Well the Anathema is just damaging the local environment. But I don't feel that a 30ft radius is not enough to "damage the local environment."
The ritual Control Weather probably can if you pull in unnatural weather. But that is the only one that competes with Storm of Vengeance. So you have nothing that can trigger your Anathema until at least 15th level.
In addition to that its very reliant on DM/GM interpretation of what is going to be both unnatural and damaging... Unless you are actually using the only weather/storm spell in the game.
The fact that casting Storm of Vengeance is Anathema to a Storm Druid is... insane. If you are the storm why can't you actually use it. I can cast Volcanic Eruption and Earthquake without consequence. But the Storm spell? Nope, lose your powers.
Sorry, think that was autocorrect.
There is one spell in the whole book that is big enough to have a lasting impact on an area. Storm of Vengeance.
Control Water (5th level and not weather)
Control Weather (8th RITUAL with a 1 day cast)
Is there any spell across ALL books they've ever printed that would cause a lasting WEATHER effect big enough to be anathema besides Control Weather and Storm of Vengeance?
Anathema should give me some concept of how to play my character and what they believe. Animal druid venerates animals, leaf druid venerates pants, wild druid venerates the untamed places of the world, storm druid venerates not having the wrong type of storms in the wrong area?
They need to change Storm Druid Anathema so that it doesn't force them to ignore Storm spells. Also in a way that effects you from early on rather than the end of a campaign.
The plant one says you can't cast fireball in any forested or plains environment.
Animal is harder to break but it still effects you from level 1.
As for Wild, almost every adventurer is fully domesticated. It'll change how you RP the character significantly so long as that's a thing in your group.
Yes but again there is only one storm spell and acid rain IS one of the effects.
Control Weather is a ritual that takes a day to complete. Sure, using that to terrible effect makes sense to me. There is no 'Tornado' spell. There is no 'Hurricane' spell. No monsoon, no, thunderstorm, no powerful rains, no sunny day, nothing.
There IS Storm of Vengeance that causes hail, acid rain, and lightning strikes. So you can perform a day long ritual OR use the only actual storm spell in the game. Wait, no you can't you lose your powers. Storm Druid has no storm. Maybe they can be called lightning druids but that isn't as thematic.
Yes but they made it specifically tied to weather not other natural effects. So earthquake is fine anywhere you want. Also why would an earthquake be fine in a desert and worse elsewhere? More than a few major earthquake zones are not in deserts.
Besides that though a large part of the issue is that it means nothing until at least 15th level as is and then it still says "Don't ever cast the only actual storm spell in the book." If you lose your powers for using storm stuff that damages the environment you can't use Storm of Vengeance. Acid Rain (3d8 damage worth), Hail Stones (3d10 damage worth), 10 bolts of lightning... Ya, the only storm that is castable in the book is Anathema to the Storm Druid.
So Anathema is something that should have a meaningful effect on your character and the concepts and beliefs that shape these characters. All of the Anathema from the other orders are pretty good at this. However Storm Order is much less effective.
"Creating unnatural weather patterns that could be damaging to the local environment (such as by using a 9th-level control weather ritual) is anathema to your order."
This is very open to interpretation of your DM/GM as a first issue. Sooner or later that'll cause issues somewhere.
Second this doesn't matter for your character until at earliest level 9 and that is assuming that you count 'Control Water' as weather. I don't. After that at 15th level you can learn 'Punishing Winds' which makes a tiny area of massive winds which it might count... maybe?
Then the biggest one here is this thing. Storm Druid actually says, "Never, ever, cast the most powerful and only real storm spell in the book. Casting 'Storm of Vengeance' in any location that is not a city is Anathema to you.
As a side note I realise you can be involved as a side participant in a control weather ritual prior to being good enough to lead it yourself and still do something Anathema to your order. However Storm Order as it stands doesn't effect you until high teir 3 90% of the time. Besides that when it does effect you its very much a question of what does the DM/GM think it means and which spells trigger it?
Alexander Bascom wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
This is so painfully wrong that it's insane. You are thinking of Pathfinder 1e again and you need to stop. In Pathfinder 2e if you fail by 10 it's a critical fail no matter what you are doing. If you succeed by 10 you critically succeed no matter what you are doing.
