I prefer damage gated behind money rather than accuracy. In PF that +5 could be half or more of your damage if you only hit on 11 or higher. Round by round, you'll have a lot of 0 damage rounds.
In SF, you'll still hit with lower gear and still do a decent chunk of damage. I prefer this.
What? Accuracy that bad at high levels just isn't a thing for Pathfinder martials. Enemy AC doesn't scale as fast as attack bonuses do, that's the sort of accuracy you might expect at first level when one attack drops most foes. If you're a 15th level character, losing +5 to hit and damage is obviously bad, but it's not even remotely the same impact as going from 66+15 damage to 5.5+15- especially with effects like energy resistance and DR in play, where small attacks are at a much greater relative disadvantage.
It needs to be said that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's definitely different from the Pathfinder paradigm, but it's not objectively worse.
We'll have to wait and see at this point. It definitely seems like equipment- or weaponry, at least- is a larger fraction of a character's power in Starfinder than it is in Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We'll have to wait and see at this point. It definitely seems like equipment- or weaponry, at least- is a larger fraction of a character's power in Starfinder than it is in Pathfinder.
Well, at worst, it will result in a "seriously, don't take away the weapons of your players" paradigm, while it was already usually considered a dick move to take away weapons in Pathfinder, so it's not particularly big of a shift.
We'll have to wait and see at this point. It definitely seems like equipment- or weaponry, at least- is a larger fraction of a character's power in Starfinder than it is in Pathfinder.Well, at worst, it will result in a "seriously, don't take away the weapons of your players" paradigm, while it was already usually considered a dick move to take away weapons in Pathfinder, so it's not particularly big of a shift.
It's not so simple as just what happens when a character has equipment stripped from them. That's an extreme case that's only rarely applicable. The question "how much of my value is my abilities, and how much is what I'm carrying?" is important for a lot of reasons. The most immediately obvious ones are just how penalized you are when your primary gear is gone, either permanently or because someone used a disarming ability, and how the level of gear dependency feels to players. It's evident from these message boards that people who dislike the Magic Christmas Tree Effect in D&D and Pathfinder definitely are around, and I imagine their enjoyment of the game won't be improved by more of their character's power coming from what doodads they've got.
Obviously not everyone feels that way, and not every game has to work with the same constraints. Shadowrun characters are as much defined by their skills as they are by what cyberware they have installed and how many grenades they packed today. 5e characters can seriously deal with going their entire career without so much as touching a magic sword. But moving that line has a very real effect on how the game feels, and while some people are going to like the change, others aren't and they deserve to know what they're getting themselves into.
I would agree that characters should be more than the weapons. The operative will have trick shot to go with item level weapon. The Soldier will have the fighting style and gear boost that will scale with level. We only saw small sample of those things.
I think it will be 60/40 break down with 60 percent weapon damage 40 character abilities. I also think gear acquisition will be allot different. The plus five great sword with all the bells and whistles is much harder to come buy than the item 20 weapon that is manufactorfed in the 10 thousand or millions.
Dave2
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We really don't know what the economy is either. We don't know expected WBL, we don't know the cost of weapons, we don't know the availability of weapons. We do know that a first level soldier can create a grenade in 10 minutes. We know that an engineer can overload a pistol to create a grenade. It Is possible there are other abilities all clan create or modify weapons on the fly. Solarions create thier own weapons and are likely set by level. An operative can add a huge pool of d8s to anything with a trick attack.
It's a little too early to worry that characters can't do anything without weapons. If you're really worried about it, play a caster or solarion. But if you give a 20th level fighter a nonmagical longsword in pathfinder they aren't really going to be that effective against level appropriate threats either.
I would agree, but the weapon master handbook and magical tactics went long way to break the dependence of the fighter on magical weapons in Pathfinder.
The economy can be what the DM makes it unless you are doing some organized play. I think the difference is that weapons scale more in Starfinder damage wise. The availability may be no different than getting two handed sword in Pathfinder. Cost difference yes. Availability no difference.
