Starfinder: Early Impressions


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 621 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since many people by now got a chance to read through the book, I think it's time to discuss what we've seen so far.
I'll begin with a quick overview of classes, sorting them in descending order of my early impression of their relative power:
First: Technomancer.

Spoiler:
As the space Wizard, it does exactly what I expected it to be, nothing more, nothing less. I think this spot needs no justification.

Second: Mystic.
Spoiler:
While I expected space Cleric, I was in for quite the treat. The different connections are VERY different. Overlord is mindblowing and has an absolutely crazy first level power, making me feel that some connections are a fair bit stronger than others. Still, this seems like a really fun spin on space Cleric.

Tied for Third: Operative.
Spoiler:
I'M IN LOVE. The class is absolutely gorgeous, blowing all expectations I ever had far out the water. 10+int effective skills per level with two free skill focus feats at level 1 is crazy. To boot, it's also great at combat. This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Tied for Third: Soldier.
Spoiler:
I'M IN LOVE, again. This is the Fighter I always wanted, but never had. A lot of the combat styles look like tons of fun. Armour Storm looks amazing - it's literally all about crushing puny enemy skulls with the might of power fists, letting you be the space marine from M41 that you always wanted to be.

Fifth: Mechanic.
Spoiler:
Not very memorable. It does what it does, but nothing particularly interested me in it.

Sixth: Solarian
Spoiler:
The class looks like a huge mess to me. None of the class options seem good by themselves, suggesting you need to string complex combos to make the class work. All in all, it's a very complex and convoluted class that seems to take a lot of effort to be workable. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole until a comprehensive build guide comes out to lessen the headache.

Seventh: Envoy
Spoiler:
The biggest disappointment of the book. It doesn't live up to any of the hype, at all. At almost everything it does, it seems simply worse than Operative, who can fill almost the same niche easily while also being good at other things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now, races:
Most races are what you'd expect.
The mechanical changes to Lashunta are... sudden and I don't really like them. I expected them to still always be +2 INT, but now they're always +2 CHA instead. I don't like their Mary Sue-ish fluff where they're perfect beings everyone likes either.
Ysoki seem pretty much outright bad. As far as I can tell, they're the mechanically weakest race in the CRB, good at nothing particular, with only 2 racial HP to boot.
There's no other significant surprises in other races, so I won't cover them with "yeah, they're pretty much what you'd expect" over and over again.


And themes:
Themes look really fun. They are all good at one specific thing and make that specific thing really fun to roleplay. For example, Icon makes your identity common knowledge so literally everyone in the galaxy recognises you by taking 10 on untrained Culture checks.
Overall, as far as I can tell, if a theme fits your concept - take it! They're great, fun, and exciting. Themeless seems to be mostly a last resort option if nothing really fits well.


Expanding a bit on Operative, math edition:
The bonuses you get to skills as long as you aren't Thief or Daredevil (both of which get screwed for no apparent reasons) are absolutely mindblowing.
Here's a level 1 Ghost Operative who didn't invest anything into Stealth and just has 16 DEX:
First of all, you get +3 to Stealth from Dexterity. Nothing surprising here yet.
Then, you get your class level to ranks in Stealth and it's a class skill, so you're at +7 now.
Then, you get free Skill Focus, and you're already at +10.
Then, you remember Operative gives +1 to all skills at level 11. Wow, +11 without any investment other than having 16 DEX.
Then you try to Trick Attack and remember you have +4 to Stealth on Trick Attacks. Suddenly, you're looking at +15. And thus, with 0 investment other than just having 16 DEX, you hit the DC 21 (to trick attack a CR 1 monster) on a roll of 6.


Would you say that the Envoy could be fixed by getting new, more powerful Improvisation options after level 8? Like technomacer hacks and solarian revelations?


IonutRO wrote:
Would you say that the Envoy could be fixed by getting new, more powerful Improvisation options after level 8? Like technomacer hacks and solarian revelations?

The lack of class features outside improvisations stands out like a sore thumb and severely hurts the class.

Most classes have both other cool class features and talents on top.
Envoy has really only talents, and those talents are typically worse than Operative talents doing the same thing. Technically, Envoy also has some skill unlocks as a pretend class feature, but they're just BAD. VERY BAD.
The playing field simply isn't remotely fair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah the issue with Envoy is that Skill unlocks are very weak mechanically and at best situational. Like they arent even amazingly strong in social situations nevermind not being very useful in combat


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P


Porridge wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P

Every other Specialisation says you get +4 to the skill on Trick Attacks.

Thief and Daredevil don't have that clause.


Delightful wrote:
Any mention of minor, non-main 20, Gods?

Dwarven description briefly mentions Torag, but I haven't seen any other yet.


