The Fifth Archdaemon

th3razzer's page

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber. 26 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

After looking at various things (splash page for Starfinder still mentioning the release of the Beginner Box - a 4-month old piece of news, the release schedule - most being PF1e even before 2e's release, Paizo Blogs being saturated with Pathfinder with very minimal Starfinder presence - again, even before 2e, and lastly a huge 1 year and more lapse in any word on rules for the errata and tons of dead threads on the the Starfinder Forums asking valid questions and seeking help with the game) I can't help but feel Starfinder is losing momentum, and sadly it *did* have momentum - so much so that CRBs couldn't even be placed on shelves fast enough when it first was release.

Fast forward to only a few months later after its release. The dust hasn't even settled and Paizo drops the big 2e release bomb, and now it seems like a slap in the face to anyone who wanted to invest in "Paizo's new product" and I think it was even a more potent slap because the hype from the Paizo team follows 2e, not Starfinder.

What I would like to stress is not that I feel there is a drought of content for Starfinder. There are tons of hardcovers and APs and whatnot. What makes this system feel like it's going to fail is that it is such a LAUGHABLY small team of dedicated people, as opposed to the numbers working on 2e, not to mention that with the not even 10-or-so people on the SF team I can imagine that doesn't leave much room to interact with the community.

Paizo, seriously, wake the hell up. You've been running an iconic RPG for over a decade, why haven't you figured out that a community needs interaction? Hell, it would make a world of difference if we could just get answers to questions about rules and whatnot.

Yet, we keep getting money thrown at us for content, and that just makes problems worse. Now the new stuff breaks the old stuff, questions about rules and how things are intended to interact are again raised, and the cycle continues.

What's more is that all it would take to quell a lot of fears of this system would literally be some simple interaction and a few more bodies on the SF team. I don't understand why that is such a difficult thing to understands.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
The Ragi wrote:
th3razzer wrote:
Not to mention we still don't have solutions to some fairly obvious rules conflicts/rules questions.

And they made a panel only for Starfinder rules in Gencon, with the current developers...

Someone should grab all the most asked stuff and post it on the twitch chat live.

Is there a VOD or something that can be referenced?

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

While I understand that Pathfinder is what put Paizo on the map, doesn't it seem like Starfinder got put on the backburner somehow? Am I going crazy, or does it seem like aside from APs we aren't really getting any "spotlight"?

PF2e has not even been released yet and their deployment/rollout schedule overwhelms the front page. Meanwhile, Starfinder's page still says Beginner Box "coming this April"... a mere 4 months later?

Not to mention we still don't have solutions to some fairly obvious rules conflicts/rules questions. Does anyone think this system will make it as long as PF1e did or how long PF2e will?

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

To buy a battleframe at level 20 costs 1,254,183 credits. To upgrade it every single level costs 3,733,554 credits. That's not a drop in the bucket.


th3razzer wrote:
It's an additional 50% per level...
It's actually 150%.

Yes, your math checks out. I'm saying the base cost is similar at each level, not overall cost were you to do upgrade all the way through.

I am under no delusions that it is more cost-effective to upgrade each level, nor do I suggest players do that. Clearly you are intended to purchase the other suits at their respective level, with the upgrades feeling more like an after-thought.

One thing I fail to understand is why it isn't a 50% increase each level vs. 150%. Paizo seems fine with the minor cost to upgrade weapons being the price of the weapon minus 10% (sell back costs) of your current weapon. This effectively incentiveses players to "buy-in" to a weapon line and get it slightly cheaper over time (again, small drops, but every bit counts). Hell, 10% of previous PA against its next level seems more than reasonable, since even 90% of the cost of a PA is not small change.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
HammerJack wrote:

The cost of upgrading powered armor, as written, really doesn't work out well, since the rules in Armory don't support skipping levels. So upgrading armor doesn't cost the same as buying a new suit, unless you're only going up one item level, it costs a lot more.

As for the WBL evening out on it, how wealth is handled varies quite a lot between games, so I don't think that can really be offered as universal advice. Some games will put much more of the burden of being at WBL on the player. And using PA upgrades while playing an AP with the written rewards, or an SFS character will never be able to keep their budget intact.

