Fardragon wrote: Anyway, I think it's reasonable to say that "touch AC" was retained by Pathfinder because it inherited casters having lousy BAB/thac0, even with attacking with spells, and "flat footed AC" was retained to compensate rogues for thier inferior BAB.
If we hypothesise that Starfinder classes do not have a variable BAB (or equivelent), then we can infer that touch AC and flat footed AC are ditched.
but that still brings us back to, if everyone has around the same accuracy than everyone can shoot at the same target number and we dont need separate tracks for KAC/EAC. At the most basic level EAC just sounds like the new spacey term for touch but that still doesnt address what happens when martials can use their super BAB against the caster's lower target...
It occurred to me why i dislike the notion of doing away with direct attack spells, they are almost the entire school of evocation plus a decent number of necromancy and even some of the conjuration. i know we have fewer spell levels but it would be even more drastic if they lopped off whole schools of magic as well.
Why do you think casters are a lower target?
Fardragon wrote: Why do you think casters are a lower target? Casters most commonly target touch AC which is a lower target number than regular AC in Pathfinder, i assume Touch primarily exists to make it easier for casters to land their spells since they have 1/2 or 3/4 BAB and have to split their stats to things other than attack rolls. those times that spells target normal AC the spell will also allow special BAB rules, something like adding the casting stat instead of strength or dex and sometimes with even more bonuses beyond that.
The assumption about Starfinder is that even non casting 3/4 BAB classes will have accuracy boosters to help them out in combat where they are expected to land hits with weapons because they dont have spells. Traditionally casters wouldnt have those buffs, they have spells instead. You cant give the buffs to the casters too or it takes away from the martial's cool thing, so how does the caster make their spells worth it? I am not sure it is by targeting EAC, perhaps attack spells are all based on saves now... which would make the evasion classes really good mage hunters i guess.
I think you are still stuck in Pathfinder mode.
There is no reason to suppose any Starfinder classes have lower BAB than any other.
There is no reason to suppose that Starfinder casters have low AC, especially EAC.
The main reason for these things was to help fighters who where limited to variations of pointy stick when it came to doing damage. When Starfinder Soldiers can equip shoulder mounted proton torpedo launchers they cease to need that kind of help.
It's also worth noting that in 1st and 2nd edition D&D there where very few spells that required a to-hit roll, and no "ranged touch attacks". That's pretty much a 3rd edition/Pathfinder thing.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
What makes you think that EAC and KAC are determined by class at all? What if it is determined strictly by ability scores and gear, or maybe race might even factor into it, or maybe character level, or some other thing, or a combination of things...? We simply don't have enough information to know which way it will go. Speculating is fun, but getting too focused on a single point of view or hoping for that one thing you really want without any evidence supporting that view is highly likely to lead to disappointment when you don't get what you thought Santa was gonna bring you. Arguing for or against any of these views is like trying to herd cats... you can try to force your agenda all you want, but at the end of the day the cat... er... game system... is going to do what it has already set its mind to do regardless of your views.
Sure, that's why this thread is called "wild speculation".
Why bother? Because theorycrafting is fun.
It won't bother me if I'm wrong. Indeed, since I've made the case for several competing theories, it is inevitable that I am.
Fardragon wrote: I think you are still stuck in Pathfinder mode.
There is no reason to suppose any Starfinder classes have lower BAB than any other.
There is no reason to suppose that Starfinder casters have low AC, especially EAC.
The main reason for these things was to help fighters who where limited to variations of pointy stick when it came to doing damage. When Starfinder Soldiers can equip shoulder mounted proton torpedo launchers they cease to need that kind of help.
It's also worth noting that in 1st and 2nd edition D&D there where very few spells that required a to-hit roll, and no "ranged touch attacks". That's pretty much a 3rd edition/Pathfinder thing.
Sort of, i have mentioned before that Pathfinder is about all we have to go on as far as mechanical balance and i actually hope a lot has been changed from that standard.
