Torbyne wrote: 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. It gets even better when you consider the old Star Wars D20 RPGs gave even pistols built in abilities called autofire and multifire that (combined with dual wielding, iterative attacks, and feats) could get you up to 12 attacks.
4 from iterative attacks + twf + itwf + gtwf + autofire (gives 2 extra attacks per gun) + rapid shot = 12 attacks.
Now if you add a kasatha's extra arms then you've got 2 more guns with their own attacks making the total 14, but then you give those guns autofire so that gives them 2 more each bringing your total to 18 attacks per round vs touch AC doing redonkulous damage, and that is how you kill a dragon in one round.
CKent83 wrote: Torbyne wrote: 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. It gets even better when you consider the old Star Wars D20 RPGs gave even pistols built in abilities called autofire and multifire that (combined with dual wielding, iterative attacks, and feats) could get you up to 12 attacks.
4 from iterative attacks + twf + itwf + gtwf + autofire (gives 2 extra attacks per gun) + rapid shot = 12 attacks.
Now if you add a kasatha's extra arms then you've got 2 more guns with their own attacks making the total 14, but then you give those guns autofire so that gives them 2 more each bringing your total to 18 attacks per round vs touch AC doing redonkulous damage, and that is how you kill a dragon in one round. So... yeah, i hope we dont see that. BAB based iterative attacks are a cross class balancing device... But i suppose there are issues with those considering the accuracy drop off and dependence on full attacks.
How would it looks if there was a blanket mechanism that every 5 levels beyond 1st you could make an additional attack at your full BAB? Basically as the unchained monk does but as a universal rule.
everyone gets the number of attacks but some classes get a higher quality of attacks.
this would couple well if themes are what i think they are.
imagine this, each class has its default thing, combat or skills or spells or utility or a pet or the like and then each theme can either double up on that thing or introduce a new concept. if you take a combat theme on the combat class than you have a combat monster but they dont do much else but you could take the combat theme on the caster and end up the gish you've always wanted. if iteratives are tied to level and not BAB than you have a lot more lee way for customizing your character's functions... it would also hopefully let martials freely build into broader roles since they can take a skill or utility theme and still have the attacks and BAB to be martials.
It would still leave everyone full attack dependent but that looks like its already a thing based on the playtest.
And honestly, i have no idea how to balance Kasatha unless they are carrying forward "Hands of effort" and if that is the case, please oh please, spell it out in the rulebook!
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Based on the current two classes and a bit of googling to rating systems I'm going to speculate that there are 5 types of base attack bonus progression:
poor -> fair -> average -> good -> excellent
Not sure yet how this is going to translate mechanically :P
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Pathfinder only has three BAB progressions -- and it is quite likely that Starfinder won't use the lowest of the three, so there are probably two BAB progressions in Starfinder at most.
The open question is whether Starfinder will use the highest progression for the Soldier class or use some other mechanism to make them the best at using weapons. There are reasons that it might be tempting to divorce BAB from class.
I would think "fair" (operative) would be better than "medium" (envoy).
Poor: 1/2 Technomancer
Medium: 2/3 Envoy, Mystic, Mechanic
Fair: 3/4 Operative, Solarion
Good: 4/5 Soldier
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
I was (and still am) unsure how the fair / average rating worked, so I searched online for it.
The few sources I found seemed to indicate that fair is worse than average.
Saves are rated poor or good, which makes it easy :D
Attack bonus has been rated fair or average but unclear which is better.
Maybe they are the same, just an error.
I can't see an Operative being a worse shot than an Envoy.
Well, its not blatantly wild speculation anymore, Mark Seifter posted this in the Envoy preview, "It seems likely to me that "medium BAB" was just a shorthand to describe the envoy class's situation compared to Pathfinder without a giant chart of numbers or a math formula; I wouldn't necessarily take it to mean that somebody else is going to be slower."
He avoids outright saying one way or another but due to his position i would defer to his belief that saying Medium, Fair or Average are all shorthand comments for 3/4 BAB and that we arent likely to see any 1/2 BAB chassis in the core book at least.
