Any chance of seeing the old system sometime, if only in a blog post (like the unchained Automatic Bonus Progression rules)?
I would also love to see the old system. I will hold off until I see what comes with the core book but sounds like its the same old system as before (which is a little disappointing). As a fan of unique rules systems I am looking forward to everything that is different from Pathfidner. Not that im not a fan of the original system, I am, its just that I enjoy seeing the next step in the process and new fresh takes on systems.
I would of hoped that the old system would have been included in a sidebar if only to give the option to use it as a house rule.
The other reason I'm cool with must-have feats is that this is the core rulebook. While I'd love for feats to all be perfectly balanced such that any one of them is great to take without being necessary, that seems a little impractical. The book sets a standard for what feats do, and having that standard be "fix a problem" rather than "slightly mitigate a problem" is good. In Pathfinder, rogues lacked accuracy, so they all but had to take weapon focus. Weapon focus didn't solve the problem, though, just made it less bad. But as a core feat, it limited any future feat's ability to address 3/4 BAB accuracy problems. If more core feats are like power attack, then future books have more room to do cool fun stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other reason I'm cool with must-have feats is that this is the core rulebook. While I'd love for feats to all be perfectly balanced such that any one of them is great to take without being necessary, that seems a little impractical. The book sets a standard for what feats do, and having that standard be "fix a problem" rather than "slightly mitigate a problem" is good. In Pathfinder, rogues lacked accuracy, so they all but had to take weapon focus. Weapon focus didn't solve the problem, though, just made it less bad. But as a core feat, it limited any future feat's ability to address 3/4 BAB accuracy problems. If more core feats are like power attack, then future books have more room to do cool fun stuff.
Why even have a problem in the first place?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other reason I'm cool with must-have feats is that this is the core rulebook. While I'd love for feats to all be perfectly balanced such that any one of them is great to take without being necessary, that seems a little impractical. The book sets a standard for what feats do, and having that standard be "fix a problem" rather than "slightly mitigate a problem" is good. In Pathfinder, rogues lacked accuracy, so they all but had to take weapon focus. Weapon focus didn't solve the problem, though, just made it less bad. But as a core feat, it limited any future feat's ability to address 3/4 BAB accuracy problems. If more core feats are like power attack, then future books have more room to do cool fun stuff.Why even have a problem in the first place?
Presumably because the designers do not consider it a problem, but an actual feature of the system. For example, if you want to require people to spend a feat or two in order to let their save DCs keep up with enemy save bonuses that's fine, as long as those classes can also be built in ways that don't depend on save DCs (in which case they're presumably giving up something, i.e. the use of save dependent spells, in return for being able to use those extra feat slots for other things). It's not a tax if you can reasonably build a character who doesn't need those feats.
I feel like an awful lot of assumptions are being made about what's a bug and what's a feature without actually having seen the entirety of the system. Assumptions based on the Pathfinder rules may very well not hold up in Starfinder, and it feels an awful lot like people think the Starfinder development team is just unaware of this stuff, as opposed to being aware of it and making a conscious decision that the trade off is worthwhile. I'm fairly sure that everyone on the Starfinder team is pretty clear on the issues with Pathfinder, and probably the similar ones in 4e. This is unlikely to be a case of falling into a trap over and over again because you forgot it existed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is unlikely to be a case of falling into a trap over and over again because you forgot it existed.
Yes, but you have to actively search for the trap each time. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@rooneg- I'm not following you. It's not a tax if it's a trap option that is best avoided in the first place is really strange logic. Yes, there are other playstyles- we've seen some technomancers buffs giving bonuses to damage rolls. But 'just don't use save dependent abilities' doesn't seem like a math fix, especially if all the fix does is keep lower level spells up with the basic class ability DC. A unified save DC just seems functionally better than having to track multiple DCs and then force the math back on track later on.