So to take a step back, if every class is a 3/4 BAB than how do you make classes feel unique? Please tell its more than "everyone with a laser rifle can take this laser rifle feat and shoot for 1D8+2 BUT soliders get to shoot three times as compared to everyone ele's two times. and oh yeah, the Technomancer can shoot just as accurately as that lame Solider but also has SPELLS!!!"
Basically magic, even on a 2/3 caster, is such a massively powerful class ability with far reaching capacity in social, combat and utility roles that if they had either the same or easy access to the same weapon skills as the Soldier class... why have the Soldier class at all? From a design perspective each class should feel and act different, we arent playing 4th ed here. giving everyone the same BAB progression brings them perilously close in design space unless we are also getting core class features up front... which rasies concerns on the other end about multi-classing or dipping for weapons and armor but then going caster from level 2 on for all of the Soldier's best features and 2/3 casting.
I am not supposing casters have lower AC but i am working off the paradigm that casters are less accurate than frontliners. But i will be really disapointed if there is somehow a major difference in how the magically powered laser rifle and the just plain magical scorching ray interact with defenses.
I am not ready to believe that the Solider is a 3/4 BAB chassis just yet. The Pathfinder barbarian who get transported to Absalom Station should not become the blood god incarnate just because they are a savage technologist and have a better BAB and more attacks than anything else that exists in the multiverse.
Unless i am really forgetting some major aspects here though every edition has had caster's forgo static defense in favor of spells and have rather lousy THAC0 or BAB progression. They didnt need to hit with spells in earlier editions because those spells were what made up for their inability to land a hit with their clubs. That is still the point i am looking at here, if the caster all of a sudden has an attack score within points of the soldier, how do you balance that combat ability against their arsenal of spells? It feels like too much ability for one class and muddles the design space.
Maybe we are going back to spells dont need attack rolls though and while casters have 3/4 BAB they dont have any class buffs so they land regular hits more often than Pathfinder casters but still not as well as frontliners and without their spells they just do base weapon damage? it could help them out to be able to do things on rounds when they ran out or dont have the right spells but its just picking away at enemies without making the big hits that other classes can. But that still doesnt explain why we need both KAC and EAC, if anything it removes justification for the two since its just two armor tracks for two categories of weapons. why not play a dual wielding PC with an energy pistol in one hand and a kinetic pistol in the other, just use full attacks with whichever one it targeting the lower AC.
5E gave everyone the same "bab" and it doesn't suffer nearly as much from the "caster/martial" disparity that everyone talks about when they talk about Pathfinder. 5e also has well defined roles for characters (and most classes can fill lots of different roles).
I suspect/hope Starfinder will do something similar.
If you consider overall design considerations, then why have casters traditionally been glass cannons? Boardly speaking, it's because in a fantasy settings the casters have a monopoly on aoe damage. Once you move to the Starfinder setting it is clear that monopoly is broken, and broken hard. We know there are flamethrowers. Which one has to assume pretty much duplicate the effect of spells like Burning Hands, and can be used by the mechanic class at least, but probably Soldiers too, and maybe others. It would be surprising if the setting doesn't feature grenades (duplicating Fireball) and missile launchers (= meteor storm).
So the question isn't "why do we need Soldiers." but "why do we need casters?". Clearly not for thier damage abilities, which other classes can do just as well. So, for healing, buffing, debuffing and crowd control then. And there is no longer a need for them to be glass cannons.
So, how are classes differentiated? I would suggest that by the gear they can use, with the more awesome tech weapons like rocket launchers being higher tier than a bog standard laser pistol. Tech tiers could be pretty much like spell levels, with the most powerful weapons only being used (competantly) by high level Soldiers, and the most powerful support items being the domain of high level Mechanics.
Fardragon wrote: If you consider overall design considerations, then why have casters traditionally been glass cannons? Boardly speaking, it's because in a fantasy settings the casters have a monopoly on aoe damage. Once you move to the Starfinder setting it is clear that monopoly is broken, and broken hard. We know there are flamethrowers. Which one has to assume pretty much duplicate the effect of spells like Burning Hands, and can be used by the mechanic class at least, but probably Soldiers too, and maybe others. It would be surprising if the setting doesn't feature grenades (duplicating Fireball) and missile launchers (= meteor storm).