I dunno. Part off me thinks mystic will have 1/2, but also have a reliable "touch attack" that doesn't burn spell slots
TheGoofyGE3K wrote: I dunno. Part off me thinks mystic will have 1/2, but also have a reliable "touch attack" that doesn't burn spell slots I dont know how you have 1/2 BAB and a reliable attack method in a setting where you have EAC that is worthwhile against soldiers with laser rifles... and a 1/2 BAB 2/3 caster is still a weird thought.
Well we still don't know how EAC and KAC work. So it's possible still. But yeah, that does sound wrong,by we don't know what else they get.
Torbyne wrote: Well, its not blatantly wild speculation anymore, Mark Seifter posted this in the Envoy preview, "It seems likely to me that "medium BAB" was just a shorthand to describe the envoy class's situation compared to Pathfinder without a giant chart of numbers or a math formula; I wouldn't necessarily take it to mean that somebody else is going to be slower."
He avoids outright saying one way or another but due to his position i would defer to his belief that saying Medium, Fair or Average are all shorthand comments for 3/4 BAB and that we arent likely to see any 1/2 BAB chassis in the core book at least.
That was my impression as well. The two folks who wrote the previews just chose synonyms to mean the same thing.
From what we've seen so far, I could see the technomancer and/or mystic having 1/2 BAB and 2/3 spellcasting. They'd make up for it with strong class abilities. Since everyone gets weapon specialisation, maybe they can apply it to their spells. Don't need a lot of BAB when you throw out will saves.
Just throwing it out into the ring, but maybe BAB progression is non-linear? After all, you don't need a "giant chart" to say 3/4 or 2/3.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nah, it's been confirmed that average and fair both mean 3/4 progression.
From the Operative preview thread:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote: Which I admit isn't necessarily clear, since the phrases "average base attack bonus" and "fair base attack bonus" (in the Operative Preview) are adding a non-game term (average and fair) to a game term (base attack bonus) in a way that makes them sound different, but they aren't. They are both the 3/4 progression, for those familiar with how Pathfinder does those things. Weapon proficiencies are now also out there:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote: Since it's come up, the weapon proficiencies are basic melee weapons, advanced melee weapons, small arms, long arms, heavy weapons, sniper weapons, grenades, and then there are special weapons. I'll likely talk about that a bit more in the soldier class preview.
Something else to throw into the ring: what if damage scaling is a direct replacement for iterative attacks? Every 5 points of BAB your weapon roles an extra damage die.
For discussion: if weapon damage scales, what happens with critical hits?
Fardragon wrote: Something else to throw into the ring: what if damage scaling is a direct replacement for iterative attacks? Every 5 points of BAB your weapon roles an extra damage die.
For discussion: if weapon damage scales, what happens with critical hits?
I have been thinking about this idea for a few days, removing iterative attacks allows more mobility or other options for use with move actions but then makes game balance very weird. And we already know that at least the Solarion can get extra attacks at a very low level, possibly as a Flurry mechanic. Which would either mean the Solarion's weapon feature doesn't scale and instead they alone get iterative attacks? that would get wonky with DR/resistance since you could just level up your laser to something like 6D6 to overcome fire res 5 but if you have 6 hits doing 1D6+2 fire damage as a Solarion against that same res 5... bad times.
i think that what we will end up with is a compromise between those two tracks, weapons will scale up in damage but we will still get iterative attacks too. Maybe weapons get an extra die every two or three levels which wouldnt keep up with spells that are die/level but with iteratives, rapid shot, haste etc, you can buff up weapons to get more damage out. Possibly balanced against DR and resistance per hit vs a spell that is a larger single source of damage. Still unsure how to balance energy weapons, energy spells, BAB progression and EAC...
With everything from automatic weapons to extra arms, I would guess there are lots of ways to get extra attacks, from level 1.
Fardragon wrote: With everything from automatic weapons to extra arms, I would guess there are lots of ways to get extra attacks, from level 1. Pretty much, yeah. How do you balance the game around quad wielding laser kasatha? The easiest (and lamest way) is just to say that Kasatha lack the coordination to use four hands of effort in a single round and limit them to regular TWF. It will be interesting to see what they came up with.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Flat footed is a condition, rather than a different AC calculation.