This is false. I've sat down and done the math with a player of mine. The math roughly lines up at equal percentages. Mind you the EXACT value isn't the same at each level, but there are actually some levels where it's *cheaper* to upgrade than to buy suit at that particular level. True, you do need to do it per level, but if you take a suit of one type of PA, and level it up to the next available level, and do this for each PA set, you'll find roughly the same math.

It's an additional 50% per level, with the average increase of individual PAs to be roughly 48~52%. In some cases it worked out better to upgrade individual PAs vice buying them outright anew.

This is something people don't seem to do and simply compare all suits to their individual one. Try this across multiple levels and suits. It works out.

The stat increases are lackluster in some ways, however.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Pantshandshake wrote:

Drone Tube rules, spoilered for length.

** spoiler omitted **

So, yes to the Klokworx drones, and I...

So, yes to the Klokworx drones?

As in, yes you get 5 just off the bat? It doesn't explicitly say for or against them. Building a hangar does not entitle you to 4 tiny ships it can hold, so why would a launch tube simply give you 5 drones upon creation?

With the drone weapons they are limited fire 5, meaning every Starship combat you gain 5 to use, hence the question (however that is specifically called out in Starship combat rules).

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

In AP7 the Drone Launch Tube expansion was introduced. I really only have one question:

I understand it launches up to 2 drones per round, but how does one build these drones?

Are they the Klokworx Drones you see on the following pages? Do you simply get 5 of those drones?

They don't give a basic blank statblock for drones as a whole. Is this supposed to be built and split from the party's BP pool?

It's worth noting that the drone weapons work wildly differently from the launch tube. The drones used in Large/Captial weapons look to merely be specially-flavored missiles/torpedoes/tracking weapons.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Are there plans to add gargantuan and larger creatures in a future box set or another way to obtain them? It's super disappointing that we can't use anything above huge.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Athenos wrote:

Is it just me or are the maps in the PDF, lower rez than usual?

Especially the ship interior in the back of the PDF is low-rez for me. I can barely make out any details.

I am seeing the same thing, too. It's not just you. Why are they so low-rez?

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
YogoZuno wrote:
Wait, I thought you gave up healing touch at 9th (or the feat). How could you give up something at level 1, when you don't even decide if you have an archetype until level 2?
There’s precedent for giving up stuff early, but I admit the before you take the archetype issue is hard. There is no precedent for giving up something you already have. 9th level Mystic is horribly written, the only safe thing to do is give up your 9th level feat if you don’t want to risk a GM disagreement or confusion.
Assuming you are single-classing...

I think one thing is being assumed here:

You do NOT make changes to your class until the change is relevant level-wise; i.e., you would not "get rid of Healing Touch early", that is a VERY poor interpretation of the rules.

You would, essentially, keep everything as-is until the decision actually needs to be made, meaning that until level 9, you do have access to Healing Touch, and then at level 9 you must decide which you are giving up. And it most assuredly isn't "don't count a level in Mystic for number of HP healed from Healing Touch" or it would be phrased that way, as many other replacement/alter texts are written. In fact, even within the Mystic Archetype section there is lengthy text explaining what to do, so a simple lack of text along with what other option they're asking you to choose from seems pretty easy as far as RAI.

CoreRuleBook pg. 127 wrote:

You either don’t gain the healing touch class feature or don’t gain a feat you would otherwise gain from reaching an odd-numbered character level (see page 26); this

feat could be the one normally gained at 9th level.

I think the reason they did this is because you might hit this LV9 decision on an odd class level, if you're multi-classing. Say that you have to make this decision when you're LV10, having had 1 level in another class: now your ONLY option is to remove the Healing Touch feature, as you have no Feat to give up at 9th level, since you've most assuredly taken it already one level before. Hence, why it is spelled out to look down the road at your progression - the book even asks you to write out down the line what your changes might look like. They are treating the players as grown-ups, and sometimes the growing pains suck: your ultimate question is "is this replacement worth it for [insert archetype skill here]?"

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Jimbles the Mediocre wrote:

If the history of Pathfinder is anything to go by, some of the content in the APs will get into hardcovers eventually. It comes down to what the developers believe it interesting or important enough to spend pages to reprint (some of the setting information, especially, will likely be reprinted in Pact Worlds).

But, yeah, that's part of the draw of the Adventure Paths (it's also the draw of the hardcovers). If you want all the Starfinder content, you may wish to consider purchasing all of the Starfinder products.