If there is a 25 point swing between the best and the untrained that means any check that actually challenges the best is an Automatic Crit Fail for the untrained. Likewise something that is pretty ok for everyone to try is an Automatic Crit Success for the best. They don't care what they roll. The 5 point swing means this doesn't happen. Skill checks have crit success and fail in this edition as well so anything you do is measured with that +/- 10 swing.
DC 30 at level 20 means the best guy (using no stat bonuses) needs a 7 to succeed and a 17 to crit succeed. While the untrained fails on an 11 and crit fails on a 1. Now we are probably going to see other modifiers in play besides just the stat bonuses but keep these things in mind. If you got no level to untrained skills at all you would just auto crit fail everything you weren't trained in which would make the game horrific.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Remove Blindness/DeafnessRemove blindness/deafness cures blindness or deafness (your choice), whether the effect is normal or magical in nature. The spell does not restore ears or eyes that have been lost, but it repairs them if they are damaged.
Legendary Medic seems to mimic BOTH of these effects, not just one of them. If I rip your eyes from your body the way Legendary Medic is worded, it can fix that. Cure Blind/Deaf... not so much. So before you rant about copying a 5th level ability also look at the fact that you are also copying a 13th level ability without expending any magic.
Rules Artificer wrote:
Go throw a baseball. Even still you hold it in one hand, direct it with one hand. You don't stand straight and statuesque and throw it. It uses the whole of your body to get a good throw. Even if not being 'held' in both hands for the period of the throw your other hand is... lets call it occupied.
A bomb that does only 4d6 damage plus 1 splash damage at level 11! That is weak.
Yes, super weak... for one out of your 3 actions that round. Longsword... 1d8. Bomb 4d6. Yep. Weak.
Now even with a +2 sword (assuming it scales like we think they do, and I'm not convinced that's the case). They've said they can't wait for someone to pick up their first +2 item. We know a +1 adds a dice but I'm not sure that's what a +2 does. But assuming it works like we think it does, it's still 3d8 longsword meets 4d6 bomb. Still the same number of actions.
I don't know what kinds of other dangers or restrictions are involved, but if I could just visit the local apothecary and spend 5 gp for a poison that has a half-decent chance of slowing and maybe KOing my enemy, I would probably poison 100% of my weapons 100% of the time. Obviously drow sleep poison will not be that readily available, but if other poisons are similarly deadly with similarly low costs I can see a massive shift in the percentage of characters that use poison.
And so much this. Also it was listed as 'Item 2' which we don't have a great understanding of yet. If this is in fact a level 2 item however a DC 13 is great. If there are higher level/tier poisons that scale DC accordingly it'll be awesome.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
While this made me laugh really hard I still think this is a narrow interpretation of that ability. Just because a basic shield is +2 didn't mean that a legendary one isn't +5. Not do we have the full extent of the ability. Can you then shield block the damage? Can you build into spell turning/reflect? We just don't have the info yet.
So my only real concern here is with Heal. Define willing creature? If my friend is unconscious is he willing? How about that bleeding it civilian? Is that guy that doesn't know me willing, or the guy who is passed out and dying?
How about the bad guy that we may want to save for whatever reason? The dominated friend we really don't want to kill? If I can use magic to forcibly melt someones face I think we should be able to force healing magic as well.
Perfect balance is basically impossible you realize this right? Also 'Balance' has absolutely no meaning in a debate about 'remove alignment restrictions.' Alignment is NOT balance. They two don't even have the same meaning or context. CN paladin is no more balanced than LG paladin than is a LE paladin.
So... what was this about balance? Also I'm not telling you to play my way. I'm telling you why the book has specific restrictions. Get off your high horse and take a good like at why things are the way they are. You want your alignmentless game go play a home game without it.
Except that isn't the case. By removing restrictions you make that guy who is beholden to a power that is far above him and DEMANDS that he act thus and so... not what it was. Sure you could still play this character. But it would be so less meaningful to play. If that guy could go off and do whatever he wanted and retain all the blessings and powers he had gotten he wouldn't be the same character.
