To clarify why I'm completely blown away by Overlord Mystic:
At level 1, it gets an ability that says pretty much "when you mind control people, even by means such as dominate, they don't realise they have been mind controlled and believe all their actions were of their own free will".
That is insanely powerful and is almost worth being a capstone alone.
No other level 1 ability of any class comes even close in power to that monstrosity as far as I can tell.
That's really not what it says. It says when a mind-control effect ends, the target forgets they were mind controlled, but still remembers doing whatever it was you made them do.
Some are going to put two and two together and realize they were under the influence of another power. Exactly how they deal with their confusing memories is going to vary from person to person. It's definitely powerful, but I think you're misrepresenting it a bit.
|
To clarify why I'm completely blown away by Overlord Mystic:
At level 1, it gets an ability that says pretty much "when you mind control people, even by means such as dominate, they don't realise they have been mind controlled and believe all their actions were of their own free will".
That is insanely powerful and is almost worth being a capstone alone.
No other level 1 ability of any class comes even close in power to that monstrosity as far as I can tell.
Ok, is this another of those "clearly intended for BBEG" abilities? :D
...Then again, npcs don't have class levels in Starfinder right? Ok now I'm more confused
Hmm, I just noticed - I'm not sure Solar Weapon Solarians can benefit from Weapon Fusions - the rules are exceedingly unclear on the matter.
If they truly can't benefit from them, that would be another drawback to using Solar Weapon, as some Weapon Fusions are very advantageous in certain situations while being very cheap.
To clarify why I'm completely blown away by Overlord Mystic:
At level 1, it gets an ability that says pretty much "when you mind control people, even by means such as dominate, they don't realise they have been mind controlled and believe all their actions were of their own free will".
That is insanely powerful and is almost worth being a capstone alone.
No other level 1 ability of any class comes even close in power to that monstrosity as far as I can tell.That's really not what it says. It says when a mind-control effect ends, the target forgets they were mind controlled, but still remembers doing whatever it was you made them do.
Some are going to put two and two together and realize they were under the influence of another power. Exactly how they deal with their confusing memories is going to vary from person to person. It's definitely powerful, but I think you're misrepresenting it a bit.
The ability can be interpreted in multiple ways, yes.
However, to me, "the target remembers all of the actions it took but doesn't at all remember being mind controlled" implies most people will think it was either of their own free will or some kind of temporary bout of delirium.
And the funny thing about numbers, you can simulate a million super bowls, but you still gotta run out that tunnel and play the game. :-)
Personally running the game is useful for identifying issues, yes. However, once you have found an issue is is data analysis that will allow you to identify what is wrong. A run game is a single data point, not the be all and end of all analysis.
That analogy also falls flat with the fact there is a massive industry for simulating, predicting and analysing what happened in various sports events. Most of those people have not played the sport. I would also question the use of 'You have not run a game yet' in a First Impressions thread. That would defeat the point of it being first impressions.
Hmm, I just noticed - I'm not sure Solar Weapon Solarians can benefit from Weapon Fusions - the rules are exceedingly unclear on the matter.
If they truly can't benefit from them, that would be another drawback to using Solar Weapon, as some Weapon Fusions are very advantageous in certain situations while being very cheap.
Well, weapon crystals are listed as a type of weapon. As far as I can tell, there should be nothing stopping you as written from putting fusions on them.
Well, weapon crystals are listed as a type of weapon. As far as I can tell, there should be nothing stopping you as written from putting fusions on them.Hmm, I just noticed - I'm not sure Solar Weapon Solarians can benefit from Weapon Fusions - the rules are exceedingly unclear on the matter.
If they truly can't benefit from them, that would be another drawback to using Solar Weapon, as some Weapon Fusions are very advantageous in certain situations while being very cheap.
I just feel uncertain because the Crystals are more of a weapon upgrade than a weapon and isn't directly used as a weapon, instead just being inserted into your mote to grant extra damage to your Solar Weapon, making this a bit of a vague situation and feels like grey RAW. I'd like to hear dev commentary on this.
And the funny thing about numbers, you can simulate a million super bowls, but you still gotta run out that tunnel and play the game. :-)Personally running the game is useful for identifying issues, yes. However, once you have found an issue is is data analysis that will allow you to identify what is wrong. A run game is a single data point, not the be all and end of all analysis.
That analogy also falls flat with the fact there is a massive industry for simulating, predicting and analysing what happened in various sports events. Most of those people have not played the sport. I would also question the use of 'You have not run a game yet' in a First Impressions thread. That would defeat the point of it being first impressions.
