass effectian design of all the weapons shown so far.

Oh, btw, love the mass effectian design of all the weapons shown so far.

I was seeing a lot of Destiny styling there but i can also see some Mass Effect... effect now that you mention it.

Are there going to be kinetic weapon options? Call me old fashioned, but I like to shoot sold objects at my enemies and have always found gauss and coil guns a really cool concept.

I totally get what they are saying about scaled weapons in the blog but can someone science-y weigh in on Plasma being... i dunno, low enough charge or "cold" enough to not be dangerous? If it has enough energy in it to make the electrons go all crazy that doesnt seem like something you would shrug off. Maybe its just a teeny tiny bit of plasma though? Or is plasma really bad at transferring energy?

Starfinder's plasma weapons also tend to spread out the plasma over an area, plus starting in at higher levels than lasers.

I totally get what they are saying about scaled weapons in the blog but can someone science-y weigh in on Plasma being... i dunno, low enough charge or "cold" enough to not be dangerous? If it has enough energy in it to make the electrons go all crazy that doesnt seem like something you would shrug off. Maybe its just a teeny tiny bit of plasma though? Or is plasma really bad at transferring energy?

I am someone science-y by trade and I also minor'd in philosophy. So mindlessly equivocating technical terms can be said to be my specialization!

Plasma is basically ionized gas popularized recently by Plasma-screen TVs and Neon signs. More dangerous kinds of plasma refer to things like the surface of stars.

For more details, I would go to a physicist. The rabbit hole goes deeper about this 4th state of matter.

So volume of plasma, concentration of the projectile charge involved, and the source material excited to a plasma state all contribute to damage. Sounds like sufficient Space Opera explanation to me!

Damage on tiered weapons? Sounds video gamey.

I like it.

Call it full circle. Videogames were in many ways built on RPGs like D&D that came out first by sometimes a full decade.

Sounds good to me.

Owen, how does "item creation" work?

I think it is one of the most broken things in Pathfinder and hope it is different in Starfinder.

I could also imagine, that you can´t manufacture some things at all without heavy industrial machines and even then, it won´t be possible if you are no expert.

Thx a lot. :-)

You can only create things in the core rulebook. Obviously the GM could make new things available, but the rules assume you are restricted to these existing items.

For technological items, you must have ranks in Engineering equal to the device's item level. For magic, you must have ranks in mysticism equal to the item's level. For hybrid items, you must have ranks in both skills. For computers its ranks in Computers, for medicinal is ranks in Life Science or Physical Science.

Spend UPBs (universal polymer bases) equal in value to the item's cost, and take a base time of 4 hours.

You have now created the item. It is easier for you to fix something you made, and it has more hardness and Hit Points than mass-produced versions.

That's the core of it. The whole rules system is less than a page for everything, and there are no item creation feats or similar resource sinks.

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Critical hits have been changed to a natural 20 is always a critical (no confirmation roll, and no threat ranges beyond 20), and on a critical all damage (yes ALL DAMAGE -- no exceptions) is doubled.

I think the only thing I don't really like so far from everything I've heard is the no confirmation roll. I felt that was a very good mechanic that scaled "hitableness" vs accuracy with the likelihood of critting.

It stopped the lowly inept character that can only hit on natural 20 against ninja mc flipping pants from critting every time he hits said ninja.

As it happens, if you only hit on a 20, you do not critical when you roll a 20. That's strictly worse for people who only hit on a 20 than confirmation rolls (by one critical out of every 400 attacks), and we are okay with that.

1, Was this done purely for simplicity's sake or for another reason?

Numerous other reasons, some mathematical, some philosophical, and some playtest-oriented.

2, Is x2 the only multiplier or are there more damage levels? Thanks.

All crits are only on a 20 (there are no expanded threat ranged), and all damage )of all types) is doubled.

However, some weapons have a critical hit effect, which may be a burn effect, or a bleed, or a knockdown, or even some damage arcing to a secondary target. Those arguably have additional damage impact on a critical, even though they re still just x2.