Temptations don't matter when there are no consequence. Power without the work to maintain it is not so much fun. It's what makes a paladin a paladin. Now I'm sure you are going to say, "He could just be beholden to a different god." Or something. Sure he could be. Restriction still exists.
But why is a paladin Lawful? Why are they required to be Lawful? Because they follow the edicts of the god they follow and are expected to follow it to both as written/spoken as well as to the intent. Without this they are a fighter with meh. Monks are the same. They are not lawful persay because they follow the law of the land to a point. They are lawful because they build themselves a regimen that they adhere to daily. Meditation, physical training, study.
Being lawful isn't about following the law of the world, these are cosmic concepts. Law is the opposite of chaos. Law is repetition, adherence to a code or concept, tradition, and order. This doesn't mean a monk can't wander on whimsy but that while doing that he is going to maintain his abilities and studies while he does.
Chaos none of that. Chaos is flipping a coin at a cross roads to see where you are going to go, absolute freedom from expectations, and often a lack of responsibility... or at least taking responsibility. These things stand at odds with one another.
A paladin can't be chaotic because he has to take responsibility and answer to a higher power than himself. A monk can't be chaotic because if he ceases to repeat his training, his studies, and his meditations he will grow no closer to that state of enlightenment. BUT Paizo made a chaotic monk for all of those people that wanted to play one. They called him 'Brawler.'
Smite Makes Right wrote:
As far as I recall the jump attack thing was listed as something you could do with a skill at a master/legend rank not because you were a fighter. Could be wrong but ya, that was what I recall.
As for the Paladin/Cleric/Fighter-sorc/monk-wizard being a holy crusader... why does this system stop you from doing that? In a home game I played a NE wizard that followed Norgorber to the point of living and abiding by the code that his anti-paladin's are supposed to follow. He upheld the tenets, offered sacrifices, abided by everything an absolutely devout follower might do.
If you want to be good at fighting undead/evil/fiends have your character do some research. Seek out weapons and/or spells that work better against your desired enemy and use them. You might not have smite evil but you were never going to get that without a pally dip anyway.
The edit there is beautiful for it's accuracy. As for doing something that is deemed the right thing to do shouldn't change your alignment... if done once. Perhaps twice or a third time depending on what the action is. One time is an outlier. If you continue to follow the same line of action again and again and again that is when your alignment is starting to shift.
I don't like it therefor trap. Love it.
As discussed before this is going to see tons of play. Hey, I'm in a situation right now where I don't need to run away, am in no danger of being dead and want to hit something really hard without much of a concern about missing. I'll give up that -10 and 50% increase fumble chance to hit this guy REALLY hard right now.
That sounds like a total trap to me. Yep. Definitely a trap.
While the issue of who you are killing matters I was speaking in a vacuum. However, 5 evil people to save a saint might matter. 5 nondescript people to save nondescript person I like more is pretty much evil. People sacrificing themselves in the line of their duty is not the same.
Context matters of course, but there is still in the lore of the world a Yes/No answer in there and the exact response of the person is also going to vary by... *gasp* their alignment. A follower of Iomedae is going to react differently than say... Sarenrae.
No. Just because it's left to a DM to interpret doesn't mean the setting itself isn't objective. There are obviously basic actions that are either inconsequential or otherwise unimportant. Is waking up in the morning good or evil? Ya. I get it. That said there are actions that just don't matter. Notice that demons don't practice banditry? Is it still evil? There are still entities out there that can objectively state what is good or evil even if it is through the DM.
I'm not speaking of the idea that a DM makes decisions though. I'm speaking of the legitimate fact that in setting there are objective definitions of what these things mean.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
True. But pathfinder gives us a clear and objective view of what is Good and Evil (or Law and Chaos) but not what it is right or wrong.
This is true. I admit that there is not much that can be said here. And there are always grey areas. That doesn't mean that there isn't one. It can make for some awesomely fun points in a game as well. There are arguments to be made for the kill 1 to save 1000 if you know for a fact that it will work out that way and the repercussions for that choice.
