|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
We know that Starfinder is going to be (at least loosely) based on Pathfinder rules but that things will be changed, streamlined or added in. We also know a little bit about the setting and themes of the game. Lets take these barely knowns and make some wild speculation about the new system!
I'll start:
- Magic levels dont go up to nine anymore. Blame the rise of technology, perhaps a side effect of ganking Golarion or whatever else but the reach of magic is severly reduced from ancient history (widely believed to be exaggerated anyways)with PCs able to get to 6th level casting at the best. some spells are adjusted in their spell level. Fewer arcane traditions exist. Divine spells are likewise limited as a result of the gods shifting huge portions of the multiverse around and needing "god scale" time to recover.
- Multiple damage scales. There is an infantry scale, a vehicle scale which is close to enough to overlap with exceptionally powerful infantry (PCs) and stellar scale to represent starships.
- The AI god is Neutral and at least has the obedience of all major factions as no one wants to be kicked out of the FTL club. The AI god can deny, hold or otherwise mess with entities in hyperspace allowing plothooks and mcguffining of players.
- AC will be minimal with Cover, Hardness/DR and dodging being the main forms of defense. energy shields with regenerating pools of "fake HP" will take over from breastplates and chainmail.
- There will be a plethora of disposable tech items that allow a lot of previous low level spell effects to be used by anyone who is tech savy. This is healing, curing, temporary skill and stat buffs, invisibility, extra sensory perceptions tec.
What've you got?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I reaaallyy like what you've got here. Unfortunately, I don't think that alot of this is going to happen. (With the exception of magic.)
I think that the gods are gonna have some sorta smackdown with rovagug
and Golarion is gonna bust up in flames are something.
But I do think that divine spellcasting will be more prominent than arcane.
Spells will be simplified (as a result of technological advances and the erase of the ancient world (Golarion)) and the only way to be a arcane caster would some sort of technomancer/alchemist hybrid.
Weapons will have advanced dramatically.
Classes will have a more ranged focus.
You'll see melee combat unheard of, improper, uncivilized means of fighting. (Except for weapons such as lightsabers, unarmed fistfights, or some kind of metal staff fights.)
A class like Jedi will arise, with the Jedi/Sith thing going on in the background.
Jedi class will be a divine spellcaster, sorta like the Warpriest.
Armor rules will be updated drastically to suit light weapons and such.
you'll have different scales of battle, going from small 5v5 grid scale battles to massive monstrosities vs. hulking mechs and motherships and tiny starfighters and whatnot. (Small spaceship combat.)
Planet-hopping adventure paths.
Actually, I think spells as a whole will be unheard of, now that I think about it.
Theliah Strongarm wrote: Actually, I think spells as a whole will be unheard of, now that I think about it. So no player magic or move magic effects to ritual like events? Magic only exists as an augment to other "anchor" devices?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think no player magic is really jumping the gun here. The little we know is marketing this as science fantasy, not science fiction. We do know there is a Technomancer core class, and magic and gods are still very much a part of the setting.
Spells are almost guaranteed to be in there.
Imbicatus wrote: I think no player magic is really jumping the gun here. The little we know is marketing this as science fantasy, not science fiction. We do know there is a Technomancer core class, and magic and gods are still very much a part of the setting.
Spells are almost guaranteed to be in there.
That is a little more along the lines of what i was thinking...
Torbyne wrote: Theliah Strongarm wrote: Actually, I think spells as a whole will be unheard of, now that I think about it. So no player magic or move magic effects to ritual like events? Magic only exists as an augment to other "anchor" devices? exactly.
I'd like more straight up fights than magic.
I could see magic rings that make you go invisible, but those would be rare and the actual spell itself would be unheard of.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Theliah Strongarm wrote: I'd like more straight up fights than magic.
I could see magic rings that make you go invisible, but those would be rare and the actual spell itself would be unheard of.
I expect the spell will exist, but that you still show up on thermal imaging, so security wears multi-specs.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Theliah Strongarm wrote: I'd like more straight up fights than magic.
I could see magic rings that make you go invisible, but those would be rare and the actual spell itself would be unheard of.
