Search Posts
In a fairly minimal way size already DOES factor into combat prowress. If you're playing a big strong fighter sort (of any class) you're incentivized to play something like a minotaur with their Str, Con bonus, Cha flaw, unarmed attack and cool heritage and feats. If you want to play a quick fast fighter sort you're incentivized to play a thief/rogue and something like a halfling. So, the game is set up right now so that the "optimal" characters ARE of the appropriate size. But it is also set up so that the benefit of playing that "optimal" character is reasonably low so that a human fighter or rogue or whatever is pretty much always going to be at least a decent choice and often one of the most optimal choices. And, if you want to play totally against type and play something like a halfling barbarian with Str 18 you can do so with only a pretty minor penalty. I certainly think this net effect is much better than PF1. More choices for the player but, at the game world level, small characters tend strongly to be fast and quick and large characters tend strongly to do a LOT of damage when they hit.
I agree with this. But I think it applies to your overreaction almost as much as the OP. It really wouldn't be a huge deal if weapons did damage according to size. It would be 1 pt per dice gain or loss. While definitely noticeable and definitely not a great idea it would not
I'd still say that a class that's undertuned if you don't pick a certain overtuned feat would still be undertuned, I largely agree with you. You think the class needs more than I think it does but it could definitely do with some quality of life improvements. But at this point in the development cycle we're just not going to see huge wholesale changes. The best we can hope for (and I think this is possible) is some extra feats and maybe an automatic upgrade to the number of traits a Solarian weapon gets at L5 or the like (which totally doesn't address the issue :-() As for mobility, the heavy armor problem goes away at L3 with an armor upgrade. But yeah, things that boost speed are going to be really valuable to Solarions. Which leads back to my (our?) basic conclusion - its fine when built "well" but there are probably only a few cases which can be considered "well" built.
Given that Exemplars abilities all come from items I’d expect considerable table variation on what is and is not allowed. Definitely in the “check with your GM” category I wouldn't expect universal agreement on the above by all GMs. I'm not at all sure that I'd rule that way (haven't given it any thought but it is hitting my "That sounds dodgy" button). Note that my responsse to "But the rules clearly say ...." would be to just cut and paste the above paragraph. Many GMs do not follow what YOU (or I, not trying to be personal) think are RAW.
I sort of disagree. Supernova is a nice feat, but I also think that if broadly speaking a class doesn't work right unless you take certain specific load bearing feat choices it's still probably fair to call the class generally undertuned. I definitely see where you’re coming from and completely agree that the class punishes lots of choices. But I think undertuned isn’t the right word to describe that. Even in this thread people are suggesting rules changes designed to raise the ceiling of the class and I don’t think those are desirable. Changes to raise the floor (and there are several of those also in this thread) would be good ones imo. But we’re definitely arguing semantics here. I think we both view the class more or less in the same light
While I largely agree with you this exact example shows a problem with this approach. Surely that should be a performance (Oratory) check and not a diplomacy check? At the least, the Perform (Oratory) should have a lower DC. Even if the mechanics aren't spelled out in the rules or on the character sheet, I DO want there to be a significant effect based on the character abilities and NOT just player actions. I've been in more than one campaign where social skills were all but useless because the GM did some combination of "Use the players words", "Rule of Cool", "Rule of Story" and I've been sitting there wondering why the heck I invested so many resources in my characters social skills. That said, I absolutely loathe the player who goes "I roll a diplomacy check" without telling me what the character is saying and doing.
Just levelled up my solarion and was looking at options in the next few levels. There is no way that a class that has access to supernova and black hole at level 4 can be considered undertuned (I strongly suspect the scaling on supernova will be scaled back at some point). I agree that it is aggravating that at early levels you're often far better off using mundane weapons or shields than your manifestations, you're better off taking the soldier archetype than solar rampart, etc. If you naively assume that the cool solarion abilities are your best choices you WILL underperform. This class has lots of poor options, at least at low levels of play. But with a little bit of care and attention the Solarion is a quite good and effective class. Closest PF2 analogue is probably the Kineticist as they both can make good switch hitters, do AoE and control. Both have advantages over each other.
The mystic with the Xeno druid archetype already comes pretty close to this. Thematically, at least, if not quite mechanically. Not sure there is enough room for this to be an entire class. Maybe a subclass.
I must be strange. Over 1/2 my SF2 characters have survival (admittedly, most of them are mystics so there is a huge incentive to take wisdom based skills). And it has been quite useful in the SFS 2 adventures I've played in so far.