So the question isn't "why do we need Soldiers." but "why do we need casters?". Clearly not for thier damage abilities, which other classes can do just as well. So, for healing, buffing, debuffing and crowd control then. And there is no longer a need for them to be glass cannons.
So, how are classes differentiated? I would suggest that by the gear they can use, with the more awesome tech weapons like rocket launchers being higher tier than a bog standard laser pistol. Tech tiers could be pretty much like spell levels, with the most powerful weapons only being used (competantly) by high level Soldiers, and the most powerful support items being the domain of high level Mechanics.
Sure, i expect there will be a lot of tech weapons that take the same slot as older spells did but to suggest that blasting from spells was why casters had lower BAB, AC and HP is really misleading. Spells let the caster do just about anything and if well prepared lets them succeed at just about anything. having them be more vulnerable is a balance against them also being able to excel at everything. There have been threads and threads made about how the best roque is a 9th level caster or the best fighter is a 9th level caster. 3.0 had a huge problem with clerics and druids who could literally be full BAB plus full spells and both came on chassis with strong AC and HP. Its loading too much into one class. so casters tend to have lower endurance as far as class features and defenses because otherwise they would run roughshod over every other class.
Giving missile launchers to the soldiers and saying they are equal to casters now so the casters can have the same HP, BAB and AC of the soldiers is... a very bad decision. the casters will still be slinging spells that do things soldiers cant even try to do plus be wielding their own missile launchers on top of it all.
Gear locked to class is a really unappealing idea too. no one builds weapons to be overly complicated and making the best gun only able to be used by the smartest soldier means you dont get to field too many of those guns. and whats the justification for the caster being a crack shot with the laser pistol but unable to wield the plamsa pistol? I hope plasma doesnt incur spell failure rates all of a sudden.
Do you even know hiw to turn off the safety catch on a Reticulating Focus Dual Fusion Core Plasma Accelerator MkVI?
It's a lot more complex than hitting people with a sharpened piece of metal!
In gameplay terms it's diffcult to see how you can have tech based classes without some gear restrictions. That's why, traditionally, SF RPGs have tended to opt for classless systems.
I would imagine there would be some equivelent of a "UMD" roll when trying to use gear that you are not qualified on, with a chance of it blowing up in your face on a failed roll.
Torbyne wrote: Giving missile launchers to the soldiers and saying they are equal to casters now so the casters can have the same HP, BAB and AC of the soldiers is... a very bad decision. the casters will still be slinging spells that do things soldiers cant even try to do plus be wielding their own missile launchers on top of it all.
Gear locked to class is a really unappealing idea too.
I certainly hope there's going to be gear that duplicates a lot of spells. Jet packs for Fly spells, rapid healing tech for Cure spells, Dimensional Warp devices for teleport, and so on. And it's easy enough to lock that, not behind class, but behind training - basic guns may be designed to be easy but more complicated systems aren't especially if you have to look after them yourself. If the casters are choosing between that training and making their spells better, then they might still decide to grab the rocket launcher, but then they won't be getting the training that means their healing spell ticks a couple of times after it's first casting. Make sure that basic spell use is slightly inferior to tech and advanced spell use is slightly better, and you won't see many casters picking up advanced healing training when they could get a good effect for the same effort through improved spellcasting.
The casters advantages in this case are superior versatility (pick the spell you want as needed instead of relying on having the correct bit of tech), a slightly superior effect if they put extra effort into a specialisation, easier resource replenishment when the normal amenities of civilisation are rare, and some spells that can't be duplicated by technology. Their disadvantages are limited use and inferior effects without that extra training, and some technological effects won't be possible to duplicate through magic.
Fardragon wrote: It's a lot more complex than hitting people with a sharpened piece of metal! Considering that training to be competent with a sword took professional warriors several years, I actually doubt that.