Well, the theory is that you don't want all of the Starfinder content. For example, you don't want the adventure that's the bulk of the AP, but you might want the couple of pages of a race or on Drift mechanics.

This is the point I was trying to ask/make. I don't want the story-specific items or characters, settings etc.

I do however, want the content in the back matter of the APs (general spells, equipment, races, bestiary entries, etc.).

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm hoping someone from Paizo can answer this for me, but anyone with the information I thank in advance. My question is this: will the content in the Adventure paths be reprinted down the line and appear in Core Books? For example, the APs have already shown several new playable races, tons of new gear and a few new connections and spells, not to mention gazette entries for locations.

Will all this (eventually) show up in Core Books down the line? I don't know if I can shell out $10~$20 per AP module (each being a small sum of 60~70 pages, which is admittedly not that much when you consider if you're not using the story 80% of that is now irrelevant to you).

Is that the draw of the Adventure Path sets? 100% unique information that will not appear anywhere else? I find it hard to swallow if very important information (much like this last module containing very important information about the Drift and its properties and characteristics) like this secreted away in modules people may not be interested in purchasing.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
S. J. Digriz wrote:

I agree that the interpretations that Valfen and Fuzzypaws have offered are the only ones that make sense, but its not what my copy of the rules says

Under fusion seals:

"A fusion seal only affects weapons of a given level or less"


"A fusion seal can’t be added to a weapon if doing so
would cause the weapon’s total level of fusions (including the
level of the *fusion seal*)
to exceed its item level or if the weapon
is not a legitimate choice for the fusion within the fusion seal.

The bottom sentence should probably instead read:

"A fusion seal can’t be added to a weapon if doing so
would cause the weapon’s total level of fusions (including the
level of the *fusion* that the fusion seal is created with) to exceed its item level or if the weapon is not a legitimate choice for the fusion within the fusion seal."

Thanks all!

Not trying to be argumentative, but that is also slightly poorly worded. Notice that it says level of fusion seal, and that:

A fusion seal affects only weapons of a given level or less, as noted in parentheses after the name of the fusion seal. For

example, a holy fusion seal that could be applied to any weapon
of 10th level or lower would be written holy fusion seal (10th).

The number is not the actual item level of the seal. The item level of the seal is the fusion's original level.

In the example from the CRB:

holy fusion seal (10th) means that the item level for the seal is 2, since holy fusion is a 2nd level fusion, and that the (10th) dictates that item level weapons of 10 down to 0 may apply it, but that it cannot go below 2, since 2 is the minimum for the fusion seal's actual item/fusion level.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gary Bush wrote:

Because of the reloading arms upgrade. I think a user would need to exit the armor to reload ammo/battery for a mounted weapon unless the arms are present.

Agree that if a longarm rifle is installed on a suit of powered armor than a user does not need use both hands to fire it.

As for the armor, I don't see why it should require a user to exit to replace the armor battery. While it doesn't say it, I don't see why the reloading arm can't reload the battery for the suit was well.

I don't understand why you believe weapon slot are useless. The flight frame has 3 weapon slots. A user can put 3 ranged weapons in those slots. One could be a slot on the arm with a flame-thrower on it. Another could be mounted on the left shoulder and has a longarm laser rifle. A third is mounted on the back that has a grenade launcher in it. I guess I don't understand why that is insufficient information. The rules are lite, I agree. This is intentional because the Devs didn't want to have a bunch of little rules for players to deal with.

In the end, lets just have fun playing. I play society so if there is a concern by campaign leadership, they will tell us. In homebrew games, the GM will make the decision.

Unfortunately, it does say it:

CRB pg. 205-206 wrote:


This device attaches to powered armor and consists of a small
robotic arm and a storage compartment that holds up to 2 bulk
of ammunition and batteries. You can activate the automated
loader as a move action to reload or recharge a weapon that’s
mounted to the powered armor (but not to replace the batteries
of the powered armor itself).
Abilities that let you reload faster
than a move action don’t apply to an automated loader.
This upgrade can be installed only in powered armor.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
kadance wrote:
I would expect a top surgeon to attempt surgeries so difficult a resident wouldn't want to even step into the theatre.

One quirk of statistics that can seem paradoxical is that the best surgeons often have the highest mortality rates.