The blog only really talks about energy weapons as far as firearms go. Where do the slugthrowers fit into all of this?

They exist, and work the same way except they so slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing and attacks with them go against KAC.

Marco Massoudi wrote:

Owen, how does "item creation" work?

I think it is one of the most broken things in Pathfinder and hope it is different in Starfinder.

I could also imagine, that you can´t manufacture some things at all without heavy industrial machines and even then, it won´t be possible if you are no expert.

Thx a lot. :-)

You can only create things in the core rulebook. Obviously the GM could make new things available, but the rules assume you are restricted to these existing items.

For technological items, you must have ranks in Engineering equal to the device's item level. For magic, you must have ranks in mysticism equal to the item's level. For hybrid items, you must have ranks in both skills. For computers its ranks in Computers, for medicinal is ranks in Life Science or Physical Science.

Spend UPBs (universal polymer bases) equal in value to the item's cost, and take a base time of 4 hours.

You have now created the item. It is easier for you to fix something you made, and it has more hardness and Hit Points than mass-produced versions.

That's the core of it. The whole rules system is less than a page for everything, and there are no item creation feats or similar resource sinks.

This immediately sticks out to me as a huge problem for the setting. You can only have a number of ranks in a skill equal to your level, which means there need to be huge adventuring badasses sitting around making those high level items for them to exist. Pathfinder got around that setting problem by making crafting a relatively easy skill check you can boost with equipment and helping hands, so you can actually have teams of adepts making high level items.

This... feels like a serious step back, when manufacturing should be easier than ever, if anything. And items requiring the same cost to craft as they cost to make is baffling for other reasons.

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Marco Massoudi wrote:

Owen, how does "item creation" work?

I think it is one of the most broken things in Pathfinder and hope it is different in Starfinder.

I could also imagine, that you can´t manufacture some things at all without heavy industrial machines and even then, it won´t be possible if you are no expert.

Thx a lot. :-)

You can only create things in the core rulebook. Obviously the GM could make new things available, but the rules assume you are restricted to these existing items.

For technological items, you must have ranks in Engineering equal to the device's item level. For magic, you must have ranks in mysticism equal to the item's level. For hybrid items, you must have ranks in both skills. For computers its ranks in Computers, for medicinal is ranks in Life Science or Physical Science.

Spend UPBs (universal polymer bases) equal in value to the item's cost, and take a base time of 4 hours.

You have now created the item. It is easier for you to fix something you made, and it has more hardness and Hit Points than mass-produced versions.

That's the core of it. The whole rules system is less than a page for everything, and there are no item creation feats or similar resource sinks.

This immediately sticks out to me as a huge problem for the setting. You can only have a number of ranks in a skill equal to your level, which means there need to be huge adventuring badasses sitting around making those high level items for them to exist. Pathfinder got around that setting problem by making crafting a relatively easy skill check you can boost with equipment and helping hands, so you can actually have teams of adepts making high level items.

This... feels like a serious step back, when manufacturing should be easier than ever, if anything. And items requiring the same cost to craft as they cost to make is baffling for other reasons.

Adventuring is not the only way to gain experience, it is merely the most expedient.

Adventuring is not the only way to gain experience, it is merely the most expedient.

I don't mean that they're actively adventuring while making high level items, I mean that for high powered items to exist you need someone who can get shot with low level lasers hundreds of times to be making them. It's a similar issue to what 3.x grappled with, where a "master smith" type dude has to actually be a badass that can crush your head between his forefinger and thumb to be allowed to have more ranks in Craft.

Quote:

Adventuring is not the only way to gain experience, it is merely the most expedient.

I don't mean that they're actively adventuring while making high level items, I mean that for high powered items to exist you need someone who can get shot with low level lasers hundreds of times to be making them. It's a similar issue to what 3.x grappled with, where a "master smith" type dude has to actually be a badass that can crush your head between his forefinger and thumb to be allowed to have more ranks in Craft.