It would definitely be nice to have more classes but 6 (8 if you include the 2 playtest classes) is definitely enough to be getting along with for now. And the classes are significantly more versatile than you're giving credit for. My SF2e experience so far has been completely in SFS (and some of the playtest stuff). If you start at level 2 or are playing a human then most characters can just about dump Dex if they want (Medium Armor proficiency either via Soldier archetype or general feat). And I've seen characters do exactly that. Either rely on spells or Str and melee attacks assuming you've got some way to get into close combat (eg, flight). If you think an Operative is Mid you're pretty much wrong. That +2 to hit is huge. Solarian doesn't seem particularly mid to me either. Can be pure Str based, can use both Str and Dex. Getting Str to damage on ranged (short range, admittedy) and a reaction attack are pretty good features. And I've seen several different builds (reach weapon with shield, dex/Str, pure Str).
While I agree that it is ambiguous I am firmly in the camp that BOTH damages increase at the noted levels. If we assume the Envoy has a Cha of +4 at L1, that is a quite reasonable amount. But +5 at L10 is a much smaller amount relatively speaking. +6 at L17 and +7 at L20 are getting close to no value at all. Getting a +5 at L15 while your allies are getting a +4 just seems totally and utterly wrong and under powered.
I love them both as a player and as a GM, but only if they're used as tools and NOT as a ridiculous straight jacket. I REALLY love playing characters with strong restrictions on what they'll do, whether those are self imposed or externally imposed. But the key is that the code HAS to be flexible and nuanced in practice, not a short list that mostly works that is then rigidly applied even when it doesn't. I think that it is FAR, FAR better for the conversation to go GM : So, why does your character, a character who worships Shelyn, think it is acceptable to destroy this piece of artwork? Player: Well, it is a combination of the fact that this particular art work is totally derivative and so has no intrinsic merit combined with the fact that it was created by the sacrifice of many artistic souls and .......... than
With decent roleplayers the answer to the "Why" question is almost certainly nuanced, reasonable and well thought out and, if it is, the GM should go along with it (the player is just about always going to have a much better handle on the PC's motivations than the GM). Sometimes the answer from the player is "Uh, you're right. I wasn't paying enough attention. I will NOT destroy the piece of art". We all make mistakes from time to time, a gentle nudge in the form of a question can sometimes be the perfect solution. With poor roleplayers (or very immature ones, regardless of their age) the answer is often "For the Lols" or "Well. its convenient" or "What is an Anathema?". Only THEN should the GM say "Uh. NO" and, when convenient, have a private discussion with what they expect from a roleplaying game.
You left out the "none dominate the game" part of my quote above. But I actually disagree with you, anyway. PF1 had a great many nearly unplayable character options if "nearly unplayable" means something like "this character is seriously not pulling their own weight and very seriously under performs". I haven't played it enough to know from personal experience but I've certainly heard people tell me that D&D 5th edition has pretty egregious balance problems Note - I'm NOT saying there are no balance issues. I'm just saying that they're not particularly bad, especially for a game that is 2 months out of release and has yet to issue its first FAQ/errata
I'm still hesitant to use Starfinder compared to Pathfinder because the balance is much less solid. I don’t know how much actual play experience you have in Sf2e. But if you don’t have much, then I urge you to just try it on its own terms. Run a few games with JUST Starfinder rules and see if it is to your taste. So far I’ve found the game fine at the very low levels I’ve played and run it. But do NOT start with a mixed Pathfinder/Starfinder game. That is ALWAYS going to be somewhat problematic due to different assumptions. It is going to be more difficult to balance. Start simple and then add complexity. And then make whatever house rules you need to. And wait for the first round of errata before judging TOO harshly or prematurely
I'm reposting this from another theread. I think the designers did a superb job on Starfinder 2e in general but they do have a smaller, less experienced team and, more importantly, we're talking a brand new game vs one that has had several years to fix balance points and improve. There are some rough edges but so far I've seen nothing that is particularly egregious. Every class and ancestry is playable and none dominate the game. And yes, I'd include a L9 crit negation feat in that analysis. A great many of my characters would absolutely take Multitalented over that.
I also very much had that worry, especially in SFS where you don't know either the other players nor their characters. But it seems to be working out ok. Twice now I've played at tables with both a Rhythm Mystic and an Envoy and both times the Envoy player seemed quite happy that Rhythm was also a thing. They were still getting their own +4 to damage for a single action (essentially) and could do other things. In a campaign with the same characters I'd very definitely have a session 0 discussion with both players to make sure both were happy with it. But the overlap isn't as bad as I thought it would be.