Has anyone looked into the minimum sizes a ship can be in order to be tier 20? I wonder if part of the reason some maneuvers become essentially impossible is because the ships at that tier level have to be huge. (This is based on a vague memory from someone saying that the power budget precludes high tier, small ships).

I wonder if it's practically (even if not mathematically) possible to have high tier, small ships and low tier, big ships and if these DCs are representative of that.

I posted something on this a little bit back, with the math just not adding up, but asking a similar question.

The problem (and the main reason) that the math doesn't add up, is that the CRB directly states that ship Tier is equal to APL, meaning if the APL, even unintentionally, rises so does the Tier.

Meaning that, even if I spend all my BP on non-essential stuff (prettier rooms, a little more oompf to my energy core, maybe a decorative plate of pop ere, etc etc) why does my DC need to increase if the ship has remained almost exactly the same?

If my PCs could, say, stay in a lower-tier ship to maintain their grip on the difficulty checks, then I wouldn't gripe whatsoever, as they can choose their fate at that point.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
gigyas6 wrote:

The most important thing I've found on this, which I've yet to see mentioned, is that despite the DC's raising in difficulty, the actions remain exactly the same. Sure, for a Gunner that can be a big deal, since things like Broadsides can become tremendously more powerful as you upgrade your starship weapons or mount new ones. Moving Speech can be a major game-changer. Most of the actions that recover shields do so based on percentage.

But, giving a +4 to an ally? Giving a +2 bonus to AC for the ship? Giving science officers +2 to their checks? Removing a single critical damage?

These are all actions with static results (except removing more crit damage for a higher DC, which already increases DC anyway), and yet the DC continuously increases. This is also in conflict with the skill listings themselves, which demonstrate an ability to learn to do new things at higher DCs, and things you knew before give better results. Here, things you were already able to do get harder for the same results.

This doesn't apply to all actions, but the fact that it applies to any actions is a bit strange.

I'm glad you brought that up, as that is exactly what I had posted I believe about a day ago. How does it make sense that my pilot, as an example, is perfectly capable of making, say, a Flip-n-Burn fairly reliably at early levels, yet somehow struggles if he rises even only one, or two levels? What changed? Assuming his ship remained the same, what is the explanation for the sudden and utter shift in skill? And in the opposite direction, no less?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Pax Rafkin wrote:

Well, by order of operations:

DC= 10 + 2 x ship tier would be:

Tier 1= 12
Tier 2= 14
Tier 3= 16

If it's suppose to be DC= (10 + 2) x tier then that's a problem as a tier 3 ship would require a DC 36 just to put it in reverse (Back Off maneuver)

I'm sorry, but that's false.

The equation is meant to be read as DC = 10 + (2 x Tier), not DC = (10 + 2) x Tier.

In either case, it is disastrous.

Allow me to show you an example using the first equation common:

DC scales 12(1), 14(2), 16(3), 18(4), 20(5), 22(6), 24(7), 26(8), 28(9), 30(10), and so on and so forth.

The issue being that the player does not scale this way to beat the DCs in any meaningful way.

A base assumption is that a PC maxes out the ranks in the respective skill, and that they (hopefully) have class training in it (allowing a +3). With even this basic equation of (DC = 10 (2xTier)) - Skill Bonus, the number to roll increases as such:

DC | Number on d20 Needed Minimum to Succeed
12(1) = 8
14(2) = 9
16(3) = 10
18(4) = 11
20(5) = 12
22(6) = 13
24(8) = 14

This will eventually hit the max level of 20, with 20 ranks in a skill with a natural +3 to class training, leaving a bonus of +23 against a DC of 70.

Not to mention this is just for the first equation, do not forget DC=15+(2xTier) and DC=20+(2xTier), and the occasional ridiculous DC=20+(3xTier).

Why, as the Character is trying to "master" a given role, is it harder and harder to achieve? Even with number crunching, it is only possible to leap over a DC70 hurdle by having Skill Focus, Class Training, Theme Bonus, Max Ranks, Class Ability Bonuses, Ship/Computer Bonuses, etc etc.

It should not take every mechanic you have at your disposal to achieve at LV10~20 what you could so easily achieve just a precious few levels before.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your assessment.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Voss wrote:
Inventory is still a thing, and no shop stocks more than its regular influx of customers.

