GDNS24's page

Magic hacks are where some of that scaling by level can be realized. Debug Spell increases your average damage and improves at 11th and 17th.

Honestly, most of those seem kind of bad to me; not enough to compensate for what was dropped. A couple of them caught my interest, though (heal grenades, anyone?)

Dunno if it's unique, but the devs have stated on several occasions that the term "fluff" is perceived as belittling and disdainful.

Must be a Paizo thing. Regardless, I'll use “Lore” later.

Please don't use the word "fluff". Lore, background, setting is all fine, but "fluff" is borderline derogatory.

Is that some unique community thing with Paizo?

I don't mean to be rude, but I've been using fluff and crunch for years; you're the first to ever express the viewpoint to me.

Spell slots are power points, just fixed so that you can't spend all your points on your highest spell.

In a system where most of the spells increase in effectiveness without having to spend higher level spell slots to get it, that works out. In a system where most spells are either locked into one level of effectiveness (explosive blast) or have completely different effects based on which slot you use (fly), it's not so good.

GDNS24 wrote:

Paladinosaur wrote:

I don't think you can cast a 6th level spell with a 1 level slot.

Some of the spells, like fly, have varying effects based on which spell slot you cast them with. In the original pathfinder, the effects of the fly spell are based on caster level.

It's actually the undercasting mechanic from Occult Adventures, found here. They just made it a core premise instead of something they came up with later. I'm not sure why being able to use a fly spell to cast levitate or feather fall with a lower level spell slot is a downgrade, though...it seems like an upgrade to me.

In Pathfinder, and many other systems, spellcasting follows a mixed power/skill mechanic. As you level up, you gain more power (more spell slots, power points, whatever) and the spells you can already cast are cast with greater skill (i.e., fireball does more damage as you level up, fly has a longer duration, etc).

An undercasting core mechanic, as implemented in Starfinder, completely strips out the skill half of the equation, and the only thing you are left with is power. You never actually gain any skill, per se; you just gain power (additional spell choices) and a different kind of power (more spell slots). It removes a lot of the growth, and the changing gameplay thereby, that made casters great.

I kind of like the option of using one spell selection to create a multitude of effects, but that doesn't make the core flaws more palatable to me.

The system would be more acceptable to me if it replaced spell slots with power points, ala Ultimate Psionics; it would have the same effect, but with a flexibility that at least partially compensates for the loss of skill. It would also be better in keeping with the fluff descriptions of magic use as less regimented, more encompassing.

Nevertheless, it is a reason many groups do not love it. Kind of how I hate confusion effects.

Fair enough.

I don't think you can cast a 6th level spell with a 1 level slot.

Some of the spells, like fly, have varying effects based on which spell slot you cast them with. In the original pathfinder, the effects of the fly spell are based on caster level.

Even with 30-Second Turns, if no one can reach the enemy, the combat drags on and on.

That sounds more like an appropriate use problem than a problem with the spell. A confined area is a poor area for a black tentacles placement.

Oh, it's popular for sure. But, it is a frustrating spell that (when it works) makes combat a slog. I'm very glad it's not included.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Starfinder was marketed as Pathfinder 2.0. All the interviews I read made pains to point out that it was a brand new game system that shared a setting with Pathfinder.

If you've got links to some of those interviews, I'd like to see them. If it turns out my perception was wrong, I'd like to go back and edit my review to correct that mistake.

As for the slog, I can't say I ever experienced that. Maybe it's because most of my GMs enforced some variant of the 30-Second Turn.

That black tentacles was called a "best-loved spell" made me laugh.

It was an excellent spell in 3.0/3.5. It wasn't quite as good in Pathfinder, but it was still one of the best mid-level crowd control spells available. Out of 8 groups and multiple online boards over the years, I can't remember a social setting in which it wasn't at least recommended.

Maybe you and I just had different kinds of groups?

Alright, I've posted my (hopefully) comprehensive 15,319 character, 2,570 word product review. Thanks to both ericthecleric and Rysky for your help and advice. If anyone has any questions or comments, or just thinks I'm an idiot and wants to say it to my computer screen, I'll be checking back here every now and then.

Also, thanks to the Paizo staff for allowing me a large enough character limit to make said review. It was a rare pleasure, and I hope you like it, find it useful, or both.

It’s the blue text right under the Average Product Reviews header.

Found it. Thanks.

I don't think it let me actually post the review though, since it redirected me to the paizo blog tab when I clicked "save changes".

How do I go about writing a review of this game? I'm not seeing an option in the Product Reviews tab