It's a pretty big data point, just ask the 19-0 Patriots. :-)
And it's absolutely relevant to ask if you've played it in a first impressions thread. :-)
I'm just asking questions, that's all.
And the funny thing about numbers, you can simulate a million super bowls, but you still gotta run out that tunnel and play the game. :-)Personally running the game is useful for identifying issues, yes. However, once you have found an issue is is data analysis that will allow you to identify what is wrong. A run game is a single data point, not the be all and end of all analysis.
That analogy also falls flat with the fact there is a massive industry for simulating, predicting and analysing what happened in various sports events. Most of those people have not played the sport. I would also question the use of 'You have not run a game yet' in a First Impressions thread. That would defeat the point of it being first impressions.
It's a pretty big data point, just ask the 19-0 Patriots. :-)
And it's absolutely relevant to ask if you've played it in a first impressions thread. :-)
I'm just asking questions. :-)
Technically, this is an early impressions thread, not a first impressions thread. :P
Early impressions implies it being before actual play.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I have no idea what the math behind the game is, or if one option is better than another, or if this even IS a problem Starfinder has, but I've noticed a trend in this thread I'd like to weigh in on.
Game balance IS IMPORTANT. I understand people like the game. It has a cool flavor, the classes are interesting and unique, and the fluff behind those classes is important. The mechanics behind them are important too. I see others comment with things like "as long as it's not completely and utterly useless in combat, that's good enough for me, as long as the fluff is cool." What an incredibly low bar to set for the developers. Quite frankly it's nearly apologist.
A commoner is useful in combat. Not nearly as much as any PC class, but it's always better than nothing. Nobody (or at least very few people) wants to play the commoner. It FEELS BAD to be that weak compared to the rest of the party. If a cursory reading of material (again I'm not saying this is the case, but from the opinions of people who seem to have read the book it might be) shows large power discrepancies between classes, that's a serious problem. It should take serious number crunching to find power differences, and they should be small. Balance does not mean exactly even power, but it does mean close.
Game balance is a very difficult thing, and I don't envy anyone whose job it is. It is, however, necessary for a good game. Paizo has in the past done very poorly with game balance. It has also proven it can do very well with it. I think we do a disservice to not only ourselves as consumers, but to Paizo as a company, if we do not hold them to that standard of excellence we have seen from them in the past.
Just my two cents.
/rant
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a pretty big data point, just ask the 19-0 Patriots. :-)
That's actually a perfect example of why it's a single data point. Single data points can be anomalous. Like that example or a game where no one rolled lower than a 15. It would be an outlier that could be discarded after analysis to see if it falls within a reasonable standard deviation of normal.
But the Giants still won the super bowl, how about that!
So I have no idea what the math behind the game is, or if one option is better than another, or if this even IS a problem Starfinder has, but I've noticed a trend in this thread I'd like to weigh in on.
Game balance IS IMPORTANT. I understand people like the game. It has a cool flavor, the classes are interesting and unique, and the fluff behind those classes is important. The mechanics behind them are important too. I see others comment with things like "as long as it's not completely and utterly useless in combat, that's good enough for me, as long as the fluff is cool." What an incredibly low bar to set for the developers. Quite frankly it's nearly apologist.
A commoner is useful in combat. Not nearly as much as any PC class, but it's always better than nothing. Nobody (or at least very few people) wants to play the commoner. It FEELS BAD to be that weak compared to the rest of the party. If a cursory reading of material (again I'm not saying this is the case, but from the opinions of people who seem to have read the book it might be) shows large power discrepancies between classes, that's a serious problem. It should take serious number crunching to find power differences, and they should be small. Balance does not mean exactly even power, but it does mean close.
Game balance is a very difficult thing, and I don't envy anyone whose job it is. It is, however, necessary for a good game. Paizo has in the past done very poorly with game balance. It has also proven it can do very well with it. I think we do a disservice to not only ourselves as consumers, but to Paizo as a company, if we do not hold them to that standard of excellence we have seen from them in the past.
Just my two cents.
/rant
Fully agreed. I feel like most of the arguing in this thread stems from people not understanding this.
Game balance is a very difficult thing, and I don't envy anyone whose job it is. It is, however, necessary for a good game.
Oh most certainly not. I wouldn't say that it's an easy job at all, I've been involved in it enough myself to know that it's very difficult (Doubly so for the people who made it. No one wants to sit there and go 'My baby is too strong') and I've nothing but respect for those who do it. It's like civic maintenance. It's not fun, it's not glamorous and people generally only notice when things fall apart.