I think the Soldier will have fighting style and gear boost that will scale in addition to feats. 60/40 or maybe 55/45 weapon to class ability, gear boost, and feats.
Dave2
We really don't know what the economy is either. We don't know expected WBL, we don't know the cost of weapons, we don't know the availability of weapons. We do know that a first level soldier can create a grenade in 10 minutes. We know that an engineer can overload a pistol to create a grenade. It Is possible there are other abilities all clan create or modify weapons on the fly. Solarions create thier own weapons and are likely set by level. An operative can add a huge pool of d8s to anything with a trick attack.
It's a little too early to worry that characters can't do anything without weapons. If you're really worried about it, play a caster or solarion. But if you give a 20th level fighter a nonmagical longsword in pathfinder they aren't really going to be that effective against level appropriate threats either.
We know building an ever larger pile of money that directly converts into stronger gear is a thing in Starfinder. That was already brought up in this thread. I think it's fair to assume that more powerful guns are more expensive, since the blog post right above this talks about it being cheaper to outfit 40 dudes with 2d8 weapons than one dude with a 7d8 weapon. Knowing exactly what the numbers behind WBL are is totally immaterial in a discussion about how much the magic laser gun you're carrying is contributing to your damage compared to your skill.
We also know that grenade does less damage than a shot from a same-level weapon (with a save for half) at all the bands we've seen it at. We know all cases we've seen for trick attack suggest it lands roughly 40-60% of the time on a same-level target and precludes multiple attacks. Everything else is speculation, but we have a fairly significant amount of evidence to draw observations and predictions from.
Also, it's a side note, but Pathfinder characters really aren't that dependent on their weapons. Other equipment, sure, but a 20th level ranger, for example, only loses ~15% of their damage going from a +5 bow to a standard bow, multiple classes (magus, warpriest, paladin, and fighter at least) can upgrade a weapon on the spot, and greater magic weapon and versatile weapon are commonly accessible spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder seems to be largely dispensing with the pretense of simulation, which I find very promising. Then again, I liked 4E...
|
|
We know all cases we've seen for trick attack suggest it lands roughly 40-60% of the time on a same-level target and precludes multiple attacks. Everything else is speculation, but we have a fairly significant amount of evidence to draw observations and predictions from.
Also, it's a side note, but Pathfinder characters really aren't that dependent on their weapons. Other equipment, sure, but a 20th level ranger, for example, only loses ~15% of their damage...
We have dev comments stating that as operatives level up trick attack success is considered to be almost an automatic success.
And when you account for dr and or hardness, and without the existence of clustered shots that Ranger is losing a hell of a lot more than 15%.
We know all cases we've seen for trick attack suggest it lands roughly 40-60% of the time on a same-level target and precludes multiple attacks. Everything else is speculation, but we have a fairly significant amount of evidence to draw observations and predictions from.
Also, it's a side note, but Pathfinder characters really aren't that dependent on their weapons. Other equipment, sure, but a 20th level ranger, for example, only loses ~15% of their damage...
We have dev comments stating that as operatives level up trick attack success is considered to be almost an automatic success.
And when you account for dr and or hardness, and without the existence of clustered shots that Ranger is losing a hell of a lot more than 15%.
Speaking of Trick Attack. Let's look at level 20 numbers for fun.
The highest damaging weapon in the game is 14d10 and adds full level as specialisation. That's 77+20 average before any other modifiers. Realistically, a level 20 Soldier will probably be looking at 110 damage per swing.The gimmick of Trick Attack appears to be that you get extra damage by sacrificing the possibility to make a second attack. At level 20, a Trick Attack deals 10d8 damage for average 45. For it to be on par with the above 110, assuming it even has 100% chance of passing the skill check, the Soldier's attack would have to have at most 40% accuracy or less.