I'm sort of struggling to understand what Paizo's vision there was because the balance seems really haphazard. I think the designers did a superb job on Starfinder 2e in general but they do have a smaller, less experienced team and, more importantly, we're talking a brand new game vs one that has had several years to fix balance points and improve. There are some rough edges but so far I've seen nothing that is particularly egregious. Every class and ancestry is playable and none dominate the game.
While I agree with Ectar that it makes Starfinder 2e a slightly worse game I think using a very slight superset of the Pathfinder 2e ruleset was absolutely the right thing to do both from a marketing point of view but also to leverage much more of the Pathfinder 2e base.
To give a single counterexample, I've voiced the option of our next campaign being Starfinder. A MASSIVE bonus to that was my being able to say "The underlying game system is identical except Starfinder has piloting and computers and a couple of extra conditions". The more things I'd have needed to add to that list "Well, nature is now Biological Sciences and Nature", "There is now a skill Physics" etc the less that bonus becomes. Combined with fears that there are now too many skills to cover.
Starfinder has always been a different canon from Pathfinder - see also its non-redeemed Nocticula. There's no "retcon" to talk about here. While you are doubtless correct, that is NOT at all obvious to me, a moderately well read GM. I played Starfinder 1e for about a year or so after it came out ( played and ran SFS and ran the entire first adventure path). I've read the 2e Core book and Galaxy guide. NOT read the GM book. And I certainly didn't know that it had a different timeline, that it was an alternate canon. I had assumed that it was the singular future of Pathfinder.
I think a lot of the concerns here are somewhat overblown. The next campaign I run is possibly going to be Starfinder. My cunning plan is to tell my players "starfinder material is encouraged. Pathfinder material may or may not be allowed and may or may not be altered. If you want to use anything ask me". Then I'll look at specific requests and decide then what to allow and change. After having played an entire 4 playtest adventures and maybe 10 SFS level 1-2 adventures I feel fairly confident that I'll make reasonable decisions. Given that they'll be made in the context of specific characters and a specific campaign I think it highly likely that my decisions will be better than those that would be found in a 100 page conversion guide issued by Paizo which will be primarily aimed at inexperienced GMs. If somebody said they wanted to bring Starfinder material into a Pathfinder campaign my reaction would be "likely not but ask. Maybe" The key here is "specific character and campaign". A flying archer is going to be a much greater issue than a flying 2 handed weapon melee fighter. A flying character is going to be a much greater issue in a wilderness campaign than in a dungeon crawl. Would a conversion guide be nice? Sure. Is it even remotely necessary? Not at all. Is it a good use of Paizo resources?. Not my decision to make but I'd guess not.
The temporary hit points are NOT based on the animal you choose, they're based only on the level and spell that DFF is currently emulating. If DFF didn't scale and only ever let you take L2 Animal Form that would make the "no extra temps on sustain" argument much stronger. And I still think it is TGTBT to have a constantly regenerating source of temps. The sustain cost is very low post L9 and it gives you immense flexibility. I'm genuinely curious. It's pretty obvious (to most of us, anyway) that the rules are sufficiently ambiguous that a number of different people are genuinely coming to different conclusions. Is it the case that the conclusion we come to is largely driven by our view of how powerful it is? I admit that is very definitely strongly influencing me.
But there is nothing in the game to suggest that AC, for example is different than temp HP as far as an effect of the spell. Yes there is. Temporary hit points state that "You can have temporary Hit Points from only one source at a time". You got them when you first cast the polymorph spell, when you sustain the spell you'd be getting them from the same source so you do NOT gain them. Is that clear cut and obvious? Most definitely not. But it seems to me to be a quite defensible position from a RAW point of view. I'll admit that I don't think you should get the temps on a sustain largely because I think that is far too powerful and Animists most certainly do NOT need the power boost. But I ALSO think that is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rules that we have. Temporary hit points ARE different from other traits.
How could “you transform into a form granted by a spell, you gain all the effects of the form you chose from a version of the spell heightened to darkened forest form's rank.” Ah, the old "The way that I read an ability is OBVIOUSLY correct, only an idiot could possibly disagree" argument. Also, of course, damage, AC, attack bonus are NOT changed by your form. But to answer your question, the spell has the polymorph trait. So, when you cast the spall you get the transformation effect. When you sustain the spell, you do NOT transform, you instead "change to a different shape". Note that "change" is NOT "transform". And before you claim that I'm a hypocrite, I'm NOT saying that my way of reading the spell is obviously the only way to read the spell. But it is a perfectly reasonable way of reading it.
Uh, Darkened Forest Form is incredibly useful and quite powerful even if you don't get temp HP more than once. In fact, for balance reasons Id definitely NOT allow it to get temps on a sustain. In my opinion the sheer flexibility of Darkened Forest Form can be immense, especially when you get to the Elemental Forms.