Fardragon wrote: Voss wrote: Fardragon wrote: I'm coming to the conclusion that energy AC means energy weapons only, not spells (otherwise it would have affected the Magic Missile in the playtest). If touch attack spells still exist at all I would expect them to target the lower KAC. But I wouldn't be surpised if there are none in Starfinder. This is wrong. Magic missile doesn't roll to hit.
The technomancers 'energy blast' (not just her gun) but a cantrip/class feature (like the energy rays given by various domains/bloodlines) also target eAC.
Quote: Well, an alternative take would be that energy weapons (ranged or melee) do generally more damage than kinetic weapons, but EAC higher than KAC, making attacks less likely to connect. In the playtest, kinetic weapons did more damage than energy weapons. Magic Missile not having a to-hit roll is a quirk of gameplay mechanics. Internal consistancy should trump mechanical considerations. Magic Missile is magical energy. Ergo, if energy shields can block magical energy it should block Magic Missile. Either requiring a hit roll or 100% like a Shield spell. Debatable. I'd say deliberate design intent rather an a quirk: autohitting is the point of magic missile- the only thing the spell really does. (The force damage is lowering the die type)
Regardless, wild speculation is all well and good, but not when it contradicts actual facts. MM does autohit in the playtest. And while some tweaking certainly did happen between January and late March, I doubt they rewrote the AC system, so energy weapons and class abilities target eAC, bullets and melee target kAC. And laser weapons do less damage than kinetic. We have actual numbers and evidence for all those things. They aren't really subject to wild speculation.
As for gear and classes, going to disagree with you again. There isn't much point in gear restrictions (that safety catch? It's a button. On or off. Light years less complicated than the things you do with sharpened metal). And the 'tradition' of classless... Uh, runs into the problem of all those SF RPGs with classes. Or careers. But especially classes in all those space opera and space fantasy RPGs that are direct ancestors or influences on this one.
I think equipment being "locked" by class might not actually be incredibly far off. It's already "locked" by level after all. But I don't think that means that a Mystic can't use a Rocket Launcher while a Soldier can. Maybe Soldiers just generally get access to them sooner.
Or you can gain access to gear that you would otherwise have difficulty using via feats, or pumping up your "Use Technological Device" skill.
Anyway, we can simply invoke Clarke's law "sufficiently andanced technology is indistiguishable from magic". Since magic has spell levels, and advanced technology is indistinguishable, advanced technology must also have spell levels. QED.
I'm pretty sure that argument wins the internets.
So i think to a lot of people in the setting there is not a funtional difference between technology or magic, so having a tech level or tech items flat out having a spell level association wouldnt be surprising.
The level lock on gear sounds much more like GM recommendation, like the 25% of WBL in one item limit, if the GM is cool with it a player could dump 90% of WBL into one super item and just deal with it when that thing gets stolen or sundered. I could also see a lot of really advanced stuff being locked behind a faction gate where you need to get on the good side of who ever makes it to ever have a chance of the design schematics slipping your way or a few prototype devices falling out of a shipment somewhere near you.
but just saying the super awesome gun can only be used by a Soldier kind of sucks for the technomancer who takes the sharp shooter theme and wanted to play more magus than wizard. It also means that when you start introducing new base classes later on you have to include a side bar about the mercenary counting as a Soldier of their level -2 for purposes of gear... which ends up being a messy and unnecessary complication. i thought that class proficiency and then spending a feat to unlock the next tier or weapons was a good enough system.
[making stuff up] There will be two levels of masterwork starcharts. One will be mundane, and give a +2 bonus to Navigation/Astrogation rolls, which will affect how close you arrive to a desired destination and how long it takes to get there. The magical one-use disposable starcharts will open a transient wormhole and whisk your ship somewhere. Usually the destination is pre-set. The crazy expensive ones key in to the location you desire. Beware the cursed ones... [/making stuff up]
Why would a Technomancer want to use a super-awesome gun that dupicates the effect of the super-awesome spell that they get anyway? But I would imagine that any class would at some point be able to use a top of the range laser rifle. It's the special weapons that do AoE damage that are more likely to be semi-class limited. Consider Baz Malbus: why doesn't everyone carry big guns like the ones he uses?
