pauljathome's page

Saw it Wednesday. Highly recommend it, at least if you like dogs. No idea how well it would work for somebody who didn't like dogs.

Indy really is such a Good Boy

It's my thread and I'll Necro if I want to.

Saw something mentioned in another thread and it made me think: Yeah, there should be a class for that: The Survival Skill.

I mean we're talking about deep space, the final frontier, blah-blah-blah. There should be a class, probably a support oriented one, where they have a focus on survival and wisdom. but with subclasses depending on what kind of environment they want to survive in.

I don't know what their central gimmick would be. but any ideas?

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.

As for nobody having Survival... that's already my expectation for groups even in PF2, a fantasy game.

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
GM: You can't do that or Shelyn will punish you.

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.

pauljathome wrote:

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.

I mean yeah but "everything is playable" is a pretty low bar. Most modern systems manage that much, even ones with egregious balance concerns.

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.

The issue I have, is if you have a Rhythm Mystic in the party, the status bonuses from Anthem and Get 'Em don't stack. At that point, Anthem is the far more dependable buff of the two, forcing the Envoy to do something other than Get 'Em. That's where things start to fall apart because all these other directives seem to be designed as fallback options, not primary options..

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.

I would definitely like to continue

Any update on whether there will be foundry support for this?

I also love that it's additive, because I was able to say to my players, "Hey guys! I'm gonna make Piloting a base skill in Pathfinder, also, all of its feats are available too. (then a mild rebalance to make Trick Driver useful for both Pathfinder and Starfinder, and voila).

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.

Couple of responses:
1. I support the idea of compatability. I think it's gone too far, with Starfinder losing some of its identity to conform to Pathfinder's mold.

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.

I see that the Temporary HPs are part of the specific abilities based on the animal you choose (for Animal Shape). So, I would rule you gain them when you change to a new shape, just like the other abilities.

Since Temp HPs do not stack, I see no TGTBT clause to prevent it and it seems a fair result for paying the Sustain action.

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.

pauljathome wrote:

oimandibloons wrote:

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.

What do you mean?

A thrown grenade is 70 feet.

A Grenade Launcher is 280 feet, 4 times the range (up to 490 for the ultimate version, 7 times the range). And these aren't range increments, it's a flat range, like if you were using a spell.

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.

In terms of be a must-have for “everyone”, exemplar archetype is under a way more dangerous position where you probably have some ikon that improve significantly your martial build and unless you don't have enough feat slots you have no reason to not take it.

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.

Ravingdork wrote:

The power level of rogues before and after Gang Up is pretty hard to ignore, especially when comparing premaster and Remaster Gang Up.

Very much a "must have or feel weaker than others" type of option.

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.

How does the Solarian compare to the Ranger?

A lot of people consider the Ranger Class to pretty much be exactly at the middle of the pack for Martials. The very definition of not exciting but perfectly usuable in all but the most hyper-optimzed campaigns.

If a class is as strong as it or stronger it's probably fine. If it's weaker it needs some help.

So where does the Solarian stand. On par? Above? Or Below?

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 do think Squiggit has a point, though. My own negative experience with the Solarian is based not only upon comparisons to PF2e, but upon my own play experience of the class. I posted an extensive write-up of my playtests of the class outlining my issues with it specific to Starfinder, and playing the release version of the class hasn't made me feel like any of the major criticisms have really been addressed

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.

I think the class feat discussion is a tricky one. Class feats are absolutely important to a character's growth and some classes have really impactful feats. Solarian is definitely one here that derives a lot of identity and power from feat choice.

But at the same time I think we need to be able to evaluate classes in a somewhat feat agnostic way too because there are lots of feat choices and if we narrow our description down to "this specific feat utilized in this way is strong" then we're talking less about the health of the class overall and more about this one specific quirky build being good, which is materially different to me and suggests there are lot of traps and fail states you could accidentally stumble into.

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.

pauljathome wrote:

So, I pull them up `10 or 15 feet and drop them. Absent them having cat fall, flying or the like they then take 5-7 points of damage (no save) and land prone.

Seems pretty darn good to me.

The pull itself requires a Fort save, though, and unlike most save effects it does nothing on a success. Again, compare to Sudden Charge, which lets you make a Strike that can deal far more damage.

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.