There is no separate touch AC
EAc [edited] and KAc are the only two calculated ACs.
There is no CMB/CMD, though we still have combat maneuvers.
Envoy and operative have the same bab progression, I was just using casual terms (average, typical) to note their relative position compared to "good" base attack bonus.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote: Flat footed is a condition, rather than a different AC calculation.
There is no separate touch AC
Each and KAc are the only two calculated ACs.
There is no CMB/CMD, though we still have combat maneuvers.
Envoy and operative have the same bab progression, I was just using casual terms (average, typical) to note their relative position compared to "good" base attack bonus.
Well danggit Owen, we cant have blatantly wild speculation when you come in and just lay it all out there! :P
Really though, thank you so much! Cant wait to get the full book in my hands and see how all the pieces fit together :D
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote: Flat footed is a condition, rather than a different AC calculation.
There is no separate touch AC
EAc [edited] and KAc are the only two calculated ACs.
There is no CMB/CMD, though we still have combat maneuvers.
Envoy and operative have the same bab progression, I was just using casual terms (average, typical) to note their relative position compared to "good" base attack bonus.
Oh my, this is exciting. I'm really interested in seeing how Combat Maneuvers are handled in SF.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
I am guessing that combat maneuvers would have to involve some sort of opposed rolls since that is the only way to remove the AC defenses from the equation without replacing it with something equivalent to a CMD.
And I am also guessing that size is being removed as a factor in attack rolls since in Pathfinder it provides a bonus to CMB and CMD but a penalty to attack rolls and AC. With size removed, combat maneuvers can be resolved as standard opposed attack rolls with situational bonuses.
David knott 242 wrote: I am guessing that combat maneuvers would have to involve some sort of opposed rolls since that is the only way to remove the AC defenses from the equation without replacing it with something equivalent to a CMD.
It could be a flat bonus to the attacker or minus to the flat footed enemy.
David knott 242 wrote: I am guessing that combat maneuvers would have to involve some sort of opposed rolls since that is the only way to remove the AC defenses from the equation without replacing it with something equivalent to a CMD.
Why not set the DC for most maneuvers to KAC? Armor class is already an abstraction so why not have it include things like being pushed, tripped, disarmed etc.
Feinting, bluffing, Intimidating or otherwise playing head games might be something like 10+BAB+WIS or just their skill check vs the target's sense motive check. I have found that Sense Motive is an awesome skill in theory but rarely used in play, it'd be nice if it gets some more oomph in Starfinder.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I think Fardragon may be right with his base attack progression. I do find it odd that it was not included with the class previews. It is almost like it is something they want to preview speratly. If it worked same as Pathfinder why not show it in class preview.
Dave2 wrote: I think Fardragon may be right with his base attack progression. I do find it odd that it was not included with the class previews. It is almost like it is something they want to preview speratly. If it worked same as Pathfinder why not show it in class preview. But if it is the same as Pathfinder than it doesnt even really merit a mention, does it? They have already said and then clarified that the two currently previewed classes are 3/4 BAB as we know the term from Pathfinder. i think that aspect is fairly locked in at the moment. And if the main scaling for damage is weapon die than it severely unbalanced classes that get multiple attacks or that can support multi-weapon fighting... but i might be off base on this one, we'd need a blog just about combat and gear to know for sure.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
That is a good point as far as multi attacks and damage die scaling. I think if the attack progression was the same as Pathfinder then it would have been included in the class previews. I think it will be different . Time will tell.