Not sure if this is proper errata territory, but the grenade launcher distances look too big compared to weapons (or weapon and spell ranges are too short compared to grenade launcher ranges). I mean, what's going on here?I find it strange that the grenade launcher has a much, much smaller range than just throwing a grenade. Sorry, you're quite right. I was thinking of the undermounted grenade launcher weapon upgrade. Range 20 ft at L0, at L16 with a range of 50 feet it is still less than just throwing the grenade. Sort of makes sense from a game mechanics point of view but makes absolutely no sense from an in world point of view. And, even from a game mechanics point of view, those upgrade slots are valuable so I'm not at all sure that this is a necessary nerf.
Well yeah. Exemplar archetype was so transparently overpowered that it just got banned at an awful lot of tables. Problem solved :-).
Not sure if this is proper errata territory, but the grenade launcher distances look too big compared to weapons (or weapon and spell ranges are too short compared to grenade launcher ranges). I mean, what's going on here? I find it strange that the grenade launcher has a much, much smaller range than just throwing a grenade.
It was a "must have" before the Remaster and now it is better. But it doesn't break the game. I don't actually think Gang Up is a must have. If the group has 2 or 3 melee martials playing intelligently Flanking is pretty easy to arrange anyway. Now, Gang Up makes it absolutely trivial (especially with a reach weapon) but there isn't a huge difference between "pretty easy" and "absolutely trivial". Its very nice, of course, and a very common choice for a melee rogue. But I've played and seen played characters who took a different L6 feat for a particular build.
I think they're actually pretty much on par with the Solarian having the edge. Following is for low levels only since those are the only levels I've seen the Solarion in play. Their base chassis is pretty much the same (10 hit points, martial saves, medium armor proficiency). Rangers get Hunt Prey which gives a pretty minor and circumstantial out of combat boost and can be a significant pain to work around in combat. Solarions get their manifestations which can lead to some cool roleplaying stuff (See various stories around the iconic for Dae) but mechanically have no out of combat utility. Then we get to the combat stuff. Solarions get Solar Nimbus which is absolutely huge. This is the reason a great many martials dip into Fighter. Many people think it is worth 2 class feats on many martials. Rangers get their Edge. Both flurry and Precision add significantly to damage but introduce the action tax of Hunting Prey. Personally, I think I prefer Solar Nimbus but it is very, very close and depends a significant amount on what enemies you face (the action tax is MUCH worse when facing lots of opponents, MUCH better when facing only 1 or 2. And sometimes absent because you managed to Hunt Prey out of combat). Solarions get their fancy weapon. Some of these options are very nice (D8 reach weapon, d8 agile weapon with another feat). some are just worse than buying actual weapons at least at low levels. Solar Flare is quite good if you're making a melee/close range build, basically useless if you're going for a 2 handed weapon build. And then you get to the feats. Twin takedown has about the same value as Binaric Assault. Bother are better in some ways and worse in others. Gravity weapon adds to damage better than anything the Solarion has, Stellar Reach adds control and insane movement. In both cases pets are better bought via an Archetype than by in class feats. I think they're very comparable but I give the edge to the Solarion. Obviously all of the above assumes that you want to play a Str based melee or very near range character. If you want to be Dex based or a long range character then Solarion is a terrible choice
I sympathize. That is INCREDIBLY frustrating. One of the main reasons that I've pretty much given up on playtesting. Rightly or wrongly from my point of view it very much seems like Paizo just ignores lots and lots of feedback and I'm just wasting my time. In my defence, I had no clue that your opinion was based on actual experience. You did not state that in this thread. In fact, from the tone of your comments you are one of the people who I suspected was theory crafting.
That's fair, sorry, just between that comment and justnobodyfqwl's earlier one about 'discord chat' it felt like there was a strong undercurrent of implying certain people don't know what they're talking about. Thank you for that. To the extent that I was contributing to that undercurrent I apologize, It was unintentional.
Oh, fine. Make perfectly reasonable and fair and correct points :-). You've left me with nothing to say :-). I think we're pretty much in agreement. In fact, this entire thread is largely arguing around the edges. I think we all pretty much agree that the Solarian is at least functional and at least most of us think it could use some improvements.
For 2 actions I think the results reasonably comparable. One does more damage to a single target on a hit, the other can move you an extra 20 ft and potentially affects several targets (more than 2 is unlikely, but possible. 2 is quite likely) if they fail a Fort Save. But I think that Stellar Rush definitely wins when you can afford to spend 3 actions on it plus strike as opposed to Sudden Charge + Strike (and this will be a great deal of the time. The entire purpose of both feats is to let you get into the battle). I'd much rather have the graviton effect than a Map-5 attack. Now I've admittedly taken a possibly unintended use case that some GMs may disallow. But, RAW I'm pretty sure it works. Which means that I think I can rely on it in SFS which is where most of my play will be coming from for the forseeable future.