I also feel like the constant demurring to these hypotheticals is a bit obnoxious... like several people have come in mentioning Solarians doing low damage or being squishy or otherwise struggling at actual tables. To come back with "well the only reason you don't like it is you're looking at PF2" or "this is the difference between discord chat and table play" is just pretending those experiences don't exist. You can like the Solarian without pretending anyone who disagrees is just ignorant of how the game works or only speaking in hypotheticals.

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.

I don't factor class feats into this analysis because they should be of equal value given that archetypes exist

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

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.

This is for the people complaining, mind you; it looks like plenty of folk are satisfied with the kit as-is.

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:
Modular AND Reach
1d10 Parry
Boost 1d8 reach

(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+.

Lia Wynn wrote:

While that would be generally true, Pauljathome had mentioned that he would be using Flying on a Dragonborn, so IMO at least, he could, indeed, pull creatures up and then drop them.

What, 10 feet? You’re only pulling enemies within 15 feet of you, so you’re not exactly dropping them much farther than they already are in the near-totality of cases.

So, I pull them up `10 or 15 feet and drop them. Absent them having cat fall, flying or the like they then take 5-7 points of damage (no save) and land prone.

Seems pretty darn good to me.

If you're going to be ditching your solar weapon and relying on Reactive Strike and a gapcloser feat to do the heavy lifting, you might as well just pick a Pathfinder Fighter at that point

As I said, that isn't an option in SFS and won't be an option in many campaigns (certainly won't be in any campaign I run).

As to Stellar Rush, I see no limitation on the Graviton pull that restrict it from pulling somebody vertically up into the air. Admittedly, I can imagine some GMs not allowing it but it seems to be RAW as far as I can tell.

I'm not really certain why I'd pick a Solarian over a Soldier at the moment.

The following is theory crafting and not experience (I haven't actually played the Solarion in question, jut built it) but here is my answer for L1 (I'm playing in SFS and at the moment only L1 and L2 characters are playing).

1) The Str +4 with a D10 reach or D12 weapon vs everybody elses +3 or the operatives dinky little finesse weapon (I'm not using the silly Solar Weapon, of course, which is disappointing but an actual 2 handed weapon is just way better).
2) Stellar Rush, especially with a creature with a fly speed, gives INSANE mobility. Ranged combat you say? I am my own weapon :-). 70 feet at level 1 for a Dragonborn with 2 actions
3) The insanely cool Graviton attuned pull. As far as I can see there is nothing stopping me dragging them into the air and just dropping them.
4) Reactive Strike at L1 is great.

I'm not sure that it beats out a Pathfinder 2 fighter (or other martial) but I don't think that comparison matters. In most campaigns I won't have the option of playing a Pathfinder 2 fighter. It certainly compares just fine with an Operative or Soldier.

As for comparing with the Envoy, if you're going to spend 2 actions it is best to just boost your weapon.

I quite dislike that my planned character is ignoring his Solar Weapon and almost completely ignoring his Solar Flare, But I think a flying Stellar Rushing melee sort is quite viable and fun. He doesn't need much Dex so he can spend some stat points on having something to do outside of combat.

pauljathome wrote:

or to go slow play instead of seeing my characters actually advance a little

Slow advancement is not an option in SFS2 (neither was it an option in SFS1).

Well darn. I'm going to actually have to read the rules aren't I :-)

I think that's the scale where you really want to use some wargame for the session, instead of trying to tie it to PF2 mechanics at all.

I'm a great believer in listening to the PCs plans on what they are going to do to influence the situation and then frantically waving my hands as I describe what happens, incorporating as much of their plans as I can manage.

Depending on the situation, sometime they'll be able to decide who wins the battle, other times all they'll be doing is rescuing some people from the unstoppable horde.

And the reason we don't run into a lot of level 10s going up against level 5 challenges is that its kinda boring. Maybe a few checks over a few minutes to flex on challenges that aren't threats anymore, but there isn't challenge in this, nothing is really at stake when you are +5 level.

Typical play takes you to harder and harder challenges. The bad guys are richer with harder locks and straighter walls, and deadlier weapons on top of that. We get this impression nothing is easier because we rarely turn around and engage with something that is no longer on our radar. If you do turn around and your GM artificially increases difficulty you should talk to the GM about it, but this isn't what I think happens at most tables.

I love to have an occassional encounter that is way below the characters, ESPECIALLY if it can be essentially the same as one that they did a few levels back. Makes it obvious that they ARE growing in power in world and not just on a treadmill with Bigger Numbers.