It's part of the communities job for most games to help improve it, as a thousand eyes can spot more things than a dozen. That way people can play the game with less worries about if their personal preferences are compromising a character's ability to help the others. Good balance helps roleplay rather than hindering it in my opinion.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I say it again, I do think op is hyperbolic, but I think this thread demonstrates what people outside of paizo board tend to think of posters here: They are way too overly defensive of Paizo and can't stand criticism.
Seriously guys, this thread is what one of my players would use as example when trolling me about that I post here :D
To me it kinda seems like people are afraid that negative people will drive customers away, hurt sales and then result in them not getting stuff they want. I know I kinda feel like that about mythic rules, but mythic rules DO need rework :P So even if you disagree about criticism, you don't need to work so hard to trying to discredit them with fallacies and whatever. Heck even Mark agrees that best approach is combining both math and actual play. Like, I agree that theory crafting isn't most accurate to how the game actually works, but that doesn't close the possibility that they could be right, nobody outside of playtesters has yet gotten chance to try it out right? And even then, OP did say they like the book overall even if they are disappointed by some stuff.
How easy is it to be an unarmed combat specialist?
Does the technomancer get cool abilities to control tech? I hoped they be like technomancers from Shadowrun.
But at the end of the day you gotta just play the game otherwise you aren't getting all the data and you end up with flawed analysis.
Telling everyone that the Patriots SHOULD be 19-0 doesn't make them 19-0. :-)
Why not just attach the fusion to the mote itself? Isn't that why it exists, rather than having the powers manifest out of nowhere?I just feel uncertain because the Crystals are more of a weapon upgrade than a weapon and isn't directly used as a weapon, instead just being inserted into your mote to grant extra damage to your Solar Weapon, making this a bit of a vague situation and feels like grey RAW. I'd like to hear dev commentary on this.Well, weapon crystals are listed as a type of weapon. As far as I can tell, there should be nothing stopping you as written from putting fusions on them.Hmm, I just noticed - I'm not sure Solar Weapon Solarians can benefit from Weapon Fusions - the rules are exceedingly unclear on the matter.
If they truly can't benefit from them, that would be another drawback to using Solar Weapon, as some Weapon Fusions are very advantageous in certain situations while being very cheap.
The wording is unclear.
My current interpretation is that you have to specifically spend actions to attach fusions to your Solar Weapon after manifesting the Solar Weapon whenever you manifest it and it drops to the ground after de-manifesting.It would really help to have some sort of dev clarification on this.
How easy is it to be an unarmed combat specialist?
Does the technomancer get cool abilities to control tech? I hoped they be like technomancers from Shadowrun.
Vesk with Improved Unarmed Strike get some decent damage, though they seem to lag behind armed options at higher levels without other boosts.
I think unarmed combat can work with Armour Storm Soldier, but I haven't crunched the numbers on whether you'll lag behind armed options in that case.
So I have no idea what the math behind the game is, or if one option is better than another, or if this even IS a problem Starfinder has, but I've noticed a trend in this thread I'd like to weigh in on.
Game balance IS IMPORTANT. I understand people like the game. It has a cool flavor, the classes are interesting and unique, and the fluff behind those classes is important. The mechanics behind them are important too. I see others comment with things like "as long as it's not completely and utterly useless in combat, that's good enough for me, as long as the fluff is cool." What an incredibly low bar to set for the developers. Quite frankly it's nearly apologist.
A commoner is useful in combat. Not nearly as much as any PC class, but it's always better than nothing. Nobody (or at least very few people) wants to play the commoner. It FEELS BAD to be that weak compared to the rest of the party. If a cursory reading of material (again I'm not saying this is the case, but from the opinions of people who seem to have read the book it might be) shows large power discrepancies between classes, that's a serious problem. It should take serious number crunching to find power differences, and they should be small. Balance does not mean exactly even power, but it does mean close.
Game balance is a very difficult thing, and I don't envy anyone whose job it is. It is, however, necessary for a good game. Paizo has in the past done very poorly with game balance. It has also proven it can do very well with it. I think we do a disservice to not only ourselves as consumers, but to Paizo as a company, if we do not hold them to that standard of excellence we have seen from them in the past.
Just my two cents.