My guess is they still have the same initial BAB, but there's something different about it in terms of iterative attacks, thus why they haven't said much about it. Like when they mentioned flat footed and combat maneuvers and people started going on and on about CMD and more AC calculations. Peeps kinda freaked til someone had to come and explain it in detail. So rather than do that again, they haven't said anything
Unrelated note, I wonder what powers the Technomancer and mystic have. Hoping one has like a spidey sense. All the time psychics get random flashes. Would be cool, for player and DM
Here's a thought about Base Attack Progression. We know that the Envoy and Operative have 3/4 progression, and it's likely the Soldier (and possibly the Solarion) will have Full progression, but what remains to be seen/believed is any class having 1/2 progression. This has lead some to believe that 1/2 BAB progression is not in the game. But what about creature types? They'll still (presumably) have Hit Dice that tie into their BAB, and BAB and Hit Die type are linked in Pathfinder, so that if, say, the fey are still around with their 1/2 BAB and D6 HD? What about new creature types that might have a similar progression, or NPC classes? That would allow for most of the PC classes and creature types to have 3/4 or, "average/fair," progression, some of the PC classes and a few of the creature types to have "good" progression, and then there would be the others who have "poor" progression.
Personally I hope that since spells got reworked for the system (AND setting) that the Mystic and Technomancer have 1/2 progression, and more powerful spells to compensate. That would leave the Envoy, Mechanic, and Operative with 3/4 (average/fair/normal), and the Soldier (and speculatively the Solarion) with full progression. Learning the mystical arts leaves little time for the martial.
CKent83 wrote: Here's a thought about Base Attack Progression. We know that the Envoy and Operative have 3/4 progression, and it's likely the Soldier (and possibly the Solarion) will have Full progression, but what remains to be seen/believed is any class having 1/2 progression. This has lead some to believe that 1/2 BAB progression is not in the game. But what about creature types? They'll still (presumably) have Hit Dice that tie into their BAB, and BAB and Hit Die type are linked in Pathfinder, so that if, say, the fey are still around with their 1/2 BAB and D6 HD? What about new creature types that might have a similar progression, or NPC classes? That would allow for most of the PC classes and creature types to have 3/4 or, "average/fair," progression, some of the PC classes and a few of the creature types to have "good" progression, and then there would be the others who have "poor" progression.
Personally I hope that since spells got reworked for the system (AND setting) that the Mystic and Technomancer have 1/2 progression, and more powerful spells to compensate. That would leave the Envoy, Mechanic, and Operative with 3/4 (average/fair/normal), and the Soldier (and speculatively the Solarion) with full progression. Learning the mystical arts leaves little time for the martial.
I'd prefer it otherwise, with the mystic and technomancer being able to get in there at least somewhat. But, that might just be bias from the guy who wanted a Magus-style first character, despite the practical impossibility of pulling it of with the Beginner Box.
i also cant see any PC class as 1/2 BAB at this point. and i would be just a little surprised to see dedicated NPC classes. It seems to me that a class without a theme or a theme without a class would work just as well. really the NPCs dont need classes at all, do they? you could have a chart like the creating monsters by CR one we have for Pathfinder and just say that a CR 1 NPC has X stats and X skills at +3. It would save pages at least.
I agree that we will likely see some monster entries that follow 1/2 BAB but that is just because monsters dont have to follow the rules like PCs do.
Has anyone else noticed both of the previewed classes have 8 skill points per level? How about this, the only flavors are 8/level or 6/level. Coming from an advanced society has some perks as far as general education goes.
After listening in on the Dawnforged Cast video a new thought... What if... What if your Theme can change things like Skill Points per level?
ie, Soldier gets 4 skills per level and 8 class skills (out of 20?) they can then go sharp shooter for more weapon skills and stay with those 4 SP/Level or pick up the Scholar theme for an extra 2 SP/level and something like pick 4 skills to add as class skills. i expect themes will do more than this but i thought this would be a great way of customizing classes through themes.
More thoughts from Dawnforged, really like the attention given to prevent 10 minuet adventuring days. Want to know more about this stamina system now as Stamina seems to be powered by resolve and resolve is also used to power class abilities? perhaps you can do some kind of "Spell recall" with resolve as well?
How do we think resolve points will be determined? I cant recall hearing anything about that yet...
1/2 Level?
CON mod + Wis mod?
Each class has it's own Resolve progression path?
Ooh, and a themes could affect that too!