And frankly the class DC is debately not high enough with the kinds of save bonuses monsters are throwing around. It's really easy to have more than a 50% chance of failure for level appropriate monsters all the way through First Contact, if you max out the primary attribute. (Some exceptions apply, like the security bot, which goes the other way)
There may well be more factors involved, but we've got quite a few numbers, and they add up to 'this is a playstyle best avoided'. Go shoot people in the face instead, or help others shoot people in the face. A feat or two really won't change that, and convincing people that they have to take the fix feats to even try seems like a page out of the Gygaxian Manual of Trap Options.
well in a couple of weeks we will know if the doom-sayers or optimists are right lol.
I tend to fall in line with rooneg's thoughts on the matter. It's hard to believe that the designers are simply including old design flaws because of ignorance or nostalgia but rather as inherent strengths and weaknesses. You can look to these forums and the interwebz and find numerous debates on the subject. I agree that a lot of assumptions are being made on the small pieces of info we are seeing without knowing the full picture.
Granted all we can discuss at the moment is our assumptions but I am cautions and hesitate to apply a this is how it works in Pathfinder so it must work that way in Starfinder mentality to what we have seen so far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We may not know even then. Anyone whose ideas of proper game balance differ from those of the people who designed Starfinder is going to say that this game is a disaster even if others like the way it turned out. And all of us will probably need some time to work through all the implications of the redesign -- remember how the iconic soldier looked "off" because she would have a tough time hurting a clone of herself, but we later learned that that was by design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@voss Sure, if "technomancer who doesn't care about save DCs" is a trap option then yeah, those feats turn into a tax, but what if it's not a trap option? What if there's a totally legit build that just happens to spend all its time buffing the soldier or something? In that case it's totally reasonable for the designers to say "in order to make these two options evenly balanced you have to make a choice, either spend your feats on your spell DCs or spend them on whatever alternative option that the non-DC centric technomancer cares about". There are potential versions of the game where that's how it plays out.
Now clearly we would need to look at the save DCs, the enemies, the technomancer abilities, the spell list, and probably some other stuff in order to really decide if the various options actually are balanced against each other, and since anyone who has actually done that is currently under an NDA, jumping to conclusions about how broken the game is based on incomplete information is kind of silly.
We may not know even then. Anyone whose ideas of proper game balance differ from those of the people who designed Starfinder is going to say that this game is a disaster even if others like the way it turned out. And all of us will probably need some time to work through all the implications of the redesign -- remember how the iconic soldier looked "off" because she would have a tough time hurting a clone of herself, but we later learned that that was by design.
It'll take time true. The important thing is to separate the expectations from Pathfinder. Mark has already discussed how combat math has been altered. Yet I believe people are still operating under those assumptions. I'm not even sure how the idea that such feats are mandatory came about. Mandatory for certain builds? Likely. Every build? Probably not so much. If it is a feat tax than thank god it's one that is necessary rather than one that just feels like empty space on the sheet (I'm looking at you Combat Expertise).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@voss Sure, if "technomancer who doesn't care about save DCs" is a trap option then yeah, those feats turn into a tax, but what if it's not a trap option? What if there's a totally legit build that just happens to spend all its time buffing the soldier or something? In that case it's totally reasonable for the designers to say "in order to make these two options evenly balanced you have to make a choice, either spend your feats on your spell DCs or spend them on whatever alternative option that the non-DC centric technomancer cares about". There are potential versions of the game where that's how it plays out.
Now clearly we would need to look at the save DCs, the enemies, the technomancer abilities, the spell list, and probably some other stuff in order to really decide if the various options actually are balanced against each other, and since anyone who has actually done that is currently under an NDA, jumping to conclusions about how broken the game is based on incomplete information is kind of silly.
No, no, the DC based caster would be the trap option, with extra taxes on top to make it vaguely functional (but still not well functional) The buffomancer or just shoot-people-in-the-face mancer could still theoretically work.
The problem is, killing enemies solves problems. Spending actions to 'maybe-but-probably-not' disable them temporarily doesn't really get the job done. Adding taxes to change that 'probably not' to 'coin flip' or 'slightly in your favor coin flip' still isn't fantastic. It's a horribly high probability of doing nothing with the turn, which might appeal gamblers, but doesn't make for reliable contribution.