I'd like to see the opposite in a sense. I want to see a lot of minor magic being really common and certain kinds of magic being canned and sold on a wide scale. Like conjuration machines that are $9.95.
I was thinking of optic paste that you smear on and renders you invisible or something like the Mech invisibility cloaks from Vision of Escaflowne, invisibility it something fairly easy to write off as tech based. i would expect a lot of tech based counters to that as well though. We already have robots with "trueseeing" due to superior sensors, that'll probably be a lot more common.
Hmmm ... we know that they intend the Bestiaries to be "backwards compatible." So some level of spell casting will be required.
I think we are more likely to go the route of Occult Adventures.
But, the capping the maximum spell level level seems reasonable.
It would be easy to have a blanket rule about replacing monster SLAs with X powers from the Starfinder core book though, Backwards compatable doesnt mean it has to directly cross over.
I would very much like to see most of the higher level spells either gone or locked behind difficult and time consuming rituals.
i am rethinking my statements about minimal means of boosting AC, it renders full BAB kind of pointless... but i doubt they would remove full BAB from the book. still, i want to see a system that doesnt have such a heavy reliance on AC. Maybe more personal shields and you need the BAB for extra attacks to eat through the temp HPs.
Torbyne wrote: It would be easy to have a blanket rule about replacing monster SLAs with X powers from the Starfinder core book though, Backwards compatable doesnt mean it has to directly cross over.
I would very much like to see most of the higher level spells either gone or locked behind difficult and time consuming rituals.
This is plausible, and would be generally beneficial.
Can you imagine how much easier it would be to balance encounters if everyone was a 3/4 BaB class?
I wonder if that idea has been knocked around by the development team? Honestly they seem to do the best work with the 3/4 BAB chassis.
Dexion1619 wrote: Can you imagine how much easier it would be to balance encounters if everyone was a 3/4 BaB class?
I wonder if that idea has been knocked around by the development team? Honestly they seem to do the best work with the 3/4 BAB chassis.
I have to agree with you there, its been ages since i played full or half BAB, the 3/4 have the best flexibility and engaging mechanics for me. But i still doubt they will completely do away with full BAB in a core book. maybe we'll have one full, one half and five 3/4 classes.
Also, in a blow to limiting magic ... the game is supposed to be backwards compatible with the Core Pathfinder game (not just the Bestiary).
well its supposed to have some form of compatibility, we dont know how direct that comparison will be. They have already stated that you will still need some work to move bestiary creatures over so i suspect that there will need to be rework for character classes too.
Well, they said creatures will require minimal conversions, so basic mechanics will either be the same or have direct analogues for the most part, which means conversions won't be too extensive.
The degree of backwards compatibility is still a bit fuzzy. They have mentioned "Some conversation " being needed. While it's likely true that you CAN move any Pathfinder class into the new system, that doesn't mean that you should. For example, Pathfinder is, technically. Backwards compatible with 3.5, but good luck getting any sane GM to allow a huge chunk of 3.5's Prestige Classes, or even Feats.
In the end, I would say it's unreasonable to expect the design team too make everything work with existing products flawlessly. Making it so that we can use monsters with minimal effort is one thing, expecting to port every class/feat/spell combination from the core line without causing terribly broken combinations is another.
but limited spell levels is such a small thing to change that its still in the realm of possibilities.
I imagine it will be as compatible as d20 Modern was to 3.5 in the sense that the mechanics are close enough where spells function if you insert them I to the game even if spells themselves aren't a part of the original chassis. Starfinder does not need to have spells in it's core rulebook for spells outside of it to function. Magic doesn't even have to work exactly the same way for them to work.
Agreed, But I think it's unlikely that no spells will appear in the book. I do hope the spell's section is as small as possible however, considering the amount of new information that needs too be included.
I think they'll only include a very basic amount of spells like how d20 Modern had. I don't expect to see more than 10 per spell level in total.
I hope it's a new spell system. Face it, the way spells work and what they do is one of the big reasons for the martial caster threads on the forums, and as I argued before they take up too much space to cover too little ground and a piecemeal magic system would be able to extend beyond magic effects.
Malwing wrote: Theliah Strongarm wrote: I'd like more straight up fights than magic.