But yes, you could use feats to unlock different tiers of weapons. You would just need rather more than the three tiers Pathfinder has.
But one thing that is confirmed (Drift podcast) is that weapon damage scales with level in a similar fashion to spell damage. How might that function?
A) your laser pistol automagically increases in damage when you level up.
B) you replace your laser with a more powerful one when you level up. I doubt this, since players get attached to certain weapons.
C) you install upgrades as you level up. E.g.when I reach level 3 I can replace my blaster's MkI power pack (1d6) with a MkII power pack (2d6). This seems most likely, since it seems to tie in with what is being said about level based upgrades to the player ship.
B) is the default assumption for all of D&D and Pathfinder. I doubt they'd change it for the sake of mass produced lasers.
Did you listen to the podcast? The "default assumption of Pathfinder" is that weapon damage is fixed. A sword does 1d8 at level one, and 1d8 at level 20. When they say "weapon damage improves with level in the same way as spell damage" they are talking about base damage, not magical bonuses.
Of those, I would guess c. Although id guess part of it is skill too. I could have a blaster and pull the trigger at level 1. A bunch go down the hall, and I nick one guy. Lucky me. Then my buddy at level 9 comes along. He takes my weapon, then fires down the same hall. Being at a higher level, even though he shoots the same gun and number of bullets, he hits more cause he's a better shot.
Maybe that's how they do machine guns. Let's say you have an ac of 18. Maybe for every 2 I beat the AC by, I score another hit, but I can't hit me times than the gun can shot
I havent had the chance to listen to the podcast yet so my apologies if this is already shut down... didnt they already say all this about weapon damage scaling months and months ago and then give an example of using the new UPBs to break down your old weapon and apply its UPB cost towards making the new weapon? just like in the play test it isnt "Rifle" and "Laser Pistol" it was "Target Auto Rifle" and "Diode laser Pistol" i had just assumed from those two data points that there will be 5 or so categories for weapons (Pistol, Shotgun, SMG, Auto-rifle, Sniper-Rifle) and every two levels you can upgrade its category (Target, Personal Defense, Hunting, Tuned, Military, Top of the Line, Experimental etc.) so at level 14 you can have an Experimental Shotgun that shoots modified cones of 6D6 per shot and get 2-3 shots per round. (just a side note, i would like shotguns to work along something like single square target for the first range increment and then 3 square wide increments afterwards but only half base damage, a basic shotgun being 2D6 to a single square for the first 15 feet perhaps and then 1D6 but three squares wide from 15-90 feet out) I imagine that energy weapons work along similar upgrade paths of Diode, Electron, Ruby, Exotic Matter, etc. etc. and then you choose something like laser or plasma or whatever for energy type. it would be neat if energy weapons had quirks with their flavor, plasma working against swarms, lasers ignoring a specfic category of defense (force effects maybe?)
But again, i thought they already explained the heart of the system a while ago and the whole idea of UPBs were to make it easier to convert wealth to items without having to warp back to town to find merchants and then convert unwanted items at half cost into something you actually do need. After playing more than a few characters who can only use a small set of weapons i know i am looking forward to half orcs always being able to get their hands on Falchion, Investigators who can turn that greatsword into a rapier et al.
Another thought that occurred to me, if themes work like i think they do than you dont need to introduce 30-40 new base classes in future books, you just need enough base classes to introduce the chassis combinations or basic roles and then you use themes to bolt on whichever set of mechanics you want to make the various hybrid or speialty classes. Put a driver/rider theme on a Soldier and you have a tank crewman or space cavalier, put a sharp shooter theme on a technomancer and you have the space Magus, a fighty theme on a mystic is a crusader/paladin type while a medic theme on a mystic is a healbot/support mage.