But I'm having a hard time with the idea that well, we have 95% of the math laid out (the basis of which, setting the DC is -exactly- like 3.PF), and bunch of sample enemies to test it with, but one feat somehow makes it work. The Cr9 critter, for example, needs a 10+ against a third level spell cast by a 10th level character with a 20 stat... for its weak save. A 55% chance of failure against its weakness is really terrible, and that comes up a fair bit in First Contact. Assuming they have weak saves, which several don't. (And also assumes meta knowledge for every encounter)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, no, the DC based caster would be the trap option, with extra taxes on top to make it vaguely functional (but still not well functional) The buffomancer or just shoot-people-in-the-face mancer could still theoretically work.
Neither of them is a trap option if they both need to spend similar numbers of feats to be equally effective (and if similar other builds require the same thing).
The problem is, killing enemies solves problems. Spending actions to 'maybe-but-probably-not' disable them temporarily doesn't really get the job done. Adding taxes to change that 'probably not' to 'coin flip' or 'slightly in your favor coin flip' still isn't fantastic. It's a horribly high probability of doing nothing with the turn, which might appeal gamblers, but doesn't make for reliable contribution.
You seem to be assuming things not in evidence here, specifically that the sort of spells this kind of Technomancer would cast are all or nothing propositions. Maybe they're not. Maybe the majority of the save based spells just do differing amounts of damage if you save, or have a "you're only partially incapacitated if you make the save" type of mechanic, or any number of other things. We've seen a vanishingly small amount of this game, assuming that we're talking about coin flips to disable enemies is jumping the gun.
But I'm having a hard time with the idea that well, we have 95% of the math laid out (the basis of which, setting the DC is -exactly- like 3.PF), and bunch of sample enemies to test it with, but one feat somehow makes it work. The Cr9 critter, for example, needs a 10+ against a third level spell cast by a 10th level character with a 20...
Again, you are assuming you've seen enough of what there is to see. Personally, considering that I've seen probably less than 10% of what's there in the class definitions, virtually none of the feats and only vague descriptions of how the rules operate I'm willing to say "hmm, maybe the whole is greater than the sum of the tiny number of parts we've heard about so far".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
[
But I'm having a hard time with the idea that well, we have 95% of the math laid out (the basis of which, setting the DC is -exactly- like 3.PF), and bunch of sample enemies to test it with, but one feat somehow makes it work. The Cr9 critter, for example, needs a 10+ against a third level spell cast by a 10th level character with a 20...
You only have the foundation on which it's built. You don't have all the necessary interaction information. Like how does resolve interact with spellcasting? How do mystic and and technomancer class features work into it? How do items, both technological and magical, work into it? Do all the best spells just require a save or do many target EAC or KAC as the situation requires?
In fact we're not even sure how the numbers for those monsters came about as they do not have hit die and all their feats listed.
In fact we're not even sure how the numbers for those monsters came about as they do not have hit die and all their feats listed.
My understanding is they don't need to, as that isn't how starfinder monsters are built. Much like the Unchained monster building rules for PF, you get the final numbers without the steps you'd take in making a PC.
Owen mentioned in an interview that some of the First Contact monsters were getting reprinted for other books, and stats were tweaked to fit the final game state. It wouldn't be surprising for monsters to have lower saves.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion that spells are far too reliable in Pathfinder. Save or suck simply isn't fun, and being able to have it successfully work more often than not, means it isn't fun most of the time. Combat just got tweaked so that attackers are hitting less often, and they are generally going to put out less attacks. Why should offensive magic be anywhere near as reliable in this same situation?
well in a couple of weeks we will know if the doom-sayers or optimists are right lol.
I tend to fall in line with rooneg's thoughts on the matter. It's hard to believe that the designers are simply including old design flaws because of ignorance or nostalgia but rather as inherent strengths and weaknesses. You can look to these forums and the interwebz and find numerous debates on the subject. I agree that a lot of assumptions are being made on the small pieces of info we are seeing without knowing the full picture.