Mashallah wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P

Every other Specialisation says you get +4 to the skill on Trick Attacks.

Thief and Daredevil don't have that clause.

Looks like a very easy case for a house rule to me.


Remy P Gilbeau wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P

Every other Specialisation says you get +4 to the skill on Trick Attacks.

Thief and Daredevil don't have that clause.
Looks like a very easy case for a house rule to me.

Yeah, agreed.

What Thief and Daredevil give is by far not worth losing the +4. As it stands, they're the two weakest Specialisations for Operative and fixing them with a houserule is necessary to give them justice.


Also, Ghost Operatives are cool as all hell. You can phase through walls, such as to covertly enter a spaceship from space or do other similarly badass things.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P

Every other Specialisation says you get +4 to the skill on Trick Attacks.

Thief and Daredevil don't have that clause.
Oh, I heard about that. It took a little bit to work out, but those two have Dex-based skills, and the class is Dex-based. The other specializations have +4 to make up for relying on a secondary (or even dump) ability score, that way they aren't pushed into having a really high charisma or wisdom just to succeed at their trick attacks.

Note that Ghost also uses a DEX based skill (Stealth), and they get the +4 bonus. Perhaps they're assuming that it's not always practical to use Stealth in combat?


QuidEst wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P

Every other Specialisation says you get +4 to the skill on Trick Attacks.

Thief and Daredevil don't have that clause.
Oh, I heard about that. It took a little bit to work out, but those two have Dex-based skills, and the class is Dex-based. The other specializations have +4 to make up for relying on a secondary (or even dump) ability score, that way they aren't pushed into having a really high charisma or wisdom just to succeed at their trick attacks.

Ghost gets +4 on a DEX-based skill. Hacker gets +4 on an INT-based skill. These are obviously stats relevant to Operative.

Moreover, an Operative freely chooses their secondary ability score. I'd expect most operatives to have 16 in DEX and another stat.


Mashallah wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P

Every other Specialisation says you get +4 to the skill on Trick Attacks.

Thief and Daredevil don't have that clause.
Oh, I heard about that. It took a little bit to work out, but those two have Dex-based skills, and the class is Dex-based. The other specializations have +4 to make up for relying on a secondary (or even dump) ability score, that way they aren't pushed into having a really high charisma or wisdom just to succeed at their trick attacks.

Ghost gets +4 on a DEX-based skill. Hacker gets +4 on an INT-based skill. These are obviously stats relevant to Operative.

Moreover, an Operative freely chooses their secondary ability score. I'd expect most operatives to have 16 in DEX and another stat.

Yeah, we forgot about Ghost getting +4 despite using a Dex-based skill. I'd expect Operatives to have 18 Dex out the gate. I mean, that's the only score that really matters to them, and it's much cheaper to bump it to 18 at the start of the game than later by leveling up.


Found a typo in themes:
Every other theme: when attempting knowledge or culture checks about stuff relevant to your theme, reduce the DC by 5
Icon: when attempting a profession or culture check to recall knowledge about other icons of your profession or details about your profession's cultural aspects, INCREASE the DC by 5

Liberty's Edge

What would be the best way to make a SEAL-type character?

Liberty's Edge

I plan to play Androids, and like the stats and all... I did think I'd be conflicted and want to play an Ysoki (I like my PFS Ratfolk a lot) and really loved the idea of carrying grenades and such in your jowls... but I do feel, as stated here, that it seems a rather weak race, with no powerful little thing to make up for it.
I made an Exocortex Mechanic as my first character, and seems nice. With strong skills too.

Now, to derail the thread a little bit: I have obviously not read everything in the CRB, but what I have points to Reach as being "different" from PFS: if I am correct, reach melee weapons (like the Tactical Pike) now can touch enemies both 1 and 2 squares away (not only those 2 squares away). Is that what you read?


Paladinosaur wrote:
What would be the best way to make a SEAL-type character?

Probably Operative. Even the name of the class fits.


Eric Collins - France wrote:

I plan to play Androids, and like the stats and all... I did think I'd be conflicted and want to play an Ysoki (I like my PFS Ratfolk a lot) and really loved the idea of carrying grenades and such in your jowls... but I do feel, as stated here, that it seems a rather weak race, with no powerful little thing to make up for it.

I made an Exocortex Mechanic as my first character, and seems nice. With strong skills too.

Now, to derail the thread a little bit: I have obviously not read everything in the CRB, but what I have points to Reach as being "different" from PFS: if I am correct, reach melee weapons (like the Tactical Pike) now can touch enemies both 1 and 2 squares away (not only those 2 squares away). Is that what you read?

I haven't read through that portion of the rules yet. It'll take me a while to get there, sorry.