But if it's kill 5 people to save that one person I care about it's probably not doing good or being right.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Again, D&D and Pathfinder are NOT SUBJECTIVE on good and evil. They are OBJECTIVE. There are cosmic and divine forces of GOOD and cosmic and divine forces of EVIL. Without that there could not be an actual alignment system.
Demons and Devil's are evil. They are Angels and Archons that are good. There might be one in a million, one in ten million that is an exception to the rule. But these creatures are ABSOLUTELY good or evil. They are not some in between as are the gods that lord over these creatures. They have moral validity because they are so aligned with what that part of the cosmetology stands for.
As for the characters, no. Their intent and belief of what they are has no place in what they actually are. A serial killer that has voices in his head telling him that he is slaying demons but is cutting down innocent after innocent is NOT a good person because he believes he is killing demons. Now perhaps he is not evil until he is presented with facts and continues to do what he's doing anyway.
The character's acceptance of moral authority might matter for that character's RP. That doesn't mean that any entity of good is going to deem them good because they THINK they are good. That doesn't mean a god of good is going to grant them powers when every action they've taken is evil. These things matter and it's more than just a characters opinion on them.
See there is the problem again - a CG person can follow and choose to follow a LN god. The problem is only related to Clerics. As you are being pedantic, I will grant - I mean a N god in the case of this cleric - A CN character can follow a N god - but if they case protection from evil 5 times they turn CG and loose powers - my example has a small mistake and the point wasn't impacted, but I am certainly glad you spent so many words to show how wrong I was - but I think you missed the point.
I did not miss the point, admittedly 5 spell casts might to far to few. However a cleric should be trying to emulate their chosen god which means that they are going to more toward his alignment and way of thinking and not away from it. If they do something that shifts their alignment to the point that they are thinking differently than they should be for his service he is going to stop giving them power.
Your CN person following a N god casts a ton of good spells but never an evil spell. He's not being neutral is he? He's being good. He casts a ton of evil spells and does evil things exponentially more than he does good things. Still not being neutral is he?
The idea of 'I want to be able to do whatever I want without consequence to my moral standing' is where the difference is. How many shows/movies/stories have one of the bad guys becoming a good guy or at least helping out in the end? These are alignment changes. Some go so far as to have good guys become bad guys. Alignment change. Watch the last season or two of Burn Notice. Alignment changes. They happen. Use them. They are great story devices. If you and your players can't handle that I'm sorry but you might want to stay in the dungeon and murder all the things and ignore the narrative world that evolves with the story.
Is there really a problem with trusting your players to put down how they feel their character acts? You keep acting like I believe all GM's are out to be malicious - but every argument you make assumes the exact opposite - that the GM is making arguments in good faith while the players are out to cheat the system somehow.
I trust my players to put down exactly what they think their character acts like. I do not trust my players to always be accurate to how their character actually is. There are cosmic alignments in the setting and things change. They might have started out as CG but that doesn't mean they are going to stay that way forever and always.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
There is another thing here though. One, what your character accepts as a moral authority is not relevant. Again, cosmic forces dictate what is and isn't right. They might not accept that but it doesn't matter in the large scheme of things. They either ARE wrong or right OBJECTIVELY given that the gods themselves stand for these alignments and what they mean. They might think they are LG, doesn't mean they are LG.
Second a Balor punching you in the teeth could mean you are doing something so incredibly good that a Balor was sent out to deal with you. It could also mean that the Balor is just being a Balor and punching you in the teeth sounded like fun before he decides to eat you alive. An Empyreal however is the embodiment of what it is to be good. They aren't going to intervene in something that doesn't directly require them to.
I really do love all the 'Having to raise my shield is terrible' talk. One way or another using a shield is active. Are you moving your body to get the shield in the right position to block an attack? You are actively thinking about and using it. Are you moving your arm to put your shield in the way of an attack? You are actively thinking about and using it.
Not to mention there is one other step here that people aren't getting yet. Swing, swing, block is not a bad thing in this edition. Forgoing that -10 swing is forgoing a 50% increased chance to fumble and possibly get slapped for it while increasing your AC by (lets say 2) 2 and decreasing your chance to be crit by 10%. That's not a terrible action.