And yes, you are expected to share harder and harder challenges. But the GM should definitely try and make sure that it is clear, in world, WHY the challenges are harder. The city guard in Axis is a lot tougher than the city guard in your starting village, this wall has overhangs, icy spots and birds flying into your face. Although it can be quite hard to do this organically as a GM and we all fail to do it well from time to time

I was just planning ahead a little and looking at the upcoming scenarios.

All of scenarios 1-01 to 1-11 are for level 1=2 characters only. 1=12 is for L3-4.

I'm pretty sure that I don't like the fact that scenarios are now only good for 2 levels. Assuming I get to play all of these scenarios then I'm being forced to have multiple characters or to go slow play instead of seeing my characters actually advance a little. It looks like it is going to be a LONG LONG trip to the higher levels

(I also know in at least one of my games, the other players would react badly to what this player is doing. Animal cruelty is just a hard nope and it would turn into an out of character problem

I know that behaviour like this would definitely drive me from a game.

The player is either treating her character as a cartoon with no feelings or like a psychopath. I've got better things to do than spend my gaming time with a scumbag like that.

The biggest discrepancy I feel when looking at Assurance is that it is more useful for skills where you do not invest in stats and items, and thus do not reach the highest results. Which is extremely counter-intuitive to me.

Yeah, I have real problems with this too.

Especially in cases where my gnome is as good (when using assurance) at tripping as is the minotaur barbarian. It just really, really breaks my willing suspension of disbelief

I am glad the feat is incredibly limited.

Its roll is to make easy things certain and not really much more than that.
If it did eliminate the need to roll for on level challenges I would just ban it anyway.

But it IS more than that in some cases. In a way that I think hurts the game.

One fairly common use of assurance is to use assurance athletics to try and pull a maneuver on some low save opponent as your third MAP action.

And I think this is a BAD thing. First, you often see these on something silly like a gnome with his Str of -1 where it is just silly. But, more importantly, suddenly you're getting a cool in combat use of a feat that is clearly mostly designed to replace PF1's take 10.

why then, would anyone pick an Arrangement besides Degradant?

After all, Degradant has Defy Gravity, which gives you flight speed

A fight speed really isn't all that special in Starfinder.

From a pragmatic point of view, it is also very nearly an exact duplicate of electric arc which is already on the primal list. So there is no NEED for it to be on the primal list (yeah, I know, both are on the Arcane List)

In general, they've done a remarkably good job of

1) Making it mechanically nearly the same as PF2 so there is almost no learning curve beyond learning the details of your class/ancestry and adjusting to the new Ranged Meta (EVERYTHING has a decent ranged attack, some combats might take place completely at range. Combine that with EVERYTHING sapient has an AoE attack (grenade, if nothing else))

2) Changing the feel of the game significantly so that it FEELS like Science Fiction at least as much as a pure fantasy. Obviously, some of this is going to be subjective. But, for me at least, so far even the "dungeon crawls" have felt quite different than their PF2 equivalents.

Not a clue about deathclaws but I think the stance you’re thinking of may be from the clawdancer archetype.

Seems like an awakened animal may also work

But if I'm sitting down to build out a character I'm going to be playing about once a week for the next two or three years, yeah, I do actually usually need both a bit of the class feats and something else to have a good time.

Note, I'm NOT trying to say you're wrong in any way. You get to decide what makes a good time for you. Just expressing my own personal opinion.

I have a significantly different opinion on this. While I agree that lacking Free Archetype can make a small (very small, in my view) number of character concepts unachievable (or at least not achievable in a fun way) there are still zillions of character concepts that actually ARE quite achievable.

If I'm playing in a non FA game I just choose one of the concepts that I CAN build. And there are still a great many concepts that are fun (to me) AND that I haven't played before. Heck, there are still classes that I've never played.
.

Are strength bonuses when halved …. Rounded up or down?

Down

Now granted, we don't have to outright get rid of greys I don't think.

I think maybe we do.

To use an analogy, even after these many years (decades?) I STILL basically equate 1/2 lings with hobbits. All the attempts to give them a different culture, a different appearance, etc etc etc haven't completely worked with me. When somebody sits down at a table with a 1/2 ling my mental image is still Sam or Bilbo or Frodo or Merry or Pippin.

And I know that at least some others share this to at least some extent as jokes about hairy feet or rings of invisibility occur.

It can be ABSURDLY hard to change peoples concepts of something (ancestry in this case).