I could see magic rings that make you go invisible, but those would be rare and the actual spell itself would be unheard of.
I'd like to see the opposite in a sense. I want to see a lot of minor magic being really common and certain kinds of magic being canned and sold on a wide scale. Like conjuration machines that are $9.95. I agree.
I had a thought about magic in another thread, that magic might secretly be a finite resource or only replenishes itself at a fixed rate and has been over taxed by either thousands of years of abuse or the massive reality rip the gods did. It would give a good excuse to no longer having a lot of creation spells and all high level effects are out of the game. it also allows the GM to have a regulating authority in Absalom control space to prevent overt abuse of magical resources.
Another simple solution is that you have basic replicators that use cheaply available energy to do what you would otherwise pull off with magic putting martials on equal footing to mages.
I prefer to think there will be a balance between the two. magic's presence in the setting is lessened while technology can achieve many of the same effects so its not bumming out too many people.
I had another blatantly wild idea!
With the active presence of magic lessened, die hard magic users have adapted to using tech to fuel their efforts.
Tech devices exist that allow magic users to substitute energy charges as spells per day when casting spells. they cost exponentially more energy as you go up the spell levels. They dont have to do this but most find it the only practical way to use magic consistently throughout the day.
Higher level spell effects as well as most conjuration and dimensional magics also require especially large amounts of energy to pull off. Many of these effects are either less than they once were or take longer to pull off.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rethought that last one. Charges used in lieu of material component and focus objects makes more sense. I would expect some form of Arcane Capacitor though that works like Pearls of Power or Runestones of Power.
I really like the thoughts coming through on this thread.
Also I agree with your last statement.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
(I originally posted this thought in the armor thread but i wanted to include it here and maybe clean it up a bit)
Armor can be built piece meal by selecting a combination of factors such as described below.
1: AC/DEX cap: you can purchase armor with an AC value of 1-9 with each AC value having a set DEX cap, AC is almost only of use on primitive worlds and barroom brawls however. This selection comes with a set weight. Higher quality materials are available at truly premium prices that allow lower weight, high DEX cap or the like much as special materials provide for in Pathfinder.
2: Sealed or Unsealed: mostly as a price and encumbrance limit, but you can choose to have your armor be environmentally self contained with X hours of breathable atmosphere. Premium costs allow longer use of the internal atmosphere up to perfect recycling. This adds a small amount of weight to the armor.
3: Personal Force Field Strength: At the rate of X charge per hour of operation the armor will generate a regenative pool of Temp HP, so long as an attack does not do any damage over the Temp HP limit it counts as a miss. Using the force field imparts a +10 to perception checks from opponents using tech sensors. Almost all generators are the same weight but costs stagger between models and will have very different energy requirements.
4: Hardness: after choosing options 1 and 2 you will end up with a total weight that puts the armor in light, medium or heavy categories. An armor's category automatically grants a hardness rating along the lines of 3, 5 and 8. premium upgrades can increase this value but you have to invest a lot for a small return. This is also the main value of using heavier armors.
5: light, medium and heavy armors each have a preset number of augment slots to plug in extra systems for a higher cost and energy consumption. Some, like a basic computer or translator are slotless. This lets you build a custom power armor.
Instead of artifacts there are experimental set-ups built by factions or aliens that can not be augmented but also dont follow the normal limits for off the shelf omni-armors.
A similar system could be used for weapons as well, firearms come in light, one handed or two. Each category has a set damage die (D6, D8, D10 as an example) a weapon at this point is not functional but has 2, 3 or 5 augment slots, at leat one of which must be used for a damage type (fire, cold, electricity, ballistic) this determines if you are using a slug thrower or a laser or the like. Some augments cost more, ie you want a light D8 laer you need to spend two augment slots instead of one. Other options include an overcharged augment where you spend multiple charges from a weapon for a static damage boost, allow ballistic weapons to use Gauss pellets that penetrate targets if they beat hardness or even become payload weapons that damage plus special ammunition effect. There are slotless upgrades that only add to weight and price of a weapon such as sighting systems, expanded capacity energy cells, those types of mods.