Granted all we can discuss at the moment is our assumptions but I am cautions and hesitate to apply a this is how it works in Pathfinder so it must work that way in Starfinder mentality to what we have seen so far.
Now who is being the optimist? I think even when it comes out there will be people on both sides some will yell its terrible others will yell its perfect.
We actually had a stat system that was even friendlier to stat spreading than this one earlier on, but while the veteran playtesters could handle it (and some of our clever playtesters from Germany reverse-engineered the various benefits of the system), the less veteran playtesters found it too hard to build characters (complexity was a tad higher than current point buy system), so that was a dealbreaker. The current system works extremely well for level-ups, but for initial stat assignment, I recommend doing something like "Either build as normal or take one of these arrays" where you build a few arrays that are less min-maxed but have a few more overall "points" maybe adding something like 16 14 14 14 10 8 before theme as an option. I mostly agree with your analysis of the best starting builds but I happen to think 18 in your prime stat might also be useful to get 20 at level 10 and 22 at level 20, pre items. Either way, adding a flatter option is one way to incentivize a bigger spread.I am doing a bit more detailed look at arrays now, since the 18 hard cap makes that manageable. The blessing and curse of this system is that there really aren't that many efficient arrays as compared to pathfinder. (As in there are 5 arrays with an 18 for a plus +4/+2 race, 3 for a +2/+2 race, and 2 for a +2 race, which seems to cover most the bases, and about twice those numbers for a max of 16, and a max of 14 is about 10, with a few extra from halting early). Not being able to sell into the negatives, the flat cost and inflection point making odds undesirable really cuts down on the number of arrays you are working with. I am not a huge fan of making it simpler, but I recognize I'm probably in the minority in that, since playing with the math behind the system is a big draw to me but for most people just bogs things down. And houseruling stat generation is fairly common anyways.
But quickly looking at some of the arrays, buying an 18 isn't as bad an option as I thought amongst...
Since you are examining the stats so carefully, Do you have some suggested stat arrays for SFS players who won't be playing most character past level 11?
How are you obtaining those arrays? They look too high.
The Oboyza pregen that was shown has:
16 STR, 16 CON, 13 DES, 8 INT, 10 SAB, 10 CHA
Your arrays had 3 points more than the pregen so maybe you're using more points. Are you using a 10 point buy or a 15? Also, are you considering there will be no humans? Because a human should not have an 8 in any ability.
Let's use Shirren Mystic Priest as an example.
+2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha, and I'm assuming Priest is +1 Wis.
So starting stats are
Str 10
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 13
Cha 8
So an extra 5 points to get Wis to 18. That will leave me with 5 points to spend on other stats which doesn't match your array.
What am I missing?
You might wind up with something like Str 10, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 8 on that mystic. Maybe flip Dex and Con a bit, or up to 16+ Dex for a longarm-toting gun priest. If you spread out too much, you'll get something really ineffective at everything like 12 12 12 12 13 12, which is why I mentioned earlier in the thread possibly offering an alternative prechosen array for spreading stats around that adds up to more in total.
"... maybe adding something like 16 14 14 14 10 8 before theme as an option."
So with just racials.
Str 10
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 12
Cha 8
+4 to Wis, +2 to Con, +4 to a 3rd stat, +4 to a 4th stat.
= 14 points. I'm still missing something.
Edit: Oh, You were offering a suggestion for a home game. I'm looking for good point builds in SFS.
"... maybe adding something like 16 14 14 14 10 8 before theme as an option."
So with just racials.
Str 10
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 12
Cha 8+4 to Wis, +2 to Con, +4 to a 3rd stat, +4 to a 4th stat.
= 14 points. I'm still missing something.
Yeah, that array isn't a legal array, it's a possible one to add as a houserule, something like "Build 10 points or take this array that's worth more than 10 but forces a spread." The spread array should probably be something like the above, though thinking on it more, 16 14 14 12 12 8 (post-racials, pre-theme) is better because then you can give 16 14 14 12 10 10 for human.
