The problem I'm sure we understand but I'm not sure if they noticed, is that some classes are particularly hurt by taking an archetype, significantly more than others. In addition, feats are typically strong in Starfinder, whereas some of these class features are not near as strong as feats.
At least with some limitation to how often you could take the feat, "Extra Class Feature" feats would promote more archetype use. You'd see less of people taking weapon proficiency feats just because it's the best/only good option, and you'd have people take archetypes, which are really interesting thematically.
I'm definitely allowing the feats proposed in that other thread somewhere around here. Maybe you can take it only once for each of these class levels you've obtained: 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th.
I too love archetypes in theory. But in practice, it means that you're missing a large chunk of your class features for awhile. Like. A really significant portion of them.
For Envoys, if you take Phrenic Adept for example, you only gain Envoy Improvisations, arguably the main class feature of the class, at levels 1, 8, 10, 14, 16, and 20. There's a 7 level gap of main class features in there. Sure you get expertise talents and stuff, which aren't nothing, but sure aren't improvisations.
I hope you like your Envoy Improvisation that you pick at level 1, because it's all you'll have for months of gameplay. In exchange for your level 2 improvisation, you get telepathy if you didn't already have it. You can take some feats with less requirements now. Your level 4 improvisation, when you'd normally be able to debuff and attack in one turn, gets switched out for a boost to a very specific kind of save if you spend a resolve. For your level 6 improvisation, you have Arcane Sight that you also have to spend a resolve for. Also blindsense (emotion).You don't actually get anything particularly interesting from the archetype for a loooooong time, and you've been stuck with 1 of 10 different improvisations for months of gameplay until you finally get to level 8 and pick up another one. At level 9, you can cast a spell once per day.
Envoys should uhh... be sacrificing expertise talents for most of this stuff. Or bonuses to expertise die. The other archetype gives up less, and gives some interesting options actually, but still leaves you with a total of 1 improvisation for 7 levels.
I like the concept of Starfinder's archetypes, but they should maybe have some sort of errata to make them more accessible. Either the archetypes need to be better, or they need to sacrifice significantly less.
I really want to like the archetypes coming in Pact Worlds, especially since they sound so cool. But I need them to be VIABLE in gameplay. Not just have a cool flavor to them.
They might have been referring to the handy haversack of hilarity right beneath you.
amazon has it scheduled for nov.7, are we still talking oct or is amazon correct?
Amazon is its own entity with completely separate often unrelated release dates. For some reason, this is particularly bad with Paizo products. It’s something on Amazon’s side. Unless they change the date on here, October 18th is still the release date.
Weren't Lashunta Sexually Dimorphic Pre-Gap? What changed?
Easy mistake to make, given how we didn't know all the information. Cause it was changed. Retconned. Not everybody is a fan of the change, but I think most people either are, or don't care.
I neeeeeeeeed the book. But more importantly, actually, I want a graphic novel about what's going on.
I'm getting confused by the long comparisons to mechanics of a (video?) game I've never even heard of.
Oh man. I know the games, but I feel you.
Oh. And Fates is alright, but while I liked the mechanics of Fates better, Awakening had a better story and better protags. The excuse for the existence of children characters in Fates is dumb too.
I can mostly drown out a lot of the negative, because I think it's probably likely that some things are overlooked, particularly outside of the classes. Also, I am pretty in the school of thought that the adventurers CAN'T be built wrong as long as the player is happy with it. I really just like all the data being shown here.
Honestly, it was weird that it ever did anything else. Running fast does not make you more accurate. You're basically doing 2 move actions, something that would normally already be a turn, and then you get a standard action attack anyways, and with a bonus for actually no reason? Like, there's more momentum, but you're probably swinging more wildly too. There's a lot of tell to you charging too. It should be reasonably easier to dodge a charge than a normal attack.
I personally feel that while OP has been possibly outwardly pessimistic, that's due to real fears in a lot of places. While I personally disagree with her about Lashuntas, I can understand that it is a change that was made rather suddenly.