In the end i hope it is a simpler system than listing every possible combination or feature and instead you choose what you can based off what the story puts in front of you or what is in your credit range to have customized.
i would also expect alien tech that isnt compatible with Absalom standard designs and "relic-tech" that functions as technology but is purely powered by magic and can only interface with other magic devices.
I like to imagine scenes such as a squad of power armored Soldiers from Absalom Security Forces with runes of spell resistance etched over their integrated generators and truesight optics over their face plates being lead by a venerable Paladin in an archaic suit of fullplate so heavily enchanted that it can keep up with the rest in the vacuum of space facing off against demons infested with bio-tech carapaces. :)
As far as the mechanics, we know that they want their bestiaries to be compatible between both games. Makes sense from a business standpoint, as you don't have to have an entirely different set of books just for monsters, both for manpower purposes as well as to make the transition easier financially and practically for your clients (plus, there are already 5 of them out).
In any event, that, I think is the biggest clue going forward as to how they might approach Starfinder. Yes, they want to use as much of the Pathfinder rules as possible, but it seems like perhaps the Bestiaries are their baseline, rather than the Core Rules per se.
Ideally, I'd think they would want you to be able to use the bestiaries as is, without having to apply any modifiers or conversions or buy/download a conversion guide just to get things straight. Or, they might just single out a few of the most important items from the Bestiary stat blocks that are applicable, and the rest can be freely ignored. But I think to get an idea of where their mindset might be working, we should look at the bestiaries and move back to the Core from there.
Cthulhudrew wrote: As far as the mechanics, we know that they want their bestiaries to be compatible between both games. Makes sense from a business standpoint, as you don't have to have an entirely different set of books just for monsters, both for manpower purposes as well as to make the transition easier financially and practically for your clients (plus, there are already 5 of them out).
In any event, that, I think is the biggest clue going forward as to how they might approach Starfinder. Yes, they want to use as much of the Pathfinder rules as possible, but it seems like perhaps the Bestiaries are their baseline, rather than the Core Rules per se.
Ideally, I'd think they would want you to be able to use the bestiaries as is, without having to apply any modifiers or conversions or buy/download a conversion guide just to get things straight. Or, they might just single out a few of the most important items from the Bestiary stat blocks that are applicable, and the rest can be freely ignored. But I think to get an idea of where their mindset might be working, we should look at the bestiaries and move back to the Core from there.
Hmm, interesting notion. What would a core book look like if it was modeled after a bestiary though? Bestiary rules usually do things like copious amounts of SLAs, loads of natural armor and absurd CMD/CMB modifiers... but really none of that ventures outside the Pathfinder core book. i am not sure what mechanics they would lift from them. What are you thinking will be ported forward?
Malwing wrote: I imagine it will be as compatible as d20 Modern was to 3.5 in the sense that the mechanics are close enough where spells function if you insert them I to the game even if spells themselves aren't a part of the original chassis. Starfinder does not need to have spells in it's core rulebook for spells outside of it to function. Magic doesn't even have to work exactly the same way for them to work. Exactly. To be backwards compatible, you really just need to match up the stats that different creatures interact with. So PCs still need Fort, Ref, and Will saves, but even if Starfinder magic operates entirely differently, they can still interact with a Pathfinder spell cast at them.
The actual mechanics of how you use magic might be completely different, as long as the end result is still an effect that might require a save, deal hp damage, etc.
RainyDayNinja wrote: Malwing wrote: I imagine it will be as compatible as d20 Modern was to 3.5 in the sense that the mechanics are close enough where spells function if you insert them I to the game even if spells themselves aren't a part of the original chassis. Starfinder does not need to have spells in it's core rulebook for spells outside of it to function. Magic doesn't even have to work exactly the same way for them to work. Exactly. To be backwards compatible, you really just need to match up the stats that different creatures interact with. So PCs still need Fort, Ref, and Will saves, but even if Starfinder magic operates entirely differently, they can still interact with a Pathfinder spell cast at them.