EDIT: Yup, you got it. In SFS, you probably should take something very close to one of Calth's arrays (other than the +4/+2 ones that I don't quite understand but seem to be for races that are beyond the ones with balanced stats) unless you have a pretty unusual build; my suggestions all wound up close to one of those.
So in my example Calth's suggestion for starting stats would be
+4 in Str or Dex
+6 Wis.
And put the odd stat from theme wherever.
But isn't there something about upgrading a stat that is below a specific value adding +2 instead of +1?
So for example I could put +5 in Wis and +1 in Con. At 5th level add +1 to Wis, +1 to Str or Dex, +2 to Con and +2 to Int.
Then at 10th level add +1 to Con? (Not sure where the breakpoint is.) +1 to Wis, +1 to Str or Dex, +2 more to Int.
So ignoring theme and choosing to use ranged attacks my Shirren Mystic might look like this.
SAD build
Level 1
Str 10
Dex 14 (4 points)
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 18 (6 points)
Cha 8
Level 5
Str 12 (+2)
Dex 16 (+2)
Con 14 (+2)
Int 10
Wis 19 (+1)
Cha 8
Level 10
Str 14 (+2)
Dex 18 (+2)
Con 16 (+2)
Int 10
Wis 20 (+1)
Cha 8
Of course, In theory my class abilities and spells are getting better as I level so I'm increasing Str and Dex but would probably be using weapons less often.
It might be a holdover from before they changed how the point buy works. Maybe they changed to the new system but left the themes alone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Gun priest? that would be an interesting religion, and some very dangerous holidays.
Adding obligatory Equilibrium reference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Gun priest? that would be an interesting religion, and some very dangerous holidays.Adding obligatory Equilibrium reference.
No, more like this priest.
Yeah, that array isn't a legal array, it's a possible one to add as a houserule, something like "Build 10 points or take this array that's worth more than 10 but forces a spread." The spread array should probably be something like the above, though thinking on it more, 16 14 14 12 12 8 (post-racials, pre-theme) is better because then you can give 16 14 14 12 10 10 for human.
This is for any of the math people for the arrays. Is this probably best array for a human just for ease of creation? I don't really min/max and so play human most time. I figure that I will make note of 16 14 14 12 10 10 for Gencon so that I don't have to crunch those numbers there. The only other one I would want is one to maximize one stat for Int as I like having lots of skills. I have actually played characters with high Int and next highest was primary just because that is what I wanted.
Yeah, that array isn't a legal array, it's a possible one to add as a houserule, something like "Build 10 points or take this array that's worth more than 10 but forces a spread." The spread array should probably be something like the above, though thinking on it more, 16 14 14 12 12 8 (post-racials, pre-theme) is better because then you can give 16 14 14 12 10 10 for human.This is for any of the math people for the arrays. Is this probably best array for a human just for ease of creation? I don't really min/max and so play human most time. I figure that I will make note of 16 14 14 12 10 10 for Gencon so that I don't have to crunch those numbers there. The only other one I would want is one to maximize one stat for Int as I like having lots of skills. I have actually played characters with high Int and next highest was primary just because that is what I wanted.
Again, as mentioned in the quoted post, this isn't an array you can build with the Starfinder character generation rules. It is a possible alternative option a home GM could offer players who want to build characters with slightly bigger spread of stats.
Again, as mentioned in the quoted post, this isn't an array you can build with the Starfinder character generation rules. It is a possible alternative option a home GM could offer players who want to build characters with slightly bigger spread of stats.Yeah, that array isn't a legal array, it's a possible one to add as a houserule, something like "Build 10 points or take this array that's worth more than 10 but forces a spread." The spread array should probably be something like the above, though thinking on it more, 16 14 14 12 12 8 (post-racials, pre-theme) is better because then you can give 16 14 14 12 10 10 for human.This is for any of the math people for the arrays. Is this probably best array for a human just for ease of creation? I don't really min/max and so play human most time. I figure that I will make note of 16 14 14 12 10 10 for Gencon so that I don't have to crunch those numbers there. The only other one I would want is one to maximize one stat for Int as I like having lots of skills. I have actually played characters with high Int and next highest was primary just because that is what I wanted.