It allows skill packages for martials or fight packages for support characters and could be a lot of fun to play with. Put the fight package on a Soldier and you get a one person wrecking ball!
But i still dont see where KAC and EAC come into play... i keep coming back to the notion that energy weapons will scale far slower than kinetic so that EAC can be justified as lower than KAC and give caster-mages a hittable target but at the expense of martials not getting the cool energy weapons i want them too in a future setting.
What if KAC and EAC tie into how melee is supposedly still viable? Like, if EAC is higher than KAC, and energy weapons do lots of damage, but KAC is lower and mostly applies to melee attacks. Combined with the previous theory of higher attack rolls = higher damage, I think I could get behind that.
CKent83 wrote: What if KAC and EAC tie into how melee is supposedly still viable? Like, if EAC is higher than KAC, and energy weapons do lots of damage, but KAC is lower and mostly applies to melee attacks. Combined with the previous theory of higher attack rolls = higher damage, I think I could get behind that. We've at least seen a few KAC targeting guns in the playtest though as well as at least two energy based melee weapons. I think melee is still viable the same way it is in Pathfinder, you usually model combat at such short ranges that you are in melee after the first round unless every agrees to fight at range. If using a gun in melee has any of the same penalties as using a bow or crossbow does in Pathfinder than that is another good reason for melee to exist without any other extra bonuses.
If Power Armor adds to strength and strength adds to damage than it might also be a thing to wear such armor with energy shields and speed boosts to charge enemy gun positions and tear them up with a laser-axe.
I do hope to get a bayonet as an option though, and then upgrade it to a chain-bayonet or lightsaber-bayonet at some point. Or maybe some of those 40K Glaive-Bolters i have seen around before. Those look fun.
I agree, the game is designed around combat in tight spaces, not open fields, so attacks of opportunity combined with a slightly higher damage scale for melee weapons should be enough to keep melee useful, if not as dominant as it is in Pathfinder.
Fardragon wrote: Did you listen to the podcast? The "default assumption of Pathfinder" is that weapon damage is fixed. A sword does 1d8 at level one, and 1d8 at level 20. When they say "weapon damage improves with level in the same way as spell damage" they are talking about base damage, not magical bonuses. So? All the more reason to toss the the Diode laser in the recycle bin and pick up a plasma rifle.
But any, fixed isn't the default assumption I was talking about. Its that you don't upgrade weapons, you replace them with completely new things as they turn up. The +1 long sword gets tossed in favor a cold iron +2, then an adamantium +whatever and then a holy avenger. Sticking to the sword you left the farm with come hell or high water simply isn't in the cards.
I find that after players find a weapon they like they prefer to stick to it for as long as possible, especially when the rules alow for upgrades. This is behaviour I tend to encorage when GM by placing specially tailored items in adventures instead of a pile of +1 generic stuff. It makes for a stonger narrative.
Whatever, that wasn't the sort of damage upgrade that they spoke of in the podcast, since they specifically refered to Pathfinder weapon damage as "static" and Starfinder weapon damage as different and "like spells".
Of note, if something like "Automatic Bonus Progression" were "baked in" to the game as you level up, or "the big 6" items aren't necessarily assumed to be owned by the pcs, it might be easier to just use what they like. Maybe they don't upgrade to a +2 laser pistol because that isn't a thing. Maybe they can just prefer whatever weapon for whatever task it's best suited for. "Oh man. I'd love to use my laser-axe more often, but this vibro-knife I have is +3." Or you would just use what you like.
It sounds more like a laser pistol does 1d4 at level 1, 2d4 at level 3, 3d4 at level 5 progression to me*, with any bonuses for using a magic laser pistol on top of that.
*or a more monk-like 1d4, 1d6, 1d8 type progression.
How do you guys think the energy ac versus kinetic ac will work?
Nobody knows, lots of suggestions in this thread, what do you think?
I think all the traditional DnD armor will end up only giving kinetic AC while the energy AC with be gained by some special quality of the new space armor. Oblivious energy AC vs lasers and plasma. Kinetic for more traditional.