However, I'm also quite glad to see her views in most cases, and particularly glad to see this topic, as it has provided a wealth of Starfinder information.
Back on track, is it possible you might be able to tell me anything about the Mechanic that you did like? I have a friend who's been looking to play one.
Or anything about Themes that you liked as well. Less general, more specific. Any cool or standout abilities?
It sounds like the aim was for less lethal PVP. If you have a PC rules boss, they will be hard to hit and inaccurate.
So closer to how bosses work in video games?
I would assume they take PVP into account, even if actual players aren't facing eachother in combat. Every enemy that isn't a monster is probably built using the PC rules, and in Pathfinder, that means you have a lot of squishy characters who should be bosses but go down in a round or two. If the leader of this cult is a spellcaster a few levels higher than you, why should they go down in just a few hits? If the fight against the big bad takes longer without having to artificially pad it, I think that's great.
There's also a bit in here about enemies cheating now. That they're breaking the rules now. But exactly what rules were they following beforehand? The Tarrasque wasn't built by somebody by rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest for each stat. It wasn't built with point but either. I'd love to know what the racial stat modifiers were at character creation. Perhaps I can use that race in my next game. Man. They got really good dice rolls at character generation. I'd love to know what class gave them the ability to fire 6 spines at 120 ft for 2d10 damage. Im not seeing that in the statblock.
Unless what happened is they came up with what they thought would be a good and interesting challenge and then worked really hard to reverse engineer the ability scores and feats from there to get to the stats they wanted.
Apologies if my snark levels got a bit high. But the tldr of it is that I believe this will lead to more interesting gameplay that involves less work for the GM. And it probably won't be noticed by most players.
ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH
I might add Matt Mercer's rules for character deaths. Though maybe increase the amount of time that you have to resurrect them to a week. Depending on the state of the body. Maybe gentle repose to extend it longer? Sometimes you can be very far from home, and that adds drama too.
Yeaaahhhhhh. Not counting PFS stuff, they still come out with like, a Campaign Setting, a Player Companion, and a chapter of an Adventure Path every month. It's kind of absurd actually. Gonna cancel my Player Companion soon and my Adventure Path subscription after the next AP is done. Otherwise I'll go poor for Paizo.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
That's the best 3rd party news I've heard in awhile. Now I just gotta focus my hopes on making sure you guys did right by the Grippli race.
Can you say if there's any archetypes in here?
I'm definitely throwing myself into the crowd that's scared of putting 7th-9th level spells in Starfinder, if Starfinder is built around 1st-6th. On some level, it feels like it's adding 10th-12th level spells to Pathfinder. Like, that is just TOO overpowered.
What I figure though is that Technomancers and Mystics DO have some access to 7th-9th level spells, even if not through spell slots or spells known. If both Starfinder and Pathfinder classes have access to 9th level spells, it's not as bad.
Where I'm still shakey however is that 9th level spellcasters traditionally gain spellslots and spell levels far faster than 6th level casters. If Mystic and Technomancer are inherently worse spellcasters than Wizards and Clerics, well... I guess it's a good thing this is a third party book.
Could somebody check out my account and subscriptions too? My main concern is that the Starfinder Core Rulebook isn't listed in my Upcoming Subscription Shipments, even though I have the subscription. I think everything else on there is fine, but I just wanted it to be looked and and to make sure everything is in order.
Mark Seifter wrote:
All of my magic DCs are 10+1/2 level+stat? Just like the class abilities?
I have the main Starfinder Roleplaying Game subscription, but the core rulebook isn't listed as shipping soon like all the other subscriptions and orders.
I think unrelated, but the Starfinder Core Rulebook Pawn Collection is listed as shipping with a later subscription? Will that just be with the August shipment too?
To be fair, the average amount of time it takes a human wizard in Pathfinder is 7 years. Give or take. But Harry Potter spellcasters start school a little earlier.