Or one superior AI with an assembly line.

This immediately sticks out to me as a huge problem for the setting. You can only have a number of ranks in a skill equal to your level, which means there need to be huge adventuring badasses sitting around making those high level items for them to exist.

it has more hardness and Hit Points than mass-produced versions.

Note the distinction between PC-created items and "mass-produced versions." I wouldn't read a whole lot into the larger economy from these crafting rules; they are explicitly different things.

its also possible that there are machines you can get that raise your effectice skill level so a small crew with 4 or 5 ranks and a factory's worth of specialist machines can still produce high level items... but those machines are expensive and beyond the means of most PCs to acquire. or some such.

The assumption is that AbadarCorp and other mega-producers have different options for mass producing things, which use non-PC scale rules. In short, anything you buy in Starfinder is taking advantage of a massive economy of scale, with at the very least hundreds and in most cases hundreds of thousands of them being made.

PCs won't be doing that. That's not what the game is for. Just as in Pathfinder adventures it is often said some deal was cut with a specific outsider, or a mysterious ritual was performed, and no rules exist for PCs to exactly duplicate those effects, Starfinder tells you how you, as a lone artisan, make something all by yourself, but doesn't assume you can compete with mass-produced, assembly-line, economy-of scale weapons.

It would in fact break my suspension of disbelief much more if the best way for 15th level adventurers to make money is to take in raw materials and spit out individual items, and somehow compete with galaxy-spanning corporations when they do so.

Of course the individually produced versions are a little heartier, and easier for their creators to fix. That's the advantage of that craftsmanship.

Wait, longswords are Advance melee weapons? Does that mean that the Iconic Envoy isn't proficient with that sword she's carrying?

Okay. So what happens when the PCs purchase, steal, borrow, or invent their own 3D printer or micro-factory or whatever other obvious sci-fi trope you want to emulate? Do you just go the 4e route and tell them to screw off and stop trying to interact with the economy in any way that isn't a pre-proscribed black box method? Being transparent with rules for that kind of thing and letting players directly interact with the world is one of the best things about d20-based games, and not being transparent is part of what killed D&D's market share in the first place and gave Pathfinder its position.

For that matter, why does having a larger pile of cash still directly translate into more character power ad-finitum? That was a flaw discovered around 2000 when 3e came out, and presumably only included in Pathfinder due to its rushed development cycle and desire for backwards compatibility- so why carry it forward?

Wait, longswords are Advance melee weapons? Does that mean that the Iconic Envoy isn't proficient with that sword she's carrying?

No, it means she is carrying a dueling sword, which is a basic melee weapon.

Paladinosaur wrote:

Wait, longswords are Advance melee weapons? Does that mean that the Iconic Envoy isn't proficient with that sword she's carrying?

No, it means she is carrying a dueling sword, which is a basic melee weapon.

Nice!

For that matter, why does having a larger pile of cash still directly translate into more character power ad-finitum? That was a flaw discovered around 2000 when 3e came out, and presumably only included in Pathfinder due to its rushed development cycle and desire for backwards compatibility- so why carry it forward?

Actually, being able to advance in part through the acquisition of stuff is a key part of the enjoyment of the game for a lot of folks. You may not be someone who finds that crucial to how you enjoy the game, but there are lots of people, some of whom have been playing games of this ilk since before 2000 and others who simply picked it up recently and enjoy that aspect, who would find removing that to be a major disappointment.

That's a game design philosophy question, and it's well outside the scope of answering questions about what we did d. I don't plan to spend much time explaining what went into the things we didn't do, because we didn't do them. This isn't the place for that discussion, and honestly it could very quickly expand to a scope I honestly cannot even take the time to write at length about. And if I could find the time, I'd likely print it as a book.