The actual mechanics of how you use magic might be completely different, as long as the end result is still an effect that might require a save, deal hp damage, etc. Good point. I do hope they change up the mechanics at least somewhat. So much opportunity for change in this book :)
I had another blatantly wild speculation to share, *ahem* Item Creation:
Gone are the primitive days of highly skilled artisans painstakingly crafting individual magical implements by hand. In the modern era almost all crafting is handled by machines controlled by some level of AI. All devices fall into a place on two levels, its intrinsic technological complexity (tech level) and its reliance on magical principles and energies (caster level). Auto Foundries (AF) are able to churn out items based on the Absalom Standardized Design Format (ASDF) which an AI or skilled programer can either draft or convert from other files. Auto Foundries themselves come in a wide array of capabilities and must at least match the TL and CL of the item you are attempting to produce. Using an Auto Foundry above the TL/CL required produces faster work while using one below the requirements invites violent reactions, abject failure... or perhaps a reasonably functional device.
While basic AFs can be purchased from almost any outlet they are still expensive devices and have limited capabilities. Building sized AFs tend to have vastly improved TLs and CLs but are also controlled by corporations or guilds that produce their products on their schedules for any non aligned entities. The very best AFs are tightly controlled military hardware beyond the legal means of individuals... though rumors persist of garage mechanics making considerable breakthroughs with their home built junker foundries and of cathedral sized black market foundries drifting unchecked in asteroid belts.
The ASDF is usable by any Auto Foundry built to Absalom standards and its controlling program can duplicate any design within its limits so long as it is fed the proper materials. It takes a truly advanced AI or gifted programmer to pull out design aspects to include in new or modified designs however.
Basically crafting is no longer a feat, it is bound by access to a foundry. once you have the wealth you can easily buy a foundry of up to TL 6/CL 6 to produce your own gear based off whatever ASDFs you pick up on the 'net. TL 9/CL 9 as building sized units exist but access is controlled by their respective controlling entities which may or may not work with PCs to produce what they want. Above level 9 is usually considered restricted to civilians, PCs must find pre-existing gear, align with a significantly powerful faction or work to build their own production means.
Designing new gear requires access to an AI or a character with the skills to do so and then still requires access to a foundry advanced enough to produce the new product.
I wonder if we will be sticking with the Vancian magic system, or finally moving away from the whole 'memorization' mechanic.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Belabras wrote: I wonder if we will be sticking with the Vancian magic system, or finally moving away from the whole 'memorization' mechanic. I have nothing to base it on but my preference at least is that you use modified Arcanist rules, you get X spells of each level per day. Your powers known are set but can be changed based of mcguffin X (depending on which PDA you have, cyber chip loaded into your memory, ancient reliquary attuned to...)
I dont have much to speculate on here but it is a thought that has been bouncing around for the last few days.
As a disclaimer i know the developers have said they are not going to be bound to the Tech Guide for how technology works going into Starfinder... That being said, the Tech Guide is possibly the best look at what Paizo thinks about with respect to guns in the Pathfinder system which is the launching point for Starfinder.
So, high tech guns from the tech guide, if that is the mainstay of weapons for your PCs change things quite a lot.
- Each weapon has its own limit on how many times it can be used in a round, dual wielding is the only way to go over three attacks per round and at that point you are taking a minimum of -10 to each shot which eats up most of the benefit to hitting at touch AC. BAB isnt used to determine extra attacks at all in fact, a level 3 fighter and a level 3 mage can each pull off three shots with one feat invested.
- The average damage difference between one handed and two handed firearm is about 3 points (D8 compared to 2D6) meaning that if you have the BAB you might as well go for dual wielding and try to get more static boosts where you can. two handers do have better range but how often will you be shooting past ~100'?
- Automatic weapons used in burst have strict limits on what damage boosters they can use.
- Most tech guns deal energy damage which is very specialized compared to physical damage. You can shoot adamantine bullets and enchant your gun to eventually get over DR but energy resistance will stop most of your shots cold.
- All damaging technologies are equal. This is just a little weird to me all; the ways to create cold, fire, electric and force damage use about the same amount of energy and deal the same damage. a laser weapon, the most feasible kind of energy weapon of all the listed option in the real world is on equal footing with a boson condensate projector or weaponized graviton emitter. There are a few nice little add ons like the zero weapons can stagger but the saves are only really good at very low level play.