Ok, thank you for the response. I appreciate knowing. I can spend way too much time trying to figure out my array.
Okay, I've taken Calth's arrays, omitted the ones likely irrelevant to Starfinder Core races, and grouped them by "nonhuman" and "human"
Arrays for +2/+2/-2 Races: (Shirren, probably most other nonhumans)
18/16/10/10/10/8
18/14/12/10/10/8
18/12/12/12/10/8
16/14/12/12/10/8
As long as your racial bonuses go into the 12s or better, the above arrays should be valid.
Arrays for +2 Races (I expect this to be the case for humans)
18/14/10/10/10/10
18/12/12/10/10/10
16/14/12/10/10/10
16/12/12/12/10/10
Edit: Added a couple of arrays mentioned by Mark below.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I've taken Calth's arrays, omitted the ones likely irrelevant to Starfinder Core races, and grouped them by "nonhuman" and "human"
Arrays for +2/+2/-2 Races: (Shirren, probably most other nonhumans)
18/14/12/10/10/8
18/12/12/12/10/8
16/14/12/12/10/8As long as your racial bonuses go into the 12s or better, the above arrays should be valid.
Arrays for +2 Races (I expect this to be the case for humans)
18/12/12/10/10/10
16/14/12/10/10/10
16/12/12/12/10/10
Yeah, those plus the laser-focused sets of 18/16/10/10/10/8 and 18/14/10/10/10/10 cover your bases pretty well.
i am focusing on your human arrays and finding it a really interesting choice, i like the 16/14/12 and 16/12/12/12 arrays a lot. It makes it a difficult choice with one looking a lot better for levels 1-4 and then the other array jumping ahead. for any game that i expect to go on long term i think i would have to go for 16/12/12/12 as the default spread.
As a reminder, Calth suggested these arrays for SFS, based on the assumption that the level range is similar to PFS. (Characters are expected to get to 10th level, but "retire" in some form before they hit 15th). If SFS is organized such that characters will see play at 15th+ level (but retire/very seldom see play at 20th level), then other arrays become more attractive, such as 16/16/10/10/10/10 for humans.
In my experience, one of the reasons high-level play is more rare in 3.x/Pathfinder is due to the effects of high-level spellcasting. Since Starfinder currently caps out at 6th level spells (that appear at 16th level), I would think play at the mid-teens level range ought to be more reasonable / less gamebreaking. Other changes (such as eliminating iterative attacks) probably help to make the game run more smoothly, as well. Given this, I would expect Starfinder to support higher level play more easily than Pathfinder. That said, I have no idea if this means SFS will try to support higher-level play than PFS does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Calth is right that the "bad" at level 15 sets are not actually necessarily bad at level 15; the strongest differences are at 5-14. Let's take for example 18 14 10 10 10 10 vs 16 16 10 10 10 10. At level 1, the first one is probably better because it has +1 bonus on primary stat in exchange for 1 lower in secondary stat. At level 5, it becomes 19 16 12 12 10 10 and 18 18 12 12 10 10, which is better for the second set by a bit (+1 bonus on secondary stat). At level 10, it becomes 20 18 14 14 10 10 and 19 19 14 14 10 10 which is better for the first set by more than the second was better at 5 (+1 bonus on primary stat). Assuming you are certain you aren't going to ever hit 20 and so just don't care about raising even stats above 18 at level 15, they then become 20 18 16 16 12 12 and 20 20 16 16 10 10, which is probably better for the second set though not strictly (+1 bonus on secondary stat but 1 lower bonus on 5th and 6th stats, so this is possibly better for a solarian that has more useful 5th and 6th stats than it is for an operative).