What? Uh... no. All shops do this. I've never wandered into a shop with empty shelves, barring going out of business sales or hurricane days.

I've come across hobby stores that keep a minimal amount of stock for tabletop miniatures games, but that pretty much immediately drives a lot of potential customers to the internet.

Having more stock than regular customers will buy is absolutely normal, otherwise you quickly end up with walk-in customers and nothing to sell them.

...oh my word, really? You don't say? Wouldn't you argue, then, that having stock - on hand - to meet the supply/demand of that particular item as stocking in relation to the regular influx of customers?

You twisted my words - bravo? Would you like a slow-clap? Perhaps an evil swivel-chair turn, evil cat on my lap, gasping that you've "sussed out my evil ploy"?

Extra inventory is essential to meeting demand, but you wouldn't argue that, say, if I keep 400,000 flashlights on hand (to use the earlier product example) when I sell only close to 100 or so monthly, that I was keeping "extra just in case"? Just so that I don't "have empty shelves"? It's not a 1:1 deal here, guy, it's a projection.

Of course the shop/store is going to have (at least, most shops should have) at least double, if not normally triple, the stock on-hand to meet any potential spike/fall in demand.

That was my whole point. The shop is not going to have an endless supply of item B so that you can rip item A out of it and then sell it right back to them, to repeat the process infinitely until the player feels they have just enough credits.

So yes, let's go back to my statement: No shop stocks more than its regular influx of customers.

Perhaps look up the word influx, then attach the word "regular", apply some common sense, then rinse and repeat until the definition of the sentence I constructed hits home.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Spastic Puma wrote:

"Hey you! The way you enjoy the game is different and I don't like that! You should feel bad!"

Let the number crunchers crunch. A lot of people like that stuff. It's okay. I promise :)

I never said that number-crunching was bad, or inherently wrong. I stated that when you let that dictate your entire experience with the game you are definitely missing a good chunk of the game - and I would argue that you almost miss the point of the game.

Pathfinder/Starfinder/DnD/etc talbetop RPGs have always, first and foremost, been about telling a story and creating a vast, expansive world that the Players shape (in most cases single-handedly driving) and that the GM unfolds to them so that they can walk away with an experience as playing somebody else.

Even when you number-crunch, why are you doing it? Because you want to do X, Y, or Z... as a character you made.

Why do you give a flying frak about your stats, feats, or other abilities? Because you want to best encounters, challenges, and story... as a character you made.

So no, they're not mutually exclusive, but my point still stands. You can like it, you can get invested in it (and by all means, please, I hate playing for people in combat, learn the gorram rules for once). However, once that tops and skews your view of a class, archetype, race, storyline, core game? At that point you need to, NEED TO, shut up; take a step back, breathe, and talk with your GM. Stop flooding - needlessly, I might add - the forums hoping someone, somewhere will agree with you.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:

As far as I can tell, the build below is the single most powerful solarian build for actually being a strong and durable combatant, starting from 1st level. I have already explained the troubles with being a pure-classed solarian elsewhere ( -this), and so it is time to patch those problems with some old-fashioned optimization.

• At 1st-level, you are a generic "tactical pike and hidden soldier armor" soldier. You act first, you stab people, and you threaten them with attacks of opportunity.

• At 2nd-level, you gain +1 damage. Hooray.

• At 3rd-level, your mobility sharply increases as you gain Stellar Rush. You should ignore the bull rush function in almost all cases. You should instead use Stellar Rush for unparalleled melee mobility.

• At 5th-level, you gain a major upgrade to your raw melee damage from Plasma Sheath. You start combat with a move action for a Plasma Sheath, and then launch into a Stellar Rush. You also gain Enhanced Resistance (kinetic), making you quite durable.

• At 7th-level, you open up combats with a move action for a Plasma Sheath and a standard action for a Corona. You now have a passive aura for damage, and anyone striking you will suffer damage. Also at this level is when you might want to drop the tactical pike and start to use your solar weapon with a solarian weapon crystal.

• After that point, the build is mostly yours to piece together. Whether you will prefer your solar weapon with a solarian weapon crystal or a high-level two-handed advanced melee weapon depends on your specific level and what you have the budget to afford.

• During this process, you completely ignore the existence of Black Hole, Supernova, graviton mode, and almost all graviton revelations. Why bother with them when you can stay attuned in photon mode for the raw damage and other benefits? Photon zenith revelations, on the other hand, may be worth it from time to time.