Fardragon wrote: It sounds more like a laser pistol does 1d4 at level 1, 2d4 at level 3, 3d4 at level 5 progression to me*, with any bonuses for using a magic laser pistol on top of that.
*or a more monk-like 1d4, 1d6, 1d8 type progression.
if it is "like spells" then i would go for XD6 where X is a tiered system.
Kinetic progresses at (level/2)D6 and Energy at (level/3)D6?
So that gives 11 tiers for kinetic assuming we start at level 1 and 7 tiers for energy. If we assume that 1 accuracy is 2 damage as we often do in Pathfinder than energy weapons end up at ~14 points lower on damage but if they are shooting at EAC and EAC scales slower than KAC, than we could have a spread of about 7 points of accuracy between KAC and EAC which is... about right for 3/4 accuracy compared to a full BAB? So that would let caster's both land spells at EAC and reliably land blaster shots but then i am not sure what the draw is for a martial to use energy weapons, their iterative attacks are more likely to land, rider effects are more likely to land? That could work i suppose.
In general i would like martials to have more access to debuffs or status effects and locking those debuffs to weapon or damage types could be a thing. Operatives especially i could see with various crippling effects on their attacks, disabling weapons, hampering movement, generic penalties on attack or saves, all of that stuff.
Xd4 pistols
Xd6 rifles
Progression rate could be class related.
Related to the issue of "status effects for matials" I have a feeling Mechanic will be functionally similar to a caster in all but name. This morning my Mechanic will equip Flamethrower (Burning Hands), Nanite Healing Spray (Cure Light Wounds), and a Shield Generator (Shield Spell).
D6 Pistols and 2D6 rifles (or 2D4 but that is a narrow improvement for using up the second hand.)?
There could be an interesting option there with either big kinetic rifles (rail guns maybe?) or duel wielding energy pistols at a lower EAC.
And where to things like SMGs/MPs fall into that? shotguns would be two handed, i am sure.
I kind of want to see a Solider with a techie shield and single handed SMG now.
I really think weapon progression rate and access to tiers should be seperate from classes entirely. Maybe, MAYBE, a theme that has things like black market connections or "ahead of the curve" that lets you buy or make higher tier weapons earlier.
as for debuffs, i was thinking freeze rays, exploding bullets, shooting weapons out of hands, crippling legs, dazed or stunned from concussions, glitching out equipment and robots, those kinds of things more than just flame throwers shoot cones (i would like options for spread weapons though to try out new templates...)
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I think Energy EAC will be the easier of the two to hit. Kinetic will be the harder of the two.
One way to keep melee viable is have the class as whole scale with damage like 13th Age
does. Also melee might get acces to certain maneuvea/stunts. Depending on what the
maneuvers/stunts are can keep things balanced. I think it is going to be combination
of maybe scaling damage per level, maybe exta attack for melee, and stunts/maneuvers.
Dave2
Kinetic and energy are not melee and ranged. There are kinetic ranged weapons (slug throwers) and energy melee weapons (light sabres/laser swords). They are all seen in the various official artwork.
I think the laser pistol in the playthrough was 1d4 at level 1.
I wonder if maybe weapons do extra damage when hitting someone without any for of KAC or EAC
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mind you it was very old playthrough one of the first posteded it gave the break down of
EAC which now looking at it could be laser swords and energy weapons, ranged, where kenitic is the other weapons. I do think EAC will still be the easier to hit. While kinetic will be the harder to hit. As far as the damage scaling I think that will be access to better weapons, class abitied, and maybe maneuvers/stunts. I keep basing the manuevers/stunts based on how starship combat has them with the various roles. It would seem odd to have them in starship combat and not personnel combat. We will see though.
I think the next blog show that is done should focus on some of these questions. The last posted blog show the developer says damage scales but does not say how. A follow up is how does it scale up? Is it just weapon damage or class abilities or combination of both.
Another one is the math is different. Well how is it different. Lower bonuses to hit from class bonus. Do weapons give accuracy bonus.