Now we have Expert, Master, Legendary equipment that for weapons gives a +1, +2, or +3 to hit. Possible that will transfer to shield AC. Then suddenly that +2 for raise shield is not a +5 for raise shield and the chance to be crit went down 25%.
I'm not calling a play style dumb. I'm calling a singular feat that is the root of the damage scaling problem in all of 3.x style systems dumb. If that entails the whole of your play style in just that one feat... I think it speaks for itself.
There is a reason it's a feat tax to any melee character in the game that isn't a dex build. Oh right. Dex builds... ya doesn't work does it? Why not? Oh, right. Can't take PA.
There are a couple builds that use it I know but they are supplemental to someone dealing real damage and not all that powerful themselves. A single feat that is this overly powerful IS a problem and always has been. You might being able to look at the DM and tell him you just hit for 20051asdf204 damage. Doesn't mean it hasn't always been a problem.
Yes, blasters have been sub optimal since oh... when was that again? 3.0 when PA became the thing it is now ya? Hmm... awfully suspicious.
Now that said, is static damage fun? Sure, I know what I'm going to do and don't even need worry about dice. But what's the point of a dice game without dice? I've never been a fan of so many stupid static bonuses that my actual weapon attack doesn't matter besides, "Is it a 2h weapon?". That's silly.
Honestly the damage PA has been needing a rework for about as long as it's existed. The answer was either, allow everyone to have something akin to PA with a 2-hander for damage numbers or rework it. Now why do I say give everyone something like that? Because if you don't you fall back into the same problem we have now. All the PA-ers win and no one else does. Also feat tax.
Besides that to go along with that same problem then you run into the 'Why does this dragon in the Bestiary have 2500 hp?' 'Oh because he needs to live more than 2 rounds with a party of 4 18+ characters beating on his face.' As you have been saying, THAT IS A DESIGN PROBLEM. "Here's a meat wall, beat on it until it dies, have fun."
PA is the dumbest feat in the book. Static damage numbers about 20 are just flat stupid. My GREATSWORD is capable of dealing 2-12 points of damage. WITHOUT the sword I deal twice that. Why do you have a sword again? Just rip the enemies apart with your hands.
Now, I do hope magic and rogues and such are balanced around this, but I think they probably will be.
My point was that casters have along with say, anyone who wasn't power attacker, relied upon RNG dice numbers for as long as we've been playing 3.x/Pathfinder. We haven't died because of it. And your argument is narratively stupid. "I want to know how many swings it's going to take to kill this dragon." Answer - You shouldn't have a clue. Your character doesn't know how much health that monster has. You shouldn't walk in, look at a monster and be like... "Hmm... I can take this guy down in... eight or ten hits with my axe. Give me, hmm, ten... no twelve seconds." That's dumb.
Yes, more dice introduces more random chance and less reliable known damage. That is a GOOD thing. You hit him, just because you hit him doesn't mean you should chunk 1/5 of his HP off every swing BEFORE dice. You hit means you did damage. It doesn't mean you landed an impactful solid blow. You'll get over it or keep playing P1. If not you'll get over it.
This adds potentially more burst damage and less constant damage. However that allows people like say... the rogue to not just be terrible by comparison. Why play a rogue? We have PA Fighter/Barb/Paladin for all that damage. Have fun! Ya, no thanks. I've seen enough of that.
See there's a problem again. A CG person would not choose to follow a LN god. CG and LN philosophies don't match. CG likes to go out, drink beer, have a good time with friends, and overthrow the tyrant. LN in a lot of ways may support that very tyrant, tell you how much beer you are allowed to drink, and put up a curfew about when you need to be home and not hanging out with friends. One does not go well with the other. They are very opposed ideals.
A person who was staunchly CG would never make it through the training to be a cleric and the likelihood a LN god would grant that person spells is almost non existent. Why? Because they can't be sure that the person is going to use that magic to further the gods cause which is EXACTLY what a cleric is supposed to be doing. Furthering the goals of their deity.