As far as we know, there's actually 2 weapons at least that do 1d810. The Sarcesian's Sniper Rifle from First Contact is one. The second one is the advanced melee weapon: "Plasma Sword. Shock Truncheon. Pulse Gauntlet. Fangblade. Monowhip. Cryopike. Tactical Doshko. Swoop Hammer. Devastation Blade. Repeller staff."
Sources: First Contact for the Sniper Rifle, and this post: here for the second.
Note: The first is a typo, the second is a joke about the first. In case it wasn't clear.
Yeah. Things got complicated.
I actually think Alchemist is a great example of another point. Granted, this has only been true for under half of the Alchemist's life as a class, but it is currently true. If you want to play a class that uses Alchemy without Bombs, a key Alchemist class feature, you can also play as an Investigator.
What I think is that now most classes have very few class features that aren't talents, and if you don't like one of the class features, then the class may not be correct for you.
If you want an Operative that gives up Trick Attack, some skillfullness, and some sneakiness for a higher BAB and more combat abilities, you may actually want to just play a Soldier.
If you want to play an Envoy that gives up buffing their allies for Trick Attack, just play an Operative instead.
A Mystic that uses a different spell list and also blends Technology with Magic? Technomancer.
It looks like the defining abilities are few and far between for the most part, and that there will likely be ways to do what you want without resorting to Pathfinder archetypes.
On another note. What's also exciting about say, archetypes that alter how spells are cast is that some people don't have to worry about there being no prepared spellcasting if you just make it an archetype.
Edit: I'll also take this space to mention that Archetypes might list ways that their abilities affect your core class abilities. For example, an Archetype for harnessing your inherent draconic bloodline might give you a small list of bonus spells known if you're a spellcaster, but a higher BAB class without spells might gain more powerful claws than normal. And yes, I'm insinuating that you guys should definitely turn Bloodlines into Archetypes.
Or there could even be different archetypes that have the same overall feel to them. Maybe a Draconic Archetype for Casters and another for Non-Casters.
TBH one thing I'm actually not fond of with these new archetypes is a side effect of their being universal, which is that it will make it that much harder to expand upon the options within a single class. Yeah at least most every class so far has their 'talent' system, but what if, for instance, a later book wanted to, say, take a look at a mechanic that didn't have an AI companion, or even just add different options for the AI and related abilities based on that. In Pathfinder this would be easily done through an Archetype, but now... well, depending on how variant the concept is from the base class it might just not be possible. For instance, look at stuff like the Mindblade and Eldritch Archer Magi. Maybe a talent could manage Ranged Spellstrike, but Mindblade would virtually have to be a new class.
I actually had some of the same concerns, and still do at some level. One of the things that helped me though is that that might actually be incorrect. While I'm not sure that every class is like this, it feels like Starfinder did take some cues from 5e, whether intentional or not. The themes/backgrounds thing is the easiest to see, but where this helps us is with subclasses. It appears that new subclasses will be one of the better ways to customize classes in Starfinder, and they might be able to release new ones every main book.
Like how a Mystic picks Connections or Operatives pick Specializations. I suspect on some level, Connections are more important to your character than Domains were. Very similar to how Domains are more important in 5e than they are in Pathfinder. But I'm not sure that every Starfinder class has subclasses actually.
That said, originally, archetypes weren't actually part of Pathfinder in the first place. And Pathfinder has been really good about allowing customization outside of Archetypes too. The Fighter is a really good example of that. As the game grows, I'm sure character customization will still continue to grow as well.
Yeah. Every game I play where you summon stuff generally doesn't limit your number of summons. I guess final fantasy does. That's it? It makes sense from a gameplay standpoint though to only be able to summon 1. And I would be very surprised if they were allowed better action economy than the new pet class.
From a story standpoint, maybe it's just another aspect of magic that was either lost or changed somehow. There probably won't be an in book explanation. It's just part of the way that magic works now. Can't hit 1 person with more than 1 magic missile, and you can't summon more than 1 monster. If that's even how it works.
