Search Posts
If you’re not expanding the options, you’re not producing anything. That is a very interesting point of view.
For clarity, I'm asking about.. "...should stop producing SF in it’s entirety..."How did you jump from the subject of races, to the game as a whole?
You concluded this..
So Paizo should stop producing SF in it’s entirely, genius marketing move. ...from this..
...really? I honestly want to know how you arrived at your conclusion.
I think the problem is efficacy when thinking about wielding and using multiple pistols in a turn. Cost, IMO is the least of the concerns. If you are trying to shoot multiple times in a turn you are going to be full attacking. If you are full attacking you are at base -4/-4 (or have a greater minus if more attacks). Unless you are fine with a flurry of misses, something needs to be done about the penalties. Sharpshoot and Pistol Dancer can reduce the penalty by 1. The multi weapon feat can reduce it by another. Weapon Focus can effectively reduce it by yet another. At this point I'd assume you are a soldier. When deciding on a gear boost, I'd point you to either laser accuracy or bullet barrage. Laser accuracy is going to boost your attack bonus by another 1 which will help mitigate the greater penalties at higher levels. Bullet barrage will increase your static damage bonus per hit. Which, because pistols have lower damage dice and only get half your level to damage can really bring a pistols damage back in to significance. It is a tough choice. I think that a multiple pistol wielding character can be viable. But I don't think it can be any bit near as effective as a basic longarm wielder. And an optimized longarm wielder can barely achieve the effectiveness of a basic melee. If you want to build it, I think you should go for it! That said, come to terms with the fact that your combat contribution on a good day will be easily overshadowed by a melee ally on a mediocre day.
I think generally I would prefer the game to came up with reasons why these things that rely on atmosphere would continue to function, rather than diminish options players want to use. But that they have some drawback in certain situations. I think this is a common root for many people. And, I am not at all bothered by some weapons being ineffective or useless in some circumstances. As I said previously, such aspects help make the setting dynamic and interesting. Why should all weapon types work in every situation (except against creature immunities)?
I have been playing society games since season 4 of pf1. I have played with a local lodge, online, and at a several conventions. I feel confident saying that the best that could be said about society scenarios is that every player gets roughly the same content. Table variation is very alive in society play. I also feel compelled to point out that we are discussing hacking in a sci-fi game. Almost everything in setting is computerized in some way. Hacking should be powerful, by concept. Limiting hacking because of an arbitrary "it'll break the story" basically tells players that playing a character that specializes in hacking is a gamble. Maybe you can do what you are supposed to be good at, maybe you will just be blocked from it just because. Realistically, you should just play a combat focused character because you'll always be able to do that. You'll only be able to hack when the story is okay with it. Anecdote: I specifically experienced this situation when I got to play at an author gmed table for SFS. We came across something that reasonably would be hackable (a data pad from a recently downed NPC). I told the GM that my hacking specialized character would attempt to hack the datapad. The GM told me that I couldn't hack it, I would have to pass it off to an NPC to be hacked. It felt like a giant middle finger to Mr and the character that I had built. If a character's ability allows them to break a scenario every great now and then, good for them! Edit: I admit that I have some personal bias on this subject. I have experienced a few occasions with this SFS character, my 701 that is level 13, where my extreme proficiency in computers was essentially turned off for story reasons. It is frustrating.
I guess therein lies a difference between us. I don't see an issue with breaking the narrative. Because, if the narrative is so easily broken, it both wasn't likely a well written narrative, and likely isn't overly interesting. Also, such situations show the quality of a GM. A GM unable to handle narrative breaks caused by a flimsy narrative isn't a good GM. Which is an opportunity to become a better GM.
That is a curious claim. What problems are caused?
I can see an argument that such things are minutiae. However, there seems a difference between how do you construct a enercycle and how do you give a species a sense it didn't previously have? Also it feels significant to me that removing a downside of a species detracts from it being interestingly different than others. For example, why play a ghoran when I could play a khizar that I can just hand wave its sight and verbal speech problem? What is the difference between a hand waved khizar and a human? I accept that some people don't want to play in a dynamic setting. They don't care about details. I've even specifically experienced someone telling me that they don't want discrimination in their setting. I accept it but I surely don't understand it. If there is no significance between options, then why bother with options?
To remind you, I did say khizar "at their base". A species can certainly utilize techno magic whatever to add or change how they interact with the universe. That said, hand waving said addition or change is what I find disappointing. I use khizar as an example because I play one in society. The lack of sense distance added to the experience. It was interesting. That is why I find it disappointing when others hand waive such things, because I think they are missing out and diminishing their own experience.
To me, without a medium, some things won't work. Sonic in vacuum
If your character does not have a visual sense, you have made a choice. The setting is under no obligation to assume that said character lives life just like everyone else. For example, if you choose to play a khizar. At their base, they cannot sense anything more than 30ft away from themselves. There is a decent argument that if a ghost is not making any noise, a khizar could not even detect its presence. Visual identification based recall knowledges are likely auto fails to a khizar because they've never actually seen said symbol or whatever. Choosing to play such characters is a choice. I find it ridiculous when I hear complaints about such chosen hindrances being hindrances.
Despite the higher degree of leeway, the force soles in power armor still struggle in concept. The tiny fields of force energy would appear below your feet, not necessarily the feet of the power armor. Thus, unless in zero g, your character would have to maintain the weight (bulk) of the power armor upon themselves. That said RAW, it does work.