This is an extremely unfair criticism. I just went back and reread this entire thread. There is exactly one person (HolyFlamingol) who is explicitly basing their somewhat negative opinion on actual play experience. There are 5 people (justnobodyfqwl, Wendy_Go, Gazragar, Driftbourne. thisteldown) who are explicitly basing their positive opinion on actual play experience. For everybody else it is totally unclear whether their opinion is based on play experience or just theory crafting. And while I could very, very definitely be wrong some peoples posts certainly seem to me to be based on theory crafting more than on actual play experience (note, I explicitly stated that my hypothetical Solarion IS based on theory crafting. I'm NOT trying to take any high ground here). All I was claiming in my post is that theory crafting is quite likely to come to different conclusions depending on whether or not you are comparing just within Starfinder 2e or whether you're comparing with Pathfinder 2e as well.
That is a position that I vehemently disagree with. Some classes (in both PF2 and SF2) very definitely get more out of their class feats than do others. And while it is true that most of a classes low level feats can eventually be poached higher level ones cannot and there is a substantial difference between paying 3 feats to get an archetypes L4 class feat at L8 and getting it for 1 class feat at L4. As an aside, I just glanced at the Solarian Dedication. Man, that is an awful Dedication. You get nothing at all from it of any value from it. So clearly Paizo thinks the feats the Archetype makes valuable are worth what is essentially a feat tax
If the Mystic Cloud Storage feat is available to NPCs (it doesn't have to be - just as NPCs have custom abilities not available as PC feats, not all PC heroic abilities have to be something NPCs can grab and logically effect campaign world) then you can station a few of your bond mates in other star systems and send them one way digitally recorded correspondence on 1 bulk media drives at regular intervals. Great for commercial, military, and espionage organizations. While this is an insanely cool idea I think it mostly falls into the category of "If you screw around with the mechanics too much and too literally the entire surrounding culture WILL collapse" :-).PF1 had zillions of ways (Fabricate being one of the clearest) that PCs could TOTALLY destroy the economy, make deserts bloom, etc etc etc. Starfinder has (at very quick blush) this cool way of having instantaneous messages and the fact that Absalom Station should be being invaded even more often than Absalom was on Golarion and falling under the domination of some empire or other at least once a year :-).
I've mentioned it before but I think it deserves a post of its own. When evaluating the Solarion I think whether or not you consider Starfinder its own game or just an add on to Pathfinder (or think all of Pathfinder is an add on to Starfinder) is going to greatly influence things. This alone may be responsible for nearly all the differences of opinion on this thread. Right now NOBODY has a clue what percentage of games will be pure Starfinder, what percentage will be "Mix and match totally freely, go wild" and what percentage will be "Starfinder but some Pathfinder stuff can creep in as well". Except all 3 of those types of games WILL exist. Personally, I strongly believe that we should be evaluating the operative ONLY in terms of Starfinder options. Starfinder is its own game with its own assumptions. So, in that context the Pathfinder 2 fighter is as irrelevant as the Starfinder 1 Operative or the Mutants and Masterminds PL10 Superhero (spoiler, the Mutants and Masterminds superhero kicks all the others asses). But if we ARE going to bring in all of Pathfinder 2 surely its a little unfair to compare it against what is considered pretty much universally the best Martial class in Pathfinder 2e in terms of doing damage, the Fighter. Yeah, it might well lose in that comparison. But so do most Pathfinder 2e martials. And you can't just do a straight single target damage comparison because the Solarion does a fair bit more (or can, at least) with its feats. Its got decent AoE, decent control, etc.
While I'm quite satisfied with the kit as it is, I'd prefer it if Solar Weapon was improved just enough so that I actually used it instead of a normal weapon. As it currently is it is great if you want to do a sword and board build (D8 reach weapon rocks). But if you're doing a 2 handed build the existing weapons are just so much better. I'm not asking for it to be much better than a normal weapon. The attunement features are worth something (not a lot, but something). So, at L1 for no investment in feats I'd be quite happy if I get 1d8 and one of the following:
(yeah, I obviously chose the best martial weapons and just dropped the damage die one step). With something like the above, you're slightly behind in damage at L1-3, equal with Photon damage at L4-5, and slightly ahead at L6+.
|
Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 5,874 posts (10,305 including aliases). 63 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 92 Organized Play characters. 37 aliases. 