Dave2
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
That could be a serate thing. I think the quete was sword does d8 damage but they want damage to keep going up. How it does go up is not known. If tired and access to weapons is not tied to class,which I think it is not, it would be each class has things it can do related to the class. I hope it would be tied to class abilities and maybe maneuvers/stunts.
Dave2
TheGoofyGE3K wrote: I wonder if maybe weapons do extra damage when hitting someone without any form of KAC or EAC I would think its more of an easy hit coupled with the high damage on a decently tiered weapon would be lethal to most NPCs. a 7D6 blast against K/EAC of 12 and 15 HP. Yeah, they could make it... but they probably wont.
The Envoy blog has filled in a couple of details pertinent to this discussion:
* Class dependant BAB progression (envoys are medium);
* flat footed AC still exists (but no mention of seperate k/e values);
* Class dependent weapon and armour proficiency and specialisation: light armour,
Basic melee weapons, Grenades, Small Arms are mentioned.
I would deduce: medium and heavy armour, advanced melee weapons, rifles, heavy ordanance and exotic(weapon) as addional proficiencies. It doesn't look like kinetic and energy are seperate catagories for either weapons or armour.
There is also info on some skills and feats, but they don't touch on this discussion,
It also looks like they are bringing forward CMB/CMD and random special DCs for things like Feinting or Intimidating...
So defenses that are confirmed are now at
KAC
EAC
Flat Footed
Fort
Ref
Wil
10+x+y one offs
Resistances
Immunities
So all we are missing is Hardness, DR and Touch? I cant remember but have they confirmed DR is back?
Kind of disappointed, i feel this list is too long already and was really hoping Starfinder would streamline things a bit, not throw more clutter at the problem.
Also, with everything else being carried forward maybe... maybe EAC really is just a new word for Touch. :(
Agreed, looks like excessive complication to me. Flat Footed could have been dropped in exchange for increasing the flat to hit bonus for surprise attacks.
It doesnt turn me off to the game any, if all it is, is just renaming Touch AC than i can live with that since that is something i already know and have been running with for about 8 years now... but i am a little sad, Starfinder was a shot at really trying some new systems out and i am disappointed if they are bringing forward so much over complication. We havent seen it yet so maybe they overhauled CMD/CMB somehow? Hopefully CMB will remain relevant across levels without having to specialize a character into that one maneuver being the one thing they can do. The way they word Feint sure makes it sound like its the same system of "Mostly CMD based but with stand alone DCs as well."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It might put my group off, since they prefer the vastly simpler 5th edition D&D, and I'm the only one with a paticular fondness for space opera.
Another thought, if there are no more iterative attacks and instead we are relying on weapon damage scaling... are all pistols locked to half the damage of two handed weapons? how do you prevent the Kasatha Soldier from quad wielding weapons and completely unbalancing combat? It seems to me that removing iterative attacks would inadvertently makes TWF/Multi-weapon fighting king. This gets even worse if EAC is the same level as Touch and energy weapons target EAC, why not stack laser pistols on that Kasatha Soldier to guarantee every shot hits? You could raise EAC to the point where it is still challenging for the Kasatha but then how do you expect who ever is stuck with the "slow" BAB to ever land a hit, from weapons or spells?
You could penalize the damage progression of pistols and penalize the progression of energy weapons to try to balance them against a lower EAC and greater volume of attacks but that would also make energy weapons a very niche category, only used by multi weapon soldiers or stand ins for level 0-1 spell damage.
It also means we would have to remove such staple spells as Haste or it would shoot up to its old 3.0 edition power levels of letting you get a second or third spell out in a round.
So far the system sounds very close to Pathfinder as far as levels, BAB, feats and maneuvers, i am expecting iterative attacks to still be a thing as well.
I am curious to see how extra attack abilities are handled though if weapon damage is supposed to scale on its own, TWF, ITWF, GTWF, Rapid Shot and haste when every weapon is a 6D6+X? It is an interesting problem.
|
