Search Posts
I'm curious: has there ever been a recorded case where Protector Tree's ability to create permanent trees became a genuine problem in a campaign? Sort of. In Quest For the Frozen Flame in Session 0 discussions with the wood kineticist he asked how many fruit trees he could create to help the Following in its foraging. He was happy with my answer "1 or 2 per day, tops". So, a potentially genuine problem nipped in the bud. As I say, sort of a case.
In a campaign I was running with a Plant and Earth kineticist we just sat down early on and agreed that
So, he once used Protector Trees to act as a windbreak to protect the Following (Quest for the Frozen Flame) from a snowstorm (cool). But he could NOT just create Apple Trees so the Following didn't have to forage any more (World changing). Obviously subjective as all heck but it worked fine for us. He got to do cool things, I didn't have to change the world or the campaign. Far better than coming up with some kind of firm guidelines.
Can you tweak your story just a little? You remember accepting the functionaries offer, walking out, etc. But all the evidence shows that you did NOT do that at all. Your team mates all remember you muttering a little about leaving but they convinced you to stay. Video footage conclusively shows that you did NOT leave. If you mention this to everybody they just think you've gone a little insane, had a nervous breakdown. And they're probably right. Probably.
That is not how I was trained many years ago in the Canadian Army with automatic rifles and sub machine guns and it was definitely the case that some people regularly scored better than others. Note automatic rifle is NOT the same as a tripod mounted machine gun. What you're describing is pretty accurate for tripod mounted machine guns.
It just feels REALLY strange that if you want to spray a whole bunch of bullets it doesn't matter at all if you've ever seen the weapon, know how to use it, are good with it, etc. In practice it really isn't a huge deal. Soldiers are the only characters who seem to regularly use AoE weapons other than grenades. And if you're planning on using AoE weapons as a non soldier there is lots of incentive to take the soldier Archetype anyway (especially at higher levels).
So, I've tried twice now to write a review for Scenario 1-08. Both times got an email, hit the reply button. But my review didn't seem to get posted. One time was this morning, once was just a few minutes ago. Is this now a manual process or something on some employees part (man, I hope not)? Or can only the people who purchased the scenario review it (a fairly common practice on some store sites). Or does it just not like fairly negative reviews (there is a 5 star review posted :-))?
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 :-).
|
Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 5,884 posts (10,316 including aliases). 63 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 92 Organized Play characters. 37 aliases. 