I'm in the crowd that assumes 3/4 or 1/1 BAB progression for all classes. I think that 6th level casting will be slightly changed, but largely similar to how it is now. I think maybe you might be able to regain spells per day in some manner, but I think there's probably a good manner of focus on the ability to do things besides casting spells for both the Mystic and Technomancer. I saw mention that they would be capable at least somewhat of emulating the Magus and Warpriest abilities. I'm not sure what was meant by that, but I assume augmenting weapons and armor on the fly with magic abilities is part of that. Maybe there's a large emphasis on "Talents" for both classes, so they can focus on different kinds of magic use.
I really like the idea of themes adding skills as such. I'm also thinking it may be capable to attain some very basic magic through themes, whether it be cantrip or two, or something else. It would be interesting to gain proficiency and specialization through themes as well. Possibly an adjustment to a higher BAB for the 3/4 crowd? Skills seems to be a given. As well as proficiency. I have less faith in spells and BAB.
As for Stamina and Resolve? I think it functions EXTREMELY similar to how Combat Vigor works from the Healer's Handbook. I could be wrong though. And that's just in regard to how the healing works.
I definitely assume Resolve will power class features as well. I believe that we already have confirmation that it powers several class features already revealed. That said, if it's so multi-use that everybody would need Resolve, maybe it's based on ALL ability scores. That would also give more reason to not ignore certain stats. If you have a dump stat, that's suddenly more detrimental than it was before. But that's also reaching a bit. I don't assume the classes will have different progression paths for Resolve, but I could be wrong. Or maybe themes might affect Resolve too.
Anyone else wonder if being thrust into a vacuum will still be like it was in Distant Worlds (3D6 damage + suffocation)? Basically, if it doesn't kill you outright you can live for a little while. That kinda seems to go along with science.
CKent83 wrote: Anyone else wonder if being thrust into a vacuum will still be like it was in Distant Worlds (3D6 damage + suffocation)? Basically, if it doesn't kill you outright you can live for a little while. That kinda seems to go along with science. Wait. You can live for a time in a vacuum...?
Archmage Variel wrote: CKent83 wrote: Anyone else wonder if being thrust into a vacuum will still be like it was in Distant Worlds (3D6 damage + suffocation)? Basically, if it doesn't kill you outright you can live for a little while. That kinda seems to go along with science. Wait. You can live for a time in a vacuum...? Apparently for a couple of minutes.
Archmage Variel wrote: CKent83 wrote: Anyone else wonder if being thrust into a vacuum will still be like it was in Distant Worlds (3D6 damage + suffocation)? Basically, if it doesn't kill you outright you can live for a little while. That kinda seems to go along with science. Wait. You can live for a time in a vacuum...? The greatest danger i know of for being exposed to hard vacuum in Pathfinder is the suffocation rules, after that there is some cold and radiation to worry about but honestly, those arent that extreme for most adventurers.
The complete loss of pressure will mess you up something fierce. Your saliva will start to boil and capillaries will begin to burst. Also, the air will be forced out of your lungs. While yes, you can survive for a few minutes in a vacuum, I'd still say there'd be some damage to contend with.
Albatoonoe wrote: The complete loss of pressure will mess you up something fierce. Your saliva will start to boil and capillaries will begin to burst. Also, the air will be forced out of your lungs. While yes, you can survive for a few minutes in a vacuum, I'd still say there'd be some damage to contend with. I hope Starfinder addresses the issue someway but only in so far as to put all the rules together under one header which seems pretty likely considering the setting. as for how lethal it is... eh, i suppose i could go either way, instantly screwed or mild inconvenience for a mid level character.
Spellcasting: without a break between arcane, divine and psychic have we done away with somatic, verbal, material, focus, thought and emotion components? It would greatly simplify things, thats for sure.
Magic and Technology: Its too much of a headache to determine which type shuts down in which effects and as the two are supposed to be interdependent to an extent, why not either do away with "Anti-X" effects. Can you imagine how complex it would be to try to figure out how technology gets shut down in an anti-tech field? like, bows are ok, Crossbows are fine, black powder works but metal cartridges and up fail.