Thus, it's a reasonable conclusion that Trick Attack's main trick (pardon the pun) at high levels is applying debuffs, rather than trying to keep up with the damage curve. That seems interesting, I suppose.
People also seem to forget that Deadly Aim is a feat that, iirc, works on both melee and range weapons to give a flat minus to hit with a bonus that scales with level (or BAB, not sure) which would help boost that damage with or without a powerful weapon
We know all cases we've seen for trick attack suggest it lands roughly 40-60% of the time on a same-level target and precludes multiple attacks. Everything else is speculation, but we have a fairly significant amount of evidence to draw observations and predictions from.
Also, it's a side note, but Pathfinder characters really aren't that dependent on their weapons. Other equipment, sure, but a 20th level ranger, for example, only loses ~15% of their damage...
We have dev comments stating that as operatives level up trick attack success is considered to be almost an automatic success.
And when you account for dr and or hardness, and without the existence of clustered shots that Ranger is losing a hell of a lot more than 15%.
Speaking of Trick Attack. Let's look at level 20 numbers for fun.
The highest damaging weapon in the game is 14d10 and adds full level as specialisation. That's 77+20 average before any other modifiers. Realistically, a level 20 Soldier will probably be looking at 110 damage per swing.
The gimmick of Trick Attack appears to be that you get extra damage by sacrificing the possibility to make a second attack. At level 20, a Trick Attack deals 10d8 damage for average 45. For it to be on par with the above 110, assuming it even has 100% chance of passing the skill check, the Soldier's attack would have to have at most 40% accuracy or less.
Thus, it's a reasonable conclusion that Trick Attack's main trick (pardon the pun) at high levels is applying debuffs, rather than trying to keep up with the damage curve. That seems interesting, I suppose.
Do take into consideration that trick attack also includes weapon damage. That does even things up a bit.
Do take into consideration that trick attack also includes weapon damage. That does even things up a bit.
We know all cases we've seen for trick attack suggest it lands roughly 40-60% of the time on a same-level target and precludes multiple attacks. Everything else is speculation, but we have a fairly significant amount of evidence to draw observations and predictions from.
Also, it's a side note, but Pathfinder characters really aren't that dependent on their weapons. Other equipment, sure, but a 20th level ranger, for example, only loses ~15% of their damage...
We have dev comments stating that as operatives level up trick attack success is considered to be almost an automatic success.
And when you account for dr and or hardness, and without the existence of clustered shots that Ranger is losing a hell of a lot more than 15%.
Speaking of Trick Attack. Let's look at level 20 numbers for fun.
The highest damaging weapon in the game is 14d10 and adds full level as specialisation. That's 77+20 average before any other modifiers. Realistically, a level 20 Soldier will probably be looking at 110 damage per swing.
The gimmick of Trick Attack appears to be that you get extra damage by sacrificing the possibility to make a second attack. At level 20, a Trick Attack deals 10d8 damage for average 45. For it to be on par with the above 110, assuming it even has 100% chance of passing the skill check, the Soldier's attack would have to have at most 40% accuracy or less.
Thus, it's a reasonable conclusion that Trick Attack's main trick (pardon the pun) at high levels is applying debuffs, rather than trying to keep up with the damage curve. That seems interesting, I suppose.
Trick Attack is a full round action to make one attack with extra damage.
Full attack is a full round action to make two attacks.This is why I'm comparing the extra damage to a whole attack.
Especially when taking into consideration that, at level 20, a Soldier has 5 higher BAB than Operative, negating the -4 penalty for full attacking.
It's sci-fi (with some fantasy)- if you lose your ship, you can't travel, if you lose your weapons, you can't fight, if you lose your armor, you may not even be able to breathe.
Right, but what weapon are you using for the Operative's attack? I would assume there's an operative weapon that does a large amount of damage, plus operatives also have weapon specialization, giving them a +10 to their damage as well.