/rant
I think you're right, and until I've seen the Envoy in action it does seem like an underwhelming class, but the Solarian whilst not as good as the soldier in combat doesn't seem at all like a bad class which I don't feel is being represented in this thread. It's not super powerful but it doesn't seem bad on a level of unbalanced. I don't think people playing Solarian are gonna feel that overshadowed in general, probably if the soldier is fully optimized but that won't always happen. I'm super appreciative for Mashallah for posting this and there have been some really promising positives but I feel like people are playing off of each other and just bashing the Solarian more and more harshly for being a less optimal choice when it's still a perfectly decent class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Game balance is important, but without any playtesting, subtleties in the design and function of mechanics may not be fully apparent. Just because a class looks over or underpowered on paper doesn't immediately mean that it is. It certainly can be, of course, but without playtesting (or analysis far more complex than anything I've seen in this thread) it's very difficult to know for sure.
But I realize arguing the point is useless at this stage, and with some people it's useless at any stage. With a few months of actual play, maybe we'll find that the Envoy and Solarion aren't the wastes of space they're being portrayed as. Or it will turn out they're even more useless. Given that the only person here to actually play this game experienced the former, I know where I'd place my money.
Anyway, I'm backing out of this thread for my own sake. Anyone who's still interested in Starfinder who doesn't have the book yet ought to come ask questions over in the "All-Seeing Orb" thread.
Can we not just apply our own judgment? I, as GM, see no reason the fusion can't be attached to the mote (for both logic an balance reasons), so that is what can happen. I don't need a rules lawyer judging if I am interpreting the letter of the rules correctly or not, so long as it is in the spirit of the rules.
Yeah, that works perfectly for the majority of games. Most people are asking it due to the exact intention of the devs being unclear.
It's one of those things with wording. Even if 99% of people will quickly hosuerule something to 'That's what the spirit of the rules implies' you need to account for the fact that every RPG is someone's first or that not everyone reads perfect English and most inexperienced players will be less able to just make quick judgement calls about what should be done.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's reading a lot into 8 words, don't you think. :-)So you also haven't tried playing it.
Interesting.
Reminds me of all those people telling me that I was irrational for not wanting to play 4th edition, despite having not actually played it yet, as if it was impossible to know whether or not you are going to like poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick before actually poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick...
Anywho, my early impression is that I am going to like the Mystic (which was my impression before this thread) and not going to be much interested in the Solarion (which was my impression before this thread) and that the Operative sounds intriguing (which was *not* my impression before this thread!), but I'll understand if you think that you know better than I what I am going to like or dislike.
You're taking cheap shots at people who are self-aware enough to know what they like before doing it. Seems pretty basic.
I'm still interested in playing the Mystic (which I was before) and I'm now interested in trying out the Operative (which I wasn't before), so, Mashallah has *increased* my interest in this product, and your drive-by insinuations that they don't have the right to an opinion has not provided any similarly useful contribution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of unarmed combat, one missed opportunity is that I don't see any way to treat unarmed strikes as an operative weapon.
It would be pretty cool if you could play a pressure point monk as an Operative, but alas.
Speaking of unarmed combat, one missed opportunity is that I don't see any way to treat unarmed strikes as an operative weapon.
It would be pretty cool if you could play a pressure point monk as an Operative, but alas.
It would be very nice. It would have, however, run into the lower damage scaling of operative weapons from spec. Still, it would be a very nice talent to have available as a Special Agent choking someone out is very, very iconic. Perhaps a follow up feat to unarmed strike. Give it the Stunned crit effect, increase the damage scaling again and make it an operative weapon. With a mirror counterpart (Can only use one at a time) that is focused on hard, brutal combat and gives it Severe Wound crit or such.
More non-lethal weapons is also something I'd love to see in future releases or expanding some of the weapon types that don't scale from 1-20 (Like how flame pistols only exist for a moment in the leveling)
Oh and Advanced Operative weapons. Monofiliment Whips and stuff for Operatives willing to spend a feat on advanced melee.
One thing that annoys me a lot is that the naming pattern for weapons is woefully inconsistent.
A Tactical Doshko costs 240 credits and is a level 1 weapon.
A Tactical Knife costs 6000 credits and is a level 7 weapon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One criticism I will level was the conscious one to abandon any attempt to allow small ships to take part in ground-level combat. I know the devs have given the "orbital bombardment from space aren't the type of stories we want to tell" line, which is fine if you're thinking about Star Destroyers, but I played a *lot* of Star Wars Saga Edition and the number of times we had great fun with snub-nose fighter strafing runs, rebels firing shoulder-launched missiles at TIE-Fighters, freighters stuck on the ground using ion turrets against advancing droids, dropships landing in the middle of fortifications, etc., were quite numerous.