What do you think of the build below, then?...

Oh... my god, please stop posting your min/max whiny bullsh*t everywhere. There is no "ultimate build," in fact, genius, they've actively tried to eliminate such metagaming from the way the game was designed. Granted, I'm not 100% on board with some of the decisions they've made when it comes to DC scaling and other rules, and the game isn't perfect - barring further FAQ/errata/info - but you're last post about your experience is insightful only as far as it showed that you wanted to play a class against the way it was intended and failed.

"No way," you might say, "I should be able to build however I want."

True, you can make any character you want... but don't expect the game's core mechanics (i.e. Resolve, Stamina, Dying/Health/Stabilize system, etc etc) to simply allow you to circumvent difficulty in favor of building against the grain.

When you start favoring number-crunching ahead of the actual intent of the game - which, for brevity, I'll remind you is something called "roleplaying", and the game is a tabletop RPG (role playing game)- you take away from the very "fun" and hard work that the publishers put into the game.

Get off your soap-box about optimization and numbers and make your own homebrew decisions if things aren't panning out the way you want them to when they actively oppose the CRB.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Aratrok wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

I know how the point but works in Starfinder.

And uh, no, Starfinder encrouages spreading points around, especially with how the stat increases at every 5 levels work. Dumping all your points into one thing at the. Grinning just leaves you a glass cannon.

You get a marginal benefit of a net +1 to a secondary or tertiary ability score over the course of your entire career if you don't buy an 18 at level 1. That's it. You don't even get any benefit at all until level 5.

A point buy system that made higher ability scores more expensive per-point than lower ability scores would encourage spreading your points around. Point-for-point costs encourages specialization, since it costs just as much to get another +1 on your most important score as it does to add +1 to something less important.

Until you factor in every 5 levels and the boosts they give. Specialization is not encouraged in a Starfinder unless you're only going to play at level 1 forever.
That is factoring in ability score boosts every 5 levels. The benefits for spreading your points around are vanishingly small.

...but you can't not spread them around, guy. It is literally RAW to put 4 core stats up at each 5th level increment - hence, an encouragement to generalization vs. specialization. The initial point-buy would, yes, help you hyper-specialize (hence, the "being at level 1 forever" comment above), but once you hit the 5th threshold even once you're now "doomed" to generalization.

You, by virtue of the rules, spread your points around.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Edenwaith wrote:
I may be holding back. Relax your shoulders..., breath in from deep in your soul, now slowly exhale and LET EM HAVE BOTH BARRELS!!!! :)

LOL. I did hold back, didn't I? *begins chanting evil ritual, cue anime intro combat scene*

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

TL;DR The DC scaling as of the moment (most predominantly in starships) is utter horsesh!t -- to be blunt. How does a DC = 10/15/20 + 2 x tier even make SENSE?

I tried thinking this over and got nowhere. When you have text, such as stated in the CRB page 322:


Repairing damage to the hull (restoring lost Hull Points)

is more difficult. You must first stop the starship completely,
usually at a safe location (for instance, a world with a nonhostile
atmosphere or a dock on a space station), and the repairing
character or characters must have access to the outside of the
hull. On most of the Pact Worlds, the crew can pay mechanics to
repair the starship; the cost and time needed are up to the GM. If
the crew is on its own in uncharted territory, it can still repair the
starship’s hull. Doing so costs 10 UPBs (see page 233) per point
of damage to be repaired and requires 5 hours of work regardless
of the number of points repaired. A character who succeeds at
an Engineering check (DC = 15 + 2 × the starship’s tier) can cut
either the cost or the time in half. For every 10 points by which
she exceeds the DC, she can reduce one of these factors by half

(or by half again), to a minimum of 1 UPB per point of damage and
1 hour. Any number of allies can use the aid another action (see
page 133) to assist with this Engineering check. Failing the check
to reduce the time or cost instead increases the cost by 5 UPBs
per point of damage.

Are you serious? You scale this, not even to 20, but to 10, 15?, and your DCs are already in the 35~45 range? Then you say you want that character to beat that DC by an additional 10? Like you're saying "Good job at not sucking, but only barely"?