Edit:: just got it. Weird way to make your point, would've probably been easier to just use 220 for soldier and go from there.
We know all cases we've seen for trick attack suggest it lands roughly 40-60% of the time on a same-level target and precludes multiple attacks. Everything else is speculation, but we have a fairly significant amount of evidence to draw observations and predictions from.
Also, it's a side note, but Pathfinder characters really aren't that dependent on their weapons. Other equipment, sure, but a 20th level ranger, for example, only loses ~15% of their damage...
We have dev comments stating that as operatives level up trick attack success is considered to be almost an automatic success.
And when you account for dr and or hardness, and without the existence of clustered shots that Ranger is losing a hell of a lot more than 15%.
Speaking of Trick Attack. Let's look at level 20 numbers for fun.
The highest damaging weapon in the game is 14d10 and adds full level as specialisation. That's 77+20 average before any other modifiers. Realistically, a level 20 Soldier will probably be looking at 110 damage per swing.
The gimmick of Trick Attack appears to be that you get extra damage by sacrificing the possibility to make a second attack. At level 20, a Trick Attack deals 10d8 damage for average 45. For it to be on par with the above 110, assuming it even has 100% chance of passing the skill check, the Soldier's attack would have to have at most 40% accuracy or less.
Thus, it's a reasonable conclusion that Trick Attack's main trick (pardon the pun) at high levels is applying debuffs, rather than trying to keep up with the damage curve. That seems interesting, I suppose.
To calculate the expected damage, you'd take the (small arm damage + trick attack damage) * operative-trick-attack-chance to hit and compare to 2*heavy weapon damage* soldier-full-attack-chance to hit. That's going to give different numbers than comparing the trick attack to the second attack alone. Also, I believe the 14d10 hammer is unwieldy, like the melee weapon the iconic soldier had at Paizocon, and thus won't be involved in full attacks.
That said, the soldier has other tricks up her sleeve by that level anyway, so it's certainly true that debuffs and mobility are going to be key aspects to high-level trick attacks. After all, if you can debuff the enemy's AC with your trick attack and then position yourself into a flank with your free movement, you're upping the soldier's numbers quite a bit with your actions as well while still doing your thing.
Also, I believe the 14d10 hammer is unwieldy, like the melee weapon the iconic soldier had at Paizocon, and thus won't be involved in full attacks.
Even if the highest wieldy damage is about 10d10 or something, I feel my point largely holds.
That said, the soldier has other tricks up her sleeve by that level anyway, so it's certainly true that debuffs and mobility are going to be key aspects to high-level trick attacks. After all, if you can debuff the enemy's AC with your trick attack and then position yourself into a flank with your free movement, you're upping the soldier's numbers quite a bit with your actions as well while still doing your thing.
That was kind of my point. I wasn't complaining it's bad. I was just deducing that the primary effect of Trick Attack at high levels seems to be debuffing rather than damage from what was shown so far, and that seems like an interesting paradigm shift that I want to explore. It's arguably even a good and needed thing that a martial class specialises on something other than damage.
That was kind of my point. I wasn't complaining it's bad. I was just deducing that the primary effect of Trick Attack at high levels seems to be debuffing rather than damage from what was shown so far, and that seems like an interesting paradigm shift that I want to explore. It's arguably even a good and needed thing that a martial class specialises on something other than damage.
Yep, I figured that was what you meant, and I agree. It's boring to have everyone focusing on the same thing and doesn't yield classes that stand out as much in feel, even as much as we as a community (myself included in my guides and elsewhere) often hone in on expected damage per round in discussions more than we probably should. Also, while as I said soldier gets some neat tricks that can potentially increase her damage even more than the example, operative has some tricks of their own at the higher levels depending on what exploits they pick, including a small-to-moderate chance at one-shotting the enemy.