But no, Pathfinder did not retain that concept purely because it was produced quickly, and neither did Starfinder. We carefully considered it, and came to this conclusion. We made a lot of adjustments to how the game produces similar results, but in the end we do want this to be very familiar to Pathfinder players. That's part of the design brief. That that includes the acquisition of things having a positive impact on your total power level and character options, even if we changed a lot of how that works or what kinds of things you acquire.

Aratrok wrote:

Quote:

Adventuring is not the only way to gain experience, it is merely the most expedient.

I don't mean that they're actively adventuring while making high level items, I mean that for high powered items to exist you need someone who can get shot with low level lasers hundreds of times to be making them. It's a similar issue to what 3.x grappled with, where a "master smith" type dude has to actually be a badass that can crush your head between his forefinger and thumb to be allowed to have more ranks in Craft.

Or one superior AI with an assembly line.

Based off this line alone my headcanon is now going to be that Triune brought advanced equipment to the multiverse and everyone's just been working off their designs ever since.

Actually, being able to advance in part through the acquisition of stuff is a key part of the enjoyment of the game for a lot of folks. You may not be someone who finds that crucial to how you enjoy the game, but there are lots of people, some of whom have been playing games of this ilk since before 2000 and others who simply picked it up recently and enjoy that aspect, who would find removing that to be a major disappointment.

That's a game design philosophy question, and it's well outside the scope of answering questions about what we did d. I don't plan to spend much time explaining what went into the things we didn't do, because we didn't do them. This isn't the place for that discussion, and honestly it could very quickly expand to a scope I honestly cannot even take the time to write at length about. And if I could find the time, I'd likely print it as a book.

But no, Pathfinder did not retain that concept purely because it was produced quickly, and neither did Starfinder. We carefully considered it, and came to this conclusion. We made a lot of adjustments to how the game produces similar results, but in the end we do want this to be very familiar to Pathfinder players. That's part of the design brief. That that includes the acquisition of things having a positive impact on your total power level and character options, even if we changed a lot of how that works or what kinds of things you acquire.

I didn't say anything about acquisition of stuff being counter to enjoyment of the game. Getting a shiny new magic sword or a ring that grants wishes is fun, and was one of the core tenents of the game long before 3e. I have no idea why you're telling me I dislike that, considering I didn't mention anything to that tune in my post.

No, there's a problem with piles of money turning into raw personal power forever. That was a brand new concept in 2000, and it failed. You heavily discourage people from spending their currency on anything that doesn't make their character personally stronger, or else they risk falling behind the curve and dying or failing more often. There are other issues, but that's the brightest and most damning one, because it creates a system where a player that wants to spend their money on ale and partying or buying a castle or penthouse is being punished for that choice, possibly lethally, and it's almost single-handedly responsible for "murderhobo" becoming such a popular and accurate meme.

The concept of gathering higher level contacts that get you access to more dangerous, powerful, and experimental gear is an awesome one that meshes really well with just finding cool stuff. I really wish you'd leaned harder on that with limitations more on what you can carry/use at any given time, because it's sounding like the paradigm hasn't really changed much from Pathfinder.

All this isn't to say I think it ruins the game or anything. A flawed game can still be great- what game doesn't have its flaws?- I just hoped this particular one would have been worked out.

So if both a dueling sword and a longsword deal 1d8, then why do they have different proficiency? What advantage does the longsword have over the dueling sword to not make them the same base weapon?

So if both a dueling sword and a longsword deal 1d8, then why do they have different proficiency? What advantage does the longsword have over the dueling sword to not make them the same base weapon?

Maybe they have different upgrade paths. Maybe they deal different damage types. Maybe they have different crit effects, or one has a crit effect while the other has the operative property so that you can use Dex for your attack roll.

Also, that's operating under an assumption that dueling swords deal 1d8.

So if both a dueling sword and a longsword deal 1d8, then why do they have different proficiency? What advantage does the longsword have over the dueling sword to not make them the same base weapon?

At the very least, I would expect the specialization bonus for the dueling sword to be half level, and the long sword to be full level.