When PCs in Starfinder get ships capable of operating into atmosphere, telling them they can't shoot at enemies on the ground because "that's not the story we're telling" is going to seem rather forced. I realize the magnitude of difference with starship-level weapons vs. characters on the ground is enormous, but I would have liked to see have seen a creative solution to the problem.
but I would have liked to see have seen a creative solution to the problem.
My vague thoughts on how to do that would be to set ships up with a certain value of 'Orbital support', representing weapons that are too imprecise to rely on in ship to ship combat but work great against stationary targets (Like space stations or the ground).
With people able to spend resolve to call in orbital support from the list of options the ship has (To a similar effect as say, a fireball spell if you call in a bombing run, a science vessel laying down a field that slows people in it or a famous ship removing fear from people as it flies over head and inspires them.)
You could even have Techies be able to disable the ability to call in orbital support by hacking people's communication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Interfering Shot talent for Operatives is... pointless - it doesn't do anything.
The effect is that it prevents the target from taking reactions if you choose it to be the effect of your debilitating trick (you have to choose - can't combine with something else). However, the flat-footed condition already explicitly prevents creatures from taking reactions, and you get the ability to apply the flat-footed condition out of the box two levels earlier than you can take Interfering Shot.
Interfering Shot is a strict downgrade from what you can do two levels earlier without it.
This seems like an oversight.
Higher levels of the Fear spell seem to be "press button to end encounter" if enemies are not immune to fear, or useless otherwise.
Not a fan.
It looks to me as if the 4th level version of fear (which is the highest) is basically identical to the fear spell in Pathfinder, which doesn't strike me as "press button to end encounter".
Also, this is available from 10th level. Just to put this in scope, the Adventure Path is over at level 12.
Higher levels of the Fear spell seem to be "press button to end encounter" if enemies are not immune to fear, or useless otherwise.
Not a fan.It looks to me as if the 4th level version of fear (which is the highest) is basically identical to the fear spell in Pathfinder, which doesn't strike me as "press button to end encounter".
Also, this is available from 10th level. Just to put this in scope, the Adventure Path is over at level 12.
I wasn't a fan of the Pathfinder Fear spell either. I hoped things like it won't be in.
How easy is it to be an unarmed combat specialist?
Does the technomancer get cool abilities to control tech? I hoped they be like technomancers from Shadowrun.
Vesk with Improved Unarmed Strike get some decent damage, though they seem to lag behind armed options at higher levels without other boosts.
I think unarmed combat can work with Armour Storm Soldier, but I haven't crunched the numbers on whether you'll lag behind armed options in that case.
I see. What about power gauntlets or something? I'm interested a playing a monk that breaks tech with his mind and punches people
I see. What about power gauntlets or something? I'm interested a playing a monk that breaks tech with his mind and punches peopleHow easy is it to be an unarmed combat specialist?
Does the technomancer get cool abilities to control tech? I hoped they be like technomancers from Shadowrun.
Vesk with Improved Unarmed Strike get some decent damage, though they seem to lag behind armed options at higher levels without other boosts.
I think unarmed combat can work with Armour Storm Soldier, but I haven't crunched the numbers on whether you'll lag behind armed options in that case.
Powered Gauntlets are represented by Battlegloves, but there are very few of those published, and they are simple weapons, meaning they have relatively poor scaling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fully agreed. I feel like most of the arguing in this thread stems from people not understanding this.
Or maybe some people don't understand that the game is about more than just numbers and math. It's not Diablo. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that, for most people, the game is primarily about role-playing and having fun. And no amount of armchair data analysis can factor that in.
I know you're going to say "but how can I have fun if my character is mechanically crippled etc etc". Well, you said earlier, for example, that the "entirety of the swashbuckler class" was a "trap" and its existence could only be explained by "malice or incompetence" on the side of the designers. Aside from the fact, once again, that this is highly disrespectful, it also entirely your own impression, even if you present it as an objective fact.
For my part, I've been playing a swashbuckler for 11 levels now in our Hell's Rebels campaign, and I'm having a lot of fun playing the character, and that means both role-playing and the mechanics. I don't feel underpowered at all.
|
|
Yeah that is part of stuff that I think is hyperbole from you. My only experience with swashbuckler was "welp, this character with ac buff potions has ac of 45 and thats before mobility and is one of two PCs in this high level one shot module capable of one shotting everyone with full attacks", so even if its weaker class, clearly it can be effective in regular play :D
Like, monks are commented to be weak and yeah sure they are pretty weak, but in normal play I don't think they tend to be equivalent of playing with npc class like some people seem to think. Rogues aren't that bad in practice either