Likewise if something causes your alignment to change the god may well cease granting you those powers that he's been giving. Why? Because your alignment is your absolute concept of how the world works, sure it can change with your character but a god isn't going to have someone with entirely opposite ideals to his own being given power when that power may counteract everything he is working toward. So yes, it can screw your character over. Welcome to Roleplaying.
A) Your god gave you lemons, find a new god.
Have you ever in your life thrown a fireball? That is very pathfinder. Take xd6 roll. Damage. Yay. Do you see my static pluses there? Good. Neither do I.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
I'm not arguing with you here but just wanted to point out that even if characters consider themselves right or wrong holds no relevance to the fact of IF they are right or wrong. Gods of both good and evil exist and therefor there is a definitive answer as to what IS right or wrong. The character might THINK they did right and then get slapped in the face by a Empyreal. That's a pretty big sign that you were, in fact, wrong.
See, you might have a point here... if you had a point. Alignment is NOT SUBJECTIVE in the setting of D&D or the setting of Pathfinder. Want to know why? Asmodeus is not in ANY WAY good, he is OBJECTIVELY evil. He would not say he was GOOD. He might say he is RIGHT but not GOOD. Rovagug is not in ANY WAY good, he is OBJECTIVELY evil. Sarenrae is OBJECTIVELY good. Iomedae is OBJECTIVELY good.
In a setting where there are gods and creatures that embody the very philosophy of what it is to be GOOD or EVIL there is not subjectivity in that. There are forces that rule the universe that put out OBJECTIVE meaning to what good and evil are. You might think or try to reason what is SUBJECTIVELY good, or that your evil character BELIEVES that he's doing good. It doesn't make him good.
Has someone written a concise post convening the DC70 so we can all FAQ it and make sure it's not just a mistake?
We will get nothing until tomorrow or Friday at the earliest. Any official errata isn't going to hit until GenCon either starts or is in good swing.
Besides that, this thread has the math and other elements in it that is needed, as well as the DC 70 concept being posted on their possible errors thread that Owen said he was watching for things to address.
You are right, I apologize.
That said saying it's possible is still wrong. It is only a possibility when the stars align and the sleeper in R'lyeh wakes. Yes, perhaps possible in those situations it is not possible for everyone, or even close to MOST of everyone. Using an outlier as proof of something is is a horrible idea. Sure you "can" do it. But it's never going to work.
It's like quoting Henry Ford, "You can have it in any color you want as long as that color is black."
Except in this case it's, "You can do this with any race that you want as long as that race is Lashunta."
The point he's making is yes, everything 'possible.' It's possible under the absolute best circumstances and situations. It's 'possible' if you are Lashunta master race. It's 'possible' if you min/max everything at the cost of everything else.
It is NOT possible if you are playing anything other than those specific circumstances, races, or one of two classes. So yes, if I min/max a soldier into INT I can do engineering stuff with him IF he's a Lashunta or Ysoki. But when are you going to literally EVER see that character? It's just not going to happen.
You are assuming that every single person in the game is Lashunta WITH the student in the ability they are doing, or a Ysoki engineer or a Shirren captain. STOP.
Also, your calculations are always giving your people the absolutely BEST circumstances. Such as, using a SHUTTLE at tier 20 as an example of 'you can make piloting checks as long as you are doing this thing.'
It's a poor argument technique, learn better ones. Or you know, do relevant to the problem math. Such as, you are a Human, a Vesk, a Android, a Lashunta who put student points in things that aren't going to help with this one singular specific task, a Ysoki captain, a Shirren engineer, or anything else that isn't so stupidly maximized as 'everyone is playing Lashunta with student in their starship role that supports my claim that every class can do their part because they are the single best race in the game to prove things with.' Also, stop bringing up the one and only relevant theme as a way to say all ship actions are possible.
Also I'm not sure how many times I have to point out that we are going to see a fair number of characters that don't start the game with 18's in one stat, even less likely so that they can specialize into space combat.
In your engineering example earlier, did that soldier start with an 18 int? Because that's just stupid on part of the character. Like... absurd levels of stupid. He might do ship stuff alright occasionally but he's not worth anything anywhere else.
TLDR - Asari superiority isn't a valid arguement for every class is capable of doing this thing we are talking about.