Let's not even GET into the APL vs Tier debate. How does it make sense that someone of relatively higher level (say even just 1 level higher) walks aboard your ship, and somehow you guys all are incapable of performing your checks? You go up one level and your DC spikes by 5? Are you sh*tting me right now?

What's more, let's say that the PCs are completely content with their ship modifications. Maybe the only difference they do with their BPs is to upgrade a ship's computer, or to make living arrangements more comfortable, or merely increase their Drift Drive output -- how does this suddenly translate to being completely unable to perform the same maneuver the pilot made not but a few days ago? The SIZE of the ship didn't change, in my example the BULK of the ship did not change dramatically enough, and furthermore the ENGINES/or THINGS ALTERING MANEUVERABILITY did not change -- so explain to me how the hell this makes sense that my pilot suddenly became a complete and utter retard overnight?

The way the DC currently scales doesn't match with NPC ships, and whats more, even if you theory-craft and number-crunch, optimal rolls will NOT happen at a consistent enough rate for players to feel that the odds truly are "balanced" (as some people incorrectly have posted).

I don't care who you are, the roleplaying aspect of the DC scaling simply doesn't add up.

My simple solution is I'm going with this revised formula:

DC = 10 + [1.5*Tier]
DC = 15 + [1.5*Tier]
DC = 20 + [Tier]

Out-of-Combat Starship checks:
DC = 10/15/20 + [.5*Tier], as the "beat by 10" wouldn't mean sh*t unless you could ACTUALLY attain it.

This means that your DC checks still scale, but are reasonably attainable by players NOT hellbent on min/maxing their characters. This results in some fairly even checks, with the assumption that even with players maxing a skill with 20 ranks, class trained, and some extra toppings on the side.

A Tier 10/15, with original DCs of 30 and 45, respectively, now stop being nearly impossible, and now look like 25 (with PCs having 10 ranks, +13 with basic class training, and now need to roll slightly higher than a coin flip at a minimum of 12) and 32 (with a base of 15 ranks, +18 with basic class training, now needing to roll 14, meaning it starts to show that you'll need to get slightly more dedicated if you want to roll reliably well).

This is just MY homebrew solution, and is not saying this is how it should be solved; but come on, no one else thinks this is just downright embarrassing and frustrating as a GM or player?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Note that capacity means different things for tech items than for weapons.

For weapons, capacity is the biggest battery it can slot. Batteries are roughly analogous to clips.

But for tech items (like flashlights), capacity is the amount of energy the item itself can hold.

"Capacity: This lists the maximum capacity for an item that requires charges to function. An item that holds electrical charges can be replenished with a battery (see page 190)."

So when you buy a personal comm, it doesn't actually come with a battery. (I mean, it likely has an internal battery of some kind, but it doesn't have a "battery" in the sense of the game items found on page 179). Think like an iPhone.

This is inconsistent with the following passage:

Starfinder core rulebook, page 218:
"Items specified with a usage use a battery that comes fully charged when purchased. Such batteries can be recharged as normal using generators or recharging stations (see Professional Services on page 234), or they can be replaced (see Table 7-9: Ammunition for battery prices)."

The battery of a personal comm unit can, in fact, be replaced by the same batteries used as ammunition.

Personal comm unit would not, in fact, be replaced by the same batteries as ammunition.

First of all, as stated before, some items have battery/charge capacities that don't line up with the list on the Ammunition page. Secondly, that doesn't even make a lick of sense, since even in our day and age you can't shove a car battery into an iPhone/smartphone. Do they both hold charge? Yes. Is it still electricity? Yes. Can they both be charged? Yes. Are they the same? Hell no.

Use some common sense. This type of RAW loophole-finding is ridiculous.

Moreover, as listed in the quote above, it comes fully charged but that does NOT implicitly state that it can be removed. It states "Such batteries can be recharged as normal using generators or recharging stations (see Professional Services on page 234), or they can be replaced (see Table 7-9: Ammunition for battery prices)."

That very bold-ed statement is undoing. The "or" statement would indicate that you would replace a battery of similar caliber. And it specifically is under the "Ammunition" rules-set. I've never once referred to my mag light as using "ammunition" when I'm changing out those batteries.

Some common sense needs to prevail, dude. If you're GM is letting you run rampant re-selling mag flashlights and buying rifles to strip them of batteries, then there's a bigger problem at play.