That was kind of my point. I wasn't complaining it's bad. I was just deducing that the primary effect of Trick Attack at high levels seems to be debuffing rather than damage from what was shown so far, and that seems like an interesting paradigm shift that I want to explore. It's arguably even a good and needed thing that a martial class specialises on something other than damage.Yep, I figured that was what you meant, and I agree. It's boring to have everyone focusing on the same thing and doesn't yield classes that stand out as much in feel, even as much as we as a community (myself included in my guides and elsewhere) often hone in on expected damage per round in discussions more than we probably should. Also, while as I said soldier gets some neat tricks that can potentially increase her damage even more than the example, operative has some tricks of their own at the higher levels depending on what exploits they pick, including a small-to-moderate chance at one-shotting the enemy.
Ooo, now that sounds cool :D still struggling suuuuuper hard in what to pick between soldier and operative for my kasathan bounty hunter. This hasn't helped me pick lol
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was kind of my point. I wasn't complaining it's bad. I was just deducing that the primary effect of Trick Attack at high levels seems to be debuffing rather than damage from what was shown so far, and that seems like an interesting paradigm shift that I want to explore. It's arguably even a good and needed thing that a martial class specialises on something other than damage.Yep, I figured that was what you meant, and I agree. It's boring to have everyone focusing on the same thing and doesn't yield classes that stand out as much in feel, even as much as we as a community (myself included in my guides and elsewhere) often hone in on expected damage per round in discussions more than we probably should. Also, while as I said soldier gets some neat tricks that can potentially increase her damage even more than the example, operative has some tricks of their own at the higher levels depending on what exploits they pick, including a small-to-moderate chance at one-shotting the enemy.Ooo, now that sounds cool :D still struggling suuuuuper hard in what to pick between soldier and operative for my kasathan bounty hunter. This hasn't helped me pick lol
When in doubt GESTALT!
I'm not too worried about losing equipment. Never had the mentality as a player that my gear was somehow sacred. That said, I am worried about the large amount of dice needed to roll. I know there is a similar issue in 13th Age and having done the whole average roll thing for it, it didn't feel all that fun personally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm will their be new damage types in starfinder? Also will there be a gravity gun or something fun like that?
I second a gravity gun!
In addition to that, I would like a gun that deals sonic damage by shooting concentrated blasts of Vogon poetry at the enemy.
I'm not too worried about losing equipment. Never had the mentality as a player that my gear was somehow sacred. That said, I am worried about the large amount of dice needed to roll. I know there is a similar issue in 13th Age and having done the whole average roll thing for it, it didn't feel all that fun personally.
How's that worse than casters rolling 10+ die?
How's that worse than casters rolling 10+ die?
Or rolling 2-3 dice four or five times?
Exactly. Weapons that do 12d10 at level 20 won't slow the game down any more than a 20d8 spell would. Just roll 4d10 three times.
Praise Asmodeus!
Since we just sent Alien Archive to the printers last week, I can now comfortably say that book has a handful of neat new weapons, both technological and mystical!
I think I just heard a little, "Squeeeee!" come out, but there is no one else around me right now and I don't recall sending a message like that from my brain to my vocal chords. At any rate, I am certain it was in response to the idea that Alien Archive has gone to the printers.
BTW, thanks for answering all my pesky Starfinder questions at the table during the Paizo Banquet!
Since we just sent Alien Archive to the printers last week, I can now comfortably say that book has a handful of neat new weapons, both technological and mystical!
Any chance we might get a few starships as well? I've been hankering to get a good look at Vercite Aetherships ever since Starfinder was announced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not too worried about losing equipment. Never had the mentality as a player that my gear was somehow sacred. That said, I am worried about the large amount of dice needed to roll. I know there is a similar issue in 13th Age and having done the whole average roll thing for it, it didn't feel all that fun personally.How's that worse than casters rolling 10+ die?