All in all if these are the kinds of weapons we are going to be using in most campaigns it would change the game quite a bit. most characters at 3/4 BAB can get away with using the built in rapid shot feature and snap off two attacks a round from level one. full BAB will be in the same boat too until they get a solid lead in accuracy boosters to risk stacking on the actual feat rapid shot and taking the extra penalty to hit.
While i can appreciate firearms as the great equalizer it would take a big incentive to take a full BAB in this kind of situation.
Thoughts?
Torbyne wrote: As a disclaimer i know the developers have said they are not going to be bound to the Tech Guide for how technology works going into Starfinder... Where did they say that? Not that I don't trust it, I just haven't heard of this which means I have missed something.
IonutRO wrote: Torbyne wrote: As a disclaimer i know the developers have said they are not going to be bound to the Tech Guide for how technology works going into Starfinder... Where did they say that? Not that I don't trust it, I just haven't heard of this which means I have missed something. Hrmm, i had thought i had seen a more direct quote on the matter but here is one that speaks to the notion, "You’ll see changes to the combat system to make it more suited to futuristic weapons and gear, changes to the economy, changes to things like skills, and certainly changes to the way some things are presented to try and make them easier to learn. You’ll also see new rules systems to handle things like starship battles." that is from the Enworld interview. And then from the Paizo blog itself, "new twists on magic and the rules system itsel - fand, of course, ton and tons of cool science fantasy gear, from starships and computers to infinitely sharp zero-edge swords and rune-augmented plasma cannons."
So we have new rules for combat, new tech items and weapons. My assumption is that they may use the tech guide for ideas but will not be bound to the same rules as in it.
It really depends by how they define "backwards compatibility".
Do they meant "convert" as you could from 3.x to PF, or "convert" like you could from Pathfinder to the Unchained action economy or the Armour as DR rule in Ultimate Combat...
They could change how AC works, perhaps being closer to Star Wars Saga. Or armour could be DR. They could add a condition track/ damage threshold as well.
zThey could also change the math: removing the different BABs, removing the reliance on magic and increasing gear, making monster math different from PCs, etc.
It's explicitly a different game, so they don't need to keep sacred cows like 9 levels of spells and the like. Really full spellcasters have so much of their class' power tied up in spells, it might be better to assume 3 or 6 levels of spellcasting as the norm. More more options into class features. Anyone who wants a full caster can convert from Pathfinder.
Jester David wrote: It really depends by how they define "backwards compatibility".
Do they meant "convert" as you could from 3.x to PF, or "convert" like you could from Pathfinder to the Unchained action economy or the Armour as DR rule in Ultimate Combat...
They could change how AC works, perhaps being closer to Star Wars Saga. Or armour could be DR. They could add a condition track/ damage threshold as well.
zThey could also change the math: removing the different BABs, removing the reliance on magic and increasing gear, making monster math different from PCs, etc.
It's explicitly a different game, so they don't need to keep sacred cows like 9 levels of spells and the like. Really full spellcasters have so much of their class' power tied up in spells, it might be better to assume 3 or 6 levels of spellcasting as the norm. More more options into class features. Anyone who wants a full caster can convert from Pathfinder.
This is very close to my thinking on the matter, being able to use a bestiary entry in Starfinder doesnt mean the rules are going to be a straight port over and if you want technology to have relevance then you almost need to tone down what magic can do.
Here are my wild thoughts
I think there will be a stronger focus on gear and that will lead to gear proficiency being a replacement for some abilities. Like to balance out a grenade launcher being a grenade launcher. It's a weapon proficiency you can only get if your a level 10 fighter. Well a class might get proficiency with a mind probe in the same way a wizard might get a mind reading spell.
I also think we won't see BAB work the same. Specifically I think it won't give you extra attacks. The number of attacks you get will be based on the weapon you use.
I also suspect the ship rules will be bad. Just based on experience.
nomotog wrote: Here are my wild thoughts
I think there will be a stronger focus on gear and that will lead to gear proficiency being a replacement for some abilities. Like to balance out a grenade launcher being a grenade launcher. It's a weapon proficiency you can only get if your a level 10 fighter. Well a class might get proficiency with a mind probe in the same way a wizard might get a mind reading spell.
I also think we won't see BAB work the same. Specifically I think it won't give you extra attacks. The number of attacks you get will be based on the weapon you use.