It seems important to note that it could make a difference if the enemy has grab.
The seismic spine does not specify how it works, in concept. The item description is just full of crunch. I see no reason to conclude that the seismic spine doesn't just create a localized electromagnetic field that dampens both sound and drastic changes in charge. As it very well could be a localized field, damage would run through it before making it to the individual's body itself. Any other examples? I appreciate the discussion up to this point. It is solidly reinforcing my decision to default to apply resistance before weakness.
. . . Character X has Resistance 10 because of their armor. Character Y has Resistance 10 because of a cybernetic doohicky. Both are the same species with the same Vulnerability. If order matters, the same 15 point attack will do 10 to the one character, and 20 to the other. Despite having the same Resistance and the same Vulnerability. This is a bad situation, both because its tedious to track ( you need to know not just what a character has, but why they have it ), and poorly balanced ( because nothing in the game is priced around 'order of operation' mattering ).For example?The simple concept is that the damage would be affected by what one is wearing before it actually affects the one.Problem is, this means that two otherwise identical characters will have completely different efficacy, based purely on cosmetic differences. That would be a fairly terrible game design decision. If you have Resistance 10 to X, the effect should be exactly the same regardless of how you got it. Like what cybernetic doohickey?
I completely agree that ssc is dependent upon the people at the table. Two main things influence the fun (as I see it); individual proficiency with the mechanics of ssc and each player's personal feeling need to be/feel important. Without everyone at the table being proficient with ssc, the process gets slowed down. Because it gets slowed down, there tends to be less of a focus on the action story being flavorfully fun in lieu of just being done with it. Some players get detached from what is happening in the game if their actions aren't supremely pivotal to the success of the combat, or at least when they don't seem to be pivotal. In essence, they can't just have fun. Their fun depends on the mechanics. My suggestion is to find folks who are proficient and have a desire to just enjoy the game.
The simple concept is that the damage would be affected by what one is wearing before it actually affects the one.Problem is, this means that two otherwise identical characters will have completely different efficacy, based purely on cosmetic differences. That would be a fairly terrible game design decision. If you have Resistance 10 to X, the effect should be exactly the same regardless of how you got it. For example?
1) The answer is probably "Armors that don't seal against vacuum don't exist." This can likely be explained with "Environmental protections on armors protect against almost all possible hostile environments as a result of the progression of technology. Similar to cameras on current age cellphones., it is just a standard feature." 2) No, they are not hackable in the sense of a mobile device with any wireless connectivity disabled, or essentially air gapped. Physically connecting and hacking would be up to the GM. Reasons why it would or would not work are easy to come up with. Paizo coming out and saying one way or the other via flavor would remove the power from GMs. 3) The OSI model is probably still mostly the same. The difference is the time in which information is transferred. The methods of relaying information is both electronic and magical. So, conceptualizing the intricacies is a struggle for me. Note: the drift is also used.
There is a huge depends here. Does the empire know that you are a kitsune? If yes, then likely a non-person or an assumed criminal. I suspect that if they knew that you were a kitsune, they'd know that you could disguise yourself as a human. The idea of being able to pass as a human (possibly azlanti) likely is unendingly offensive to them. Thus, assumed criminal.
Again, I would ask that there be at least two more 9-12s before another 11-14. So that a non-AP credit character can enjoy that sweet 13-14 tier action. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy playing this level 13 character. But, I'd love for more folks to get the opportunity to play at 13-14.
As far as I can tell, the highest level an SFS character can be is 16. If a character is brought to 12.2 and an AP chronicle of 11-12 is applied, it will become 13.2. Then they play the 11-14, levelling to 14. Then book 1 of DA can bring to 15. And then book 2 of DA can bring to 16. Book 3 could not yet be applied as it can only be applied to a level 17-18.
Also, there's nothing wrong with Alignment, as long as you realize it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. A person doesn't do good deeds because they are LG, they are LG because they do good deeds. Curious, I play my characters the other way around. I pick an appropriate alignment for the character vision and then have that influence my character's actions. They are not completely bound within the designated alignment, mind you. I merely use it as a base for how they react.
It can be that way if you want it to. How do you want the story to happen? Then it happens that way. If you want your alignment to dictate the change, it does. If you want the entropy aspect of the class to change the character from the inside, then it does. There is nothing saying that it does or does not work that way. It is up to you. Have fun telling your story because it seems like it'll be a cool one!
Here is my beef yet again... This is a science fantasy setting. It is clear that technology (with a little magic) makes the mechanisms of society go 'round. There is conflict, because if there wasn't it would not be the fairly combat centric game that it is. There is space and a multitude of planets and systems. In order to get to those planets and systems one must travel. The vehicle of travel is a spaceship. Because conflict exists, peoples have strapped weapons to the spaceships. Because of the weapon strapped starships, starship combat exists. The logical train above seems to me to be obvious. As such I am positively perplexed by complaints like "My character can't contribute in starship combat" and "Why is this scenario gate locked by a computers/engineering check". Is the setting not blatantly obviously clear about what it is? Am I some sort of intuitive genius such that I understand that if I do not choose a tech related skill at character creation, my character will struggle to interact with the setting of the game? I'm so confused. Edit: I would like to express that I am ernest in my confusion. Have I leapt to the conclusions I drew?
|