Themes: It is hard to pin down from available comments but it seems one of the main design goals was to not affect combat aptitude with them. That feels odd since there is supposed to be a pilot theme and the only times that seems like it would come into play would be in combat. Maybe the odd nebula to navigate or planetfall in the middle of a storm but that cant be every encounter and there should be some kind of pay off for the investment. The extent to which Themes are supposed to affect a character is somewhat elusive... i had thought they were the main way to customize a character but the Class previews are making me think that it is fairly common to have specializations in the classes themselves that are separate from Themes and Archetypes. I would hazard a guess that Themes augment skills and add in some utility powers and that they still scale every few levels but i am feeling they have less impact than i previously did. Instead of a 50/50 split between class and theme building a character it might be more of an 80/20 class/theme split. I am curious now if every class has a specialization to pick from and if that is the main way they intend to make characters customizable in the future, publishing new lists of specializations for each class as the books go on.
Anyways, here is my current thought on how PCs are built:
Species
Theme
Class
-Sub Class Specialization
Archetype (Optional)
How does that look based on what we've seen so far?
Resolve Points: So everyone needs resolve points and it looks like they are also used to power abilities, hopefully to replace the thousand and one individual pools of points used in Pathfinder. Except how to determine points? I am thinking its a 1/2 level + Ability mod but what ability? As we've seen in Pathfinder there is justification to use just about any stat to determine pool points so why not run with that? Maybe it could be determined by your Theme, such as a Scholar using INT to determine Resolve while the Priest uses WIS and the Ace Pilot uses DEX?
Also, so far i am really happy that everyone gets lots of skill points, the real test will be seeing how many our Soldier gets though.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Torbyne wrote: Themes: It is hard to pin down from available comments but it seems one of the main design goals was to not affect combat aptitude with them. That feels odd since there is supposed to be a pilot theme and the only times that seems like it would come into play would be in combat. Maybe the odd nebula to navigate or planetfall in the middle of a storm but that cant be every encounter and there should be some kind of pay off for the investment. The extent to which Themes are supposed to affect a character is somewhat elusive... i had thought they were the main way to customize a character but the Class previews are making me think that it is fairly common to have specializations in the classes themselves that are separate from Themes and Archetypes. I would hazard a guess that Themes augment skills and add in some utility powers and that they still scale every few levels but i am feeling they have less impact than i previously did. Instead of a 50/50 split between class and theme building a character it might be more of an 80/20 class/theme split. I am curious now if every class has a specialization to pick from and if that is the main way they intend to make characters customizable in the future, publishing new lists of specializations for each class as the books go on.
Anyways, here is my current thought on how PCs are built:
Species
Theme
Class
-Sub Class Specialization
Archetype...
For themes, I think as far as them affecting combat, I think that is probably limited to affecting traditional combat. Starship combat may be something they are okay with affecting since it is a new system and they may well have designed some themes with that system in mind as they were both developed from the ground up for the same release.
As for how PCs are built, I think you probably have the right of it.
Ashanderai wrote: Torbyne wrote: Themes: It is hard to pin down from available comments but it seems one of the main design goals was to not affect combat aptitude with them. That feels odd since there is supposed to be a pilot theme and the only times that seems like it would come into play would be in combat. Maybe the odd nebula to navigate or planetfall in the middle of a storm but that cant be every encounter and there should be some kind of pay off for the investment. The extent to which Themes are supposed to affect a character is somewhat elusive... i had thought they were the main way to customize a character but the Class previews are making me think that it is fairly common to have specializations in the classes themselves that are separate from Themes and Archetypes. I would hazard a guess that Themes augment skills and add in some utility powers and that they still scale every few levels but i am feeling they have less impact than i previously did. Instead of a 50/50 split between class and theme building a character it might be more of an 80/20 class/theme split. I am curious now if every class has a specialization to pick from and if that is the main way they intend to make characters customizable in the future, publishing new lists of specializations for each class as the books go on.
Anyways, here is my current thought on how PCs are built:
Species
Theme
Class
-Sub Class Specialization
Archetype...