I also suspect the ship rules will be bad. Just based on experience.
I suspect that BAB will still function like it does in 3.X but that most classes designed for Starfinder will be 3/4 BAB progression. i agree that weapon fire rates will be limiters for number of attacks. At higher levels dual wielding pistols may afford more attacks, and more DPR, than two handing a rifle. In general the 3.x systems dont model "one big damn hit" very well so far.
I really hope powerful weapons arent locked behind high level feats, that just seem so... artificial to me. lock them behind resource gates or in setting legal requirements, something that makes sense to the story but dont lock it behind level X just "because"
I really want good and easy to understand ship rules... i really really, do. trying to not be too optimistic for it though.
Torbyne wrote: nomotog wrote: Here are my wild thoughts
I think there will be a stronger focus on gear and that will lead to gear proficiency being a replacement for some abilities. Like to balance out a grenade launcher being a grenade launcher. It's a weapon proficiency you can only get if your a level 10 fighter. Well a class might get proficiency with a mind probe in the same way a wizard might get a mind reading spell.
I also think we won't see BAB work the same. Specifically I think it won't give you extra attacks. The number of attacks you get will be based on the weapon you use.
I also suspect the ship rules will be bad. Just based on experience.
I suspect that BAB will still function like it does in 3.X but that most classes designed for Starfinder will be 3/4 BAB progression. i agree that weapon fire rates will be limiters for number of attacks. At higher levels dual wielding pistols may afford more attacks, and more DPR, than two handing a rifle. In general the 3.x systems dont model "one big damn hit" very well so far.
I really hope powerful weapons arent locked behind high level feats, that just seem so... artificial to me. lock them behind resource gates or in setting legal requirements, something that makes sense to the story but dont lock it behind level X just "because"
I really want good and easy to understand ship rules... i really really, do. trying to not be too optimistic for it though. I think they will make BAB less complex rather then more complex, so I don't see them limiting attacks based on ROF. 3/4 BAB sounds about right though.
I think locking powerfull weapons behind a level is a lot cleaner then locking them behind money gates. Money is such a squiggly thing. It's even more squiggly when you bring in a ship like you would expect for most space games. You have a ship and logically a ship would cost tons. If you have money for a ship, you have money for hundreds of grenade launchers. Locking them with proficiency isn't that out there. You already have exotic weapons locked behind feats, or martial weapons locked behind classes. (Though money locks are kind of a big thing in 3.5/pathfinder so they might just go with that.)
I have seen working space ships rules, but never any that feel good. They often feel like a new game onto themselves. Lately I have seen a few systems just not bother. My idea for working spaceships is to copy FTL/Battlestations where you get really micro and treat a spaceship more like a piece or terrain more then a entity itself.
I expect we will see damage significantly different from the Technology Guide. I honestly won't be surprised if they go with damage values closer too what d20 Modern /Future had.
Pistol Examples
Light Pistol 2d4 (light weight, bonus to conceal, shorter range).
Standard Pistol 2d6 (Good ammo capacity, average range, good rate of fire)
Heavy Pistol 2d8 (low ammo capacity, penalty when duel wielding, improved range )
Rifle Examples
Light Rifle 2d8 (light weight, good ammo capacity, good range)
Heavy Rifle 2d10 (moderate ammo, excelent range)
Super Heavy rifle 2d12 (low ammo, great range, low rate of fire)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
ITS ALL GOING TO BE IN METRIC UNITS CAUSE FUTURE
I FOR ONE EMBRACE 1.524 METER SQUARES
God of Atheism wrote: ITS ALL GOING TO BE IN METRIC UNITS CAUSE FUTURE
I FOR ONE EMBRACE 1.524 METER SQUARES
Actually, I've been thinking of using 1 meter squares instead of 5 ft. squares in my games.
IonutRO wrote: God of Atheism wrote: ITS ALL GOING TO BE IN METRIC UNITS CAUSE FUTURE
I FOR ONE EMBRACE 1.524 METER SQUARES
Actually, I've been thinking of using 1 meter squares instead of 5 ft. squares in my games. It works nicely since you can use meters and yards almost interchangeably. And it makes hallways and rooms closer to reality.
|