Never said it was worse, but it is still a worrying issue. And unless I'm misunderstanding, I imagine that you'll be firing your rifle that does 12d10 damage multiple times in combat. And I'd imagine that everyone else at the table also gets to roll similar amounts of dice for their weapons, no? Same with enemies in combat. The time it takes to gather, roll, count, and sum the dice totals will slow down combat considerably when everyone is doing it, not just the casters. It's an issue that stalled my 13th Age game which has a similar scaling of dice.
Die rollers can mitigate that, but not everyone at my table is comfortable with using those. Grognards are a superstitious lot ;) Also, I don't like having smart phones at my tables because the youngings just can't seem to get off them during the game. I'll definitely wait and see when Starfinder comes out, but consider that a valid worry for the system.
I'm not too worried about losing equipment. Never had the mentality as a player that my gear was somehow sacred. That said, I am worried about the large amount of dice needed to roll. I know there is a similar issue in 13th Age and having done the whole average roll thing for it, it didn't feel all that fun personally.How's that worse than casters rolling 10+ die?Never said it was worse, but it is still a worrying issue. And unless I'm misunderstanding, I imagine that you'll be firing your rifle that does 12d10 damage multiple times in combat. And I'd imagine that everyone else at the table also gets to roll similar amounts of dice for their weapons, no? Same with enemies in combat. The time it takes to gather, roll, count, and sum the dice totals will slow down combat considerably when everyone is doing it, not just the casters. It's an issue that stalled my 13th Age game which has a similar scaling of dice.
Die rollers can mitigate that, but not everyone at my table is comfortable with using those. Grognards are a superstitious lot ;) Also, I don't like having smart phones at my tables because the youngings just can't seem to get off them during the game. I'll definitely wait and see when Starfinder comes out, but consider that a valid worry for the system.
I was thinking about averaging some of the die damage to cut it in half. Instead of 12d10, I might do 6d10+33 or whatever. Wouldn't be a problem with my group to change it, but if I need further incentive I would add more weapon mods (mithril/adamantine magnetic rail accelerator barrel adds 1 damage per unrolled die, so now it does 6d10+39), but if you want to roll ALL the dice, sorry no extra mods.
Editor
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we just sent Alien Archive to the printers last week, I can now comfortably say that book has a handful of neat new weapons, both technological and mystical!Any chance we might get a few starships as well? I've been hankering to get a good look at Vercite Aetherships ever since Starfinder was announced.
This is probably a conversation served better by another thread, but in the most teasing way possible, here's what you will see in Alien Archive: an alien that IS a starship, an alien that can turn into a starship, a sample starship for a familiar alien race, and a starship frame that you'd have to be a real jerk to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
an alien that IS a starship
Better be a space whale.
I was thinking about averaging some of the die damage to cut it in half. Instead of 12d10, I might do 6d10+33 or whatever. Wouldn't be a problem with my group to change it, but if I need further incentive I would add more weapon mods (mithril/adamantine magnetic rail accelerator barrel adds 1 damage per unrolled die, so now it does 6d10+39), but if you want to roll ALL the dice, sorry no extra mods.I'm not too worried about losing equipment. Never had the mentality as a player that my gear was somehow sacred. That said, I am worried about the large amount of dice needed to roll. I know there is a similar issue in 13th Age and having done the whole average roll thing for it, it didn't feel all that fun personally.How's that worse than casters rolling 10+ die?Never said it was worse, but it is still a worrying issue. And unless I'm misunderstanding, I imagine that you'll be firing your rifle that does 12d10 damage multiple times in combat. And I'd imagine that everyone else at the table also gets to roll similar amounts of dice for their weapons, no? Same with enemies in combat. The time it takes to gather, roll, count, and sum the dice totals will slow down combat considerably when everyone is doing it, not just the casters. It's an issue that stalled my 13th Age game which has a similar scaling of dice.
Die rollers can mitigate that, but not everyone at my table is comfortable with using those. Grognards are a superstitious lot ;) Also, I don't like having smart phones at my tables because the youngings just can't seem to get off them during the game. I'll definitely wait and see when Starfinder comes out, but consider that a valid worry for the system.