Moreover, manufacturing even in today's age matches up with most of the rules listed. It's far cheaper to buy a pre-made computer than individual parts. I can believe some shadier people doing something like this in today's, and Starfinder's, market - but it's not as easy as you might think. You also need to realize not everyone, everywhere, is simply going to buy second-hand flashlights, weapons, etc. off of you, nor will they have the supply to make that type of rapid buy/sell possible. Inventory is still a thing, and no shop stocks more than its regular influx of customers.

Again, use some common sense.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
theheadkase wrote:
IonutRO wrote:
theheadkase wrote:

In the Tactical Rules chapter, Actions in Combat section, it specifies that most spells, unless stated otherwise, leave you open to AoO's and if it hits you, you fail and lose the spell. This time around there's no calculating a concentration check based on the damage you just lose the spell and fail.

Also, in the Magic and Spells chapter, Casting Spells section, it further states that if you take damage (not ongoing damage such as bleeding) or fail a save while casting, you fail and lose the spell. They also specifically state a foe can ready an action to target you when you begin to cast.

With ray guns and lasers and such being widely available, basically everyone now is a threat to casters.

Did you even read my post?
Sure, that's why I also pointed out failing a save in my post! Glad to be of service!

Not true, spells still need a "component", just not the typical verbal, somatic, or consumable ones we are used to. Concentration is still a thing, as listed below from p334:

"CoreRulebook wrote:

Most spells have a casting time of one standard action. Others

take 1 round or more, while a few powerful special abilities
allow a character to cast a spell as a move action. A few reactive
spells can be cast as reactions, but they are generally limited in
nature, such as the 1st-level casting of flight.
When you begin casting a spell that takes 1 round or longer
to cast, you must maintain your concentration from the current
round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If
you lose concentration or take another action (even a reaction)
before the casting is complete, the spell fails.

So the suggestions from your fellow posters are highly logical and helpful. If you keep the guards out of sight alone, that will stop about over half the spells usable since there is no line of effect. What's more, if you make the area a hard-to-concentrate area (e.g., gravity, a constant dull-pain of some kind of collar or whatnot, lack of sleep, etc.) then it's easy enough to explain that the concentration necessary to focus on a spell becomes next to impossible to find.

You're the GM, ultimately, so figure it out. Combat-only is not the only way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:

You are all hang up on the death part, and not the part that matters:

Will high level spaceship combat be any more engaging than low level spaceship combat? Will characters feel increased agency in it, as they level up?

If my 20th level Envoy is just manning the turret, or managing the shields, or sweeping the floor or whatever he was doing at level 1, then what's the point?

Evilgm wrote:
You've made 5 posts in a 20 post thread about all the issues you've arbitrarily decided space combat may have, based on nothing at all. I'm fairly sure I'm not the one that needs to chill.

I'm leaning more towards the sentiment expressed by Evilgm. You're worried about a system that has "next to no information" about it. What we *do* know, however, is that a team of very accomplished RPG-makers have systematically tackled this problem from every angle and constantly revise it.

Hell, in August we may come to find that even what was shown up until now has been changed, adjusted, or scrapped.

I think it speaks volumes that the ship gets its own character sheet. Why would a robust upgrade/customization/build system be mentioned if it wasn't going to alter the experience *in* said starship from levels 1 to 20? And ship-to-ship combat doesn't stop being interesting simply because you can blow up a ship "easier" than you could at previous levels.

A dynamic progression needs to account for more than just numbers on a piece of paper. The combat itself is what is engaging. The fact that you also need members to work together to pilot a ship speaks volumes of how, even if you're all "on the same page", the battle can be engaging, fun, and different every time.

The starship is a home, first and foremost. Your "legs" in the vast space that surrounds the PCs. Taking care of it isn't about "having agency" during battle. It's about giving a $h!t. Period.

I believe you're seeking certain answers with the wrong question. If you're worried about space combat: don't be. A GM's job is to make it engaging, fun, and more importantly... well, important... period.

Scaling is meta-gaming. As a GM myself, I've never found meta-gaming to ever help players unless it was offline (out of game) and simply to understand mechanics to better participate in the next session.

Lastly (I know I've been on this soapy-box for a while) I would urge you to wait until the rules are released. I am so excited for the ship aspect, regardless of combat, that I am 99.99% sure it will capture a lot of peoples' hearts like it has mine.