I think not using The Gap in a game will be pretty standard. I mean a lot of characters will obviously have knowledge that it happened, and some of the longer lived races might have a large chunk of their lives missing, but hasn't it been a few hundred years since the gap ended? Most people probably have lives that aren't really all that effected by it. Like, society is, but so far, not even any of the iconics have referenced it.
Sir RicHunt Attenwampi wrote:
Well, I'm sure they're somewhere on the sliding scale of biological creature to robot. Prince Robot IV, despite having "Robot" in his name, might actually be more biological than androids. What with his people being able to giving birth and all.
Spell Gem of Dominate Person and Spell Gem of Teleport. These Spell Gems will likely be vital to playing a spellcaster in Starfinder. Or at least to the way I'll play spellcasters. Hopefully not. I know I'm not supposed to spend the whole day trying to blast without a blaster.
Honestly, I'm hella glad that prepared is out. Just from a gameplay standpoint. It is so much easier to teach somebody to play a Sorcerer than it is to teach somebody to play a Wizard. And so often newbies DO want to play a Wizard. Sure, they're both spellcasters, but they're completely different in flavor, and they might even have read somewhere that "Wizards are superior" to all other classes. Druid and Cleric had much the same problem. Like, they're cool concepts, but hard to inform a new player how to use.
If we want prepared casting, I think it should certainly be an option. Maybe as an archetype? But such a complicated game mechanic should have never been tied to some of the coolest flavor in the game, when there's something significantly simpler to use. You shouldn't have to earn your character flavor by having read the rulebook 20 times to get the system mastery right.
I actually am NOT completely happy with the way spellcasting looks like it works btw, but I'm also aware that the system isn't even out yet. I was very much expecting spells known to be way more chill, like an Arcanist or a 5e caster, where you just pick your spells known each day. Mystics for the same reason Clerics can change out their spells every day, and Technomancers for the fact that it seems like they should be able to learn about new spells all the time, and seem like the class that studies for magic. Like, they have to learn how to do it. They went to space-wikihow and learned a new spell that they can cast. Not just at new level ups, but just learned.
Who knows. Maybe it is more chill than I expect. But right now, spells known and spells per day seem really scary to me.
Hold up a sec... Ikeshti? Do Lizardfolk have a new name for themselves in Starfinder? Or am I missing something?
I always figured it was just that adventurers called them "Lizardfolk", and that they were never corrected. Or if they were corrected, the adventurers just didn't care. Probably because they were murderhobos and Lizardfolk are weird.
We know that that's canon for "Catfolk", because they like to keep their actual species name a secret. And then now Ratfolk are called Ysoki.
I mean. You have extreme need to have a really high stat in Starfinder anyways though. Your Resolve is your most important point pool by far and you only get half your level + your main ability score modifier points for it. It powers a lot of class abilities, lets you heal yourself, determines when you die, is used for certain cybernetics, and likely more.
While there will be a lot of generalism to a point, there is still a vast need to specialize. Very few characters will actually benefit from an 18 in every stat. Not really anyways. Not in a way that's meaningful to the character or story. Pardon me for using a game that is only partially related to Starfinder here, but there's very little use for a Wizard to have straight 18s when they could have an Intelligence somewhere in the stratosphere and a couple of dumpstats. While dumpstats will no longer be something of mechanical benefit per-se, it doesn't appear that anyone not doing melee will require much in the lines of Strength, and so an 18 there will largely be not required.
Do we have any idea how the legacy races look stat wise?
I think either Elf or Dwarf were previously shown in low resolution photos. I'm not going to look around super hard for them though.
What I can tell you though is that Space Goblins seem like an all-around improvement on Pathfinder's Goblins. Less negatives, faster. Racial bonuses to skills are smaller, but more varied. They also have a special ability that I'm pretty sure will be really useful.
Somebody in another thread mentioned they only have 2 HP as a race. Which is true. I'm not sure how bad that is exactly, but I know Pathfinder Goblins didn't have a negative CON modifier.
It maybe looks like size-bonuses and penalties aren't a thing in Starfinder though? Maybe it's just not listed in the stat-block to keep it smaller, like all the other things not listed in stat-blocks now.