That's not a bad idea.
That's not a bad idea.I was thinking about averaging some of the die damage to cut it in half. Instead of 12d10, I might do 6d10+33 or whatever. Wouldn't be a problem with my group to change it, but if I need further incentive I would add more weapon mods (mithril/adamantine magnetic rail accelerator barrel adds 1 damage per unrolled die, so now it does 6d10+39), but if you want to roll ALL the dice, sorry no extra mods.I'm not too worried about losing equipment. Never had the mentality as a player that my gear was somehow sacred. That said, I am worried about the large amount of dice needed to roll. I know there is a similar issue in 13th Age and having done the whole average roll thing for it, it didn't feel all that fun personally.How's that worse than casters rolling 10+ die?Never said it was worse, but it is still a worrying issue. And unless I'm misunderstanding, I imagine that you'll be firing your rifle that does 12d10 damage multiple times in combat. And I'd imagine that everyone else at the table also gets to roll similar amounts of dice for their weapons, no? Same with enemies in combat. The time it takes to gather, roll, count, and sum the dice totals will slow down combat considerably when everyone is doing it, not just the casters. It's an issue that stalled my 13th Age game which has a similar scaling of dice.
Die rollers can mitigate that, but not everyone at my table is comfortable with using those. Grognards are a superstitious lot ;) Also, I don't like having smart phones at my tables because the youngings just can't seem to get off them during the game. I'll definitely wait and see when Starfinder comes out, but consider that a valid worry for the system.
I think it is an horrible idea, taking the fun out of the randomness
I think it is an horrible idea, taking the fun out of the randomnessThat's not a bad idea.I was thinking about averaging some of the die damage to cut it in half. Instead of 12d10, I might do 6d10+33 or whatever. Wouldn't be a problem with my group to change it, but if I need further incentive I would add more weapon mods (mithril/adamantine magnetic rail accelerator barrel adds 1 damage per unrolled die, so now it does 6d10+39), but if you want to roll ALL the dice, sorry no extra mods.I'm not too worried about losing equipment. Never had the mentality as a player that my gear was somehow sacred. That said, I am worried about the large amount of dice needed to roll. I know there is a similar issue in 13th Age and having done the whole average roll thing for it, it didn't feel all that fun personally.How's that worse than casters rolling 10+ die?Never said it was worse, but it is still a worrying issue. And unless I'm misunderstanding, I imagine that you'll be firing your rifle that does 12d10 damage multiple times in combat. And I'd imagine that everyone else at the table also gets to roll similar amounts of dice for their weapons, no? Same with enemies in combat. The time it takes to gather, roll, count, and sum the dice totals will slow down combat considerably when everyone is doing it, not just the casters. It's an issue that stalled my 13th Age game which has a similar scaling of dice.
Die rollers can mitigate that, but not everyone at my table is comfortable with using those. Grognards are a superstitious lot ;) Also, I don't like having smart phones at my tables because the youngings just can't seem to get off them during the game. I'll definitely wait and see when Starfinder comes out, but consider that a valid worry for the system.
There is still randomness, albeit less so. Personally, I'd rather have less dice. Still random, just less of a pain.
It's still a large enough amount of dice to be meaningful. The average result of 6d10+33 and 12d10 is the same, but people are more likely to be able to scrounge up 6 d10s to use if they don't play WoD or something, and it's faster to count.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just use a dice roller app. It's thematic.
I do all of my gaming online, so I don't even own dice.
I do a mix of online and face to face. I generally don't allow smart phones at my table (barring people on call) because people have problems staying focused on the game and off their apps. And while I'd love to count on the discipline of my players, sadly it rarely happens
I have the same concerns about "buckets of dice", but in some ways it's better than those "1d8+55" moments you get with high level PCs, where there's almost no randomness due to the die roll being so miniscule in comparison to all the static damage. At that stage there's no point than rolling, but I'm happy with a medium of say about 6 to 8 dice, the averaging of half the dice in those large pools is a good idea.