For themes, I think as far as them affecting combat, I think that is probably limited to affecting traditional combat. Starship combat may be something they are okay with affecting since it is a new system and they may well have designed some themes with that system in mind as they were both developed from the ground up for the same release.
As for how PCs are built, I think you probably have the right of it. I'd add equipment. (I like my laser pistols and datapads) Also I'd be pretty surprised if they changed the name from races to species, although I'd definitely like that. If you really want to get down to it, in terms of character choices, there's also skill ranks, feats, and alignment.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Archmage Variel wrote: Ashanderai wrote: Torbyne wrote: Themes: It is hard to pin down from available comments but it seems one of the main design goals was to not affect combat aptitude with them. That feels odd since there is supposed to be a pilot theme and the only times that seems like it would come into play would be in combat. Maybe the odd nebula to navigate or planetfall in the middle of a storm but that cant be every encounter and there should be some kind of pay off for the investment. The extent to which Themes are supposed to affect a character is somewhat elusive... i had thought they were the main way to customize a character but the Class previews are making me think that it is fairly common to have specializations in the classes themselves that are separate from Themes and Archetypes. I would hazard a guess that Themes augment skills and add in some utility powers and that they still scale every few levels but i am feeling they have less impact than i previously did. Instead of a 50/50 split between class and theme building a character it might be more of an 80/20 class/theme split. I am curious now if every class has a specialization to pick from and if that is the main way they intend to make characters customizable in the future, publishing new lists of specializations for each class as the books go on.
Anyways, here is my current thought on how PCs are built:
Species
Theme
Class
-Sub Class Specialization
Archetype...
For themes, I think as far as them affecting combat, I think that is probably limited to affecting traditional combat. Starship combat may be something they are okay with affecting since it is a new system and they may well have designed some themes with that system in mind as they were both developed from the ground up for the same release.
As for how PCs are built, I think you probably have the right of it. I'd add equipment. (I like my laser pistols and datapads) Also I'd be pretty surprised if they changed the name from races to species, although I'd... Good point about the equipment. We don't know anything yet about how cybernetics or power armor will get handled. The rest about feats and whatnot is a given, though.
oh yeah, i have been operating under some assumptions for gear that i guess havent actually been spelled out but long story short, gear is too universal and mutable to try to use for describing character customization. I try to stick to permanent choices when talking about building a character. Things like cybernetics, power armor, rapid pulsing fusing mass projectors, etc. are all available for anyone with the credits/UPBs/proficiency or feat.
I think the classes are more strongly gear-differentiated than you are supposing. For example, even if gear can be unlocked with feats, and feats are as common as Pathfinder, a Mystic will still need to spend two or three to use power armour, and, since they can only specialise in small arms, learning to use heavy weapons would probably be unproductive. Maybe they could learn to use Sniper Rifles, but without the Operative's sneak attack dice there may not be any point.
Fardragon wrote: I think the classes are more strongly gear-differentiated than you are supposing. For example, even if gear can be unlocked with feats, and feats are as common as Pathfinder, a Mystic will still need to spend two or three to use power armour, and, since they can only specialise in small arms, learning to use heavy weapons would probably be unproductive. Maybe they could learn to use Sniper Rifles, but without the Operative's sneak attack dice there may not be any point. i dont think they will be any more gear differentiated than Pathfinder is, and the bump to everyone having at least 3/4 BAB should help make gun play viable for everyone. Yes there will be heavier armors and bigger guns for some classes over others but that is a choice that you made back at the class and sub class level, if you use the plasma cannon or the exa-watt laser rifle, its still a design choice you made at level 1. Hopefully the weapons and armors dont have single points that stand out as above the rest though and you can make some choices about what you use at the end but i dont see that as a very big point of customization just yet.
So far it looks like ships have some sort of artificial gravity (tech or magic based?) from the play demo from back in February. However, combat in microgravity would make for some awesome encounter design choices. Will it be treated similarly to underwater combat where depending on your skill checks (zero g maneuvers) or equipment (mag boots, EVM pack) or spells (freedom of movement equivalent) will apply or negate penalties to hit and damage?
--Vrocketman
|
Developer, Starfinder Team