Except that it's really not. You are relying there on two feats that are both insight bonuses. Skill Focus is a +3 insight bonus and Skill Synergy is a +2 insight bonus and thus don't stack.
9 stat 9
Still can't make 70 on a roll of a 20. A Ysoki can do it as can a Lashunta who decided it wanted Engineering as it's racial. But that's it, and that is with the captain deciding buffing you for a 10% chance is worth trying, which it really isn't. I'd rather reinforce a sure thing than try to support a long shot that is 90% certain to fail.
Awesome actions will NOT be used if their chance of success is only 10%. If they are ~30% people might use them. This also doesn't solve the issues that for the captain to give someone another action he has to use one of the two computer +10's which ensures that whatever extra action is granted can't be a big one, nor can almost anything else done that turn because all of those checks are being done at -10.
This is also again assuming that you started with an 18 in a relevant stat and can do literally nothing else with your character save punch things or shoot them with a gun or talk your way out of stuff or or or or or or.
The real problem is actually that this makes Envoy and Operative the absolute best starship characters in the game and shoehorns soldiers and solarians into gunners. It also kicks most mystic characters in the mouth.
I don't disagree with most of what you said here. The problem is that police officer (high tier driver) could get into the SL2 and burn donuts around an equivalent tier in the Lambo. That's because the Lambo's DC might be 64 where the SL2 is 16. Guess who wins.
I'm not saying that things need to be a cake walk at high tier. I'm saying that you should be able to do them and have improved in doing them in some meaningful way besides, 'I can now also do this other new thing if I make my check.'
A system where your check to do the exact same thing always stays the same or actually grows steadily harder removes the feeling that you are getting better as a character. When there is no feeling of progression or improvement what's the payoff? I won't argue that pulling trick turns in a Juggernaut should be very hard. Flipping a full 360 in a fighter though shouldn't be by that level. (I know these things are not the hardest DC's in the book but I'm just using them to illustrate this.)
My thoughts exactly. There is the high performance vehicle arguments people have been making but they are a bit of a fallacy. Yes, the vehicle has more power but driving it is roughly the same as any other vehicle until you put more power down. When you do it is a bit harder to -learn- to control but one you have that understanding the new things the extra power allows you to do are open to you.
Sure, if you fail the consequences are much higher. But pressing down a gas petal, pulling a lever, or pressing 'execute' on a computer are not harder from one vehicle to the next.
A turn and burn might require you to cut power to the engines, flip the ship around and reengage the power in six seconds. At tier one you might have to do this manually. At tier 20 why is there not a built in way to do this, or sine rapid access because you are some hotshot pilot that knows what he's doing? By that point this should be something you are really prepared to execute without question.
Also as gigyas stated in another thread, if I just keep my tier 10 ship but continue level I'll be in a much better place in regards to skill checks and ability performances than someone upgrading at every opportunity.
At tier 10 the highest DC is 40. Now I'm 20th level and might just autopass.
I'm fighting a tier 20. He'll succeed medium checks 30-40% of the time, hard checks much, much less if at all. We can win this just by out outmanuvering him because we don't even need dice to do anything that isn't shooting.
The problem is that all these cool things I can do with a ship are getting harder because I'm leveling up. I can take a tier 1 ship and 'Flyby' without lifting a dice. To do so in a tier 20 I would need a 55. The more powerful ship should be compensating some for this action when to a tier 1 ship it's a joke when using the same pilot.
When using a level appropriate pilot it's a DC 17 vs 55. Still well over a 50% probability for a non min/max build.
Because saying, "Quick! Do a barrel roll!" Is clearly the hardest thing ever ever.
The problem isn't that they are hard. At level 6 the DC is 28, Dard but obtainable. At level 20 it's so stupidly niche that is not worth even building for. Also, hope gig are an Envoy or an Operative because if not... well get out, we'll hire someone new.
This didn't even account for having to use the computer bonus for the captain to grant another action which is going to be severely limiting to the team because they now have one fewer bonuses to use. This ensures that this bonus action is going to be pretty mundane, as is the rest of everyone's actions because you just didn't buff anyone by +2 or +4 AND you used one of the two +10's.