I'm not too worried about losing equipment. Never had the mentality as a player that my gear was somehow sacred. That said, I am worried about the large amount of dice needed to roll. I know there is a similar issue in 13th Age and having done the whole average roll thing for it, it didn't feel all that fun personally.How's that worse than casters rolling 10+ die?Never said it was worse, but it is still a worrying issue. And unless I'm misunderstanding, I imagine that you'll be firing your rifle that does 12d10 damage multiple times in combat. And I'd imagine that everyone else at the table also gets to roll similar amounts of dice for their weapons, no? Same with enemies in combat. The time it takes to gather, roll, count, and sum the dice totals will slow down combat considerably when everyone is doing it, not just the casters. It's an issue that stalled my 13th Age game which has a similar scaling of dice.
Die rollers can mitigate that, but not everyone at my table is comfortable with using those. Grognards are a superstitious lot ;) Also, I don't like having smart phones at my tables because the youngings just can't seem to get off them during the game. I'll definitely wait and see when Starfinder comes out, but consider that a valid worry for the system.
But that would be at level 20 or so, how often do you playing level 20.
With guns scaling so high in damage will unarmed be at all viable at higher levels?
But that would be at level 20 or so, how often do you playing level 20.I'm not too worried about losing equipment. Never had the mentality as a player that my gear was somehow sacred. That said, I am worried about the large amount of dice needed to roll. I know there is a similar issue in 13th Age and having done the whole average roll thing for it, it didn't feel all that fun personally.How's that worse than casters rolling 10+ die?Never said it was worse, but it is still a worrying issue. And unless I'm misunderstanding, I imagine that you'll be firing your rifle that does 12d10 damage multiple times in combat. And I'd imagine that everyone else at the table also gets to roll similar amounts of dice for their weapons, no? Same with enemies in combat. The time it takes to gather, roll, count, and sum the dice totals will slow down combat considerably when everyone is doing it, not just the casters. It's an issue that stalled my 13th Age game which has a similar scaling of dice.
Die rollers can mitigate that, but not everyone at my table is comfortable with using those. Grognards are a superstitious lot ;) Also, I don't like having smart phones at my tables because the youngings just can't seem to get off them during the game. I'll definitely wait and see when Starfinder comes out, but consider that a valid worry for the system.
I think the intent was that this was to clear up things to make high level play more accessible, no? And truthfully, I'd like the game to be as well done as it can be at all levels. Or else, why even have high level play in the first place?
I think the intent was that this was to clear up things to make high level play more accessible, no? And truthfully, I'd like the game to be as well done as it can be at all levels. Or else, why even have high level play in the first place?But that would be at level 20 or so, how often do you playing level 20.I'm not too worried about losing equipment. Never had the mentality as a player that my gear was somehow sacred. That said, I am worried about the large amount of dice needed to roll. I know there is a similar issue in 13th Age and having done the whole average roll thing for it, it didn't feel all that fun personally.How's that worse than casters rolling 10+ die?Never said it was worse, but it is still a worrying issue. And unless I'm misunderstanding, I imagine that you'll be firing your rifle that does 12d10 damage multiple times in combat. And I'd imagine that everyone else at the table also gets to roll similar amounts of dice for their weapons, no? Same with enemies in combat. The time it takes to gather, roll, count, and sum the dice totals will slow down combat considerably when everyone is doing it, not just the casters. It's an issue that stalled my 13th Age game which has a similar scaling of dice.
Die rollers can mitigate that, but not everyone at my table is comfortable with using those. Grognards are a superstitious lot ;) Also, I don't like having smart phones at my tables because the youngings just can't seem to get off them during the game. I'll definitely wait and see when Starfinder comes out, but consider that a valid worry for the system.
There will be fewer attacks too. That should help.