Mashallah wrote:

Expanding a bit on Operative, math edition:

The bonuses you get to skills as long as you aren't Thief or Daredevil (both of which get screwed for no apparent reasons) are absolutely mindblowing.
Here's a level 1 Ghost Operative who didn't invest anything into Stealth and just has 16 DEX:
First of all, you get +3 to Stealth from Dexterity. Nothing surprising here yet.
Then, you get your class level to ranks in Stealth and it's a class skill, so you're at +7 now.
Then, you get free Skill Focus, and you're already at +10.
Then, you remember Operative gives +1 to all skills at level 11. Wow, +11 without any investment other than having 16 DEX.
Then you try to Trick Attack and remember you have +4 to Stealth on Trick Attacks. Suddenly, you're looking at +15. And thus, with 0 investment other than just having 16 DEX, you hit the DC 21 (to trick attack a CR 1 monster) on a roll of 6.

Oh, reading through stuff more attentively, Skill Focus is an insight bonus, as is Operative's bonus to all skills, meaning they don't stack.

This is an extremely weird decision, given that Operative's bonus to all skills eventually becomes bigger than the Skill Focus bonus, making those two free feats dead feats.
I dislike classes giving dead feats as part of the progression and think this is an extremely weird decision.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mashallah wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P

Every other Specialisation says you get +4 to the skill on Trick Attacks.

Thief and Daredevil don't have that clause.

Ah, got it. Thanks!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Skill Focus is an insight bonus, as is Operative's bonus to all skills, meaning they don't stack.
I had the same feeling with the Exocortex Mechanic, when I realized that the "inherent" Mechanic bonus (to Engineering & Computers) that scales as you level, is the same type of bonus as Skill Focus. Meaning that either I put Skill Focus on the same skill ("losing" 1 point) or putting it on another skill.
The up side here is that at each level the class allows you to reconfigure the IA and change Skill Focus (so you could start w. Computers at lvl 1 if you need it, and then switch later).

I've read some on bonuses and their stacking etc. in the CRB, and prepping to run the quests, and it seems there are a lot of Insight bonuses.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mashallah wrote:
IonutRO wrote:
Would you say that the Envoy could be fixed by getting new, more powerful Improvisation options after level 8? Like technomacer hacks and solarian revelations?

The lack of class features outside improvisations stands out like a sore thumb and severely hurts the class.

Most classes have both other cool class features and talents on top.
Envoy has really only talents, and those talents are typically worse than Operative talents doing the same thing. Technically, Envoy also has some skill unlocks as a pretend class feature, but they're just BAD. VERY BAD.
The playing field simply isn't remotely fair.

Mashallah, thanks for sharing your impressions. I'm a little disappointed with these early impressions for Envoy, as this class, apart from Mechanic, is one I was most looking forward to. Could you clarify what Expertise Talents do? The Envoy class preview only mentions it, and you seem to imply the Operative gets a similar feature. Are they similar in effect to Pathfinder Rogue's Talents, only without the Sneak Attack?


Before this continues- Mashallah, have you gotten a chance to look at the feats and see how they interact with the less powerful classes? I don't have the book, so I could be completely off base here, but maybe there are class specific feats that really give the less powerful classes a significant boost in power.

I'm just wondering at this point. I don't have the pdf yet, and am just wildly speculating.


Opsylum wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
IonutRO wrote:
Would you say that the Envoy could be fixed by getting new, more powerful Improvisation options after level 8? Like technomacer hacks and solarian revelations?

The lack of class features outside improvisations stands out like a sore thumb and severely hurts the class.

Most classes have both other cool class features and talents on top.
Envoy has really only talents, and those talents are typically worse than Operative talents doing the same thing. Technically, Envoy also has some skill unlocks as a pretend class feature, but they're just BAD. VERY BAD.
The playing field simply isn't remotely fair.
Mashallah, thanks for sharing your impressions. I'm a little disappointed with these early impressions for Envoy, as this class, apart from Mechanic, is one I was most looking forward to. Could you clarify what Expertise Talents do? The Envoy class preview only mentions it, and you seem to imply the Operative gets a similar feature.

Expertise Talents are what I loosely called Skill Unlocks. They generally give things like "give up inspiration dice on a skill check to perform it in half the normal time", without ever offering anything actually interesting.

I referred to Improvisations as talents. My apologies for inconsistent terminology.


Michael7123 wrote:

Before this continues- Mashallah, have you gotten a chance to look at the feats and see how they interact with the less powerful classes? I don't have the book, so I could be completely off base here, but maybe there are class specific feats that really give the less powerful classes a significant boost in power.

I'm just wondering at this point. I don't have the pdf yet, and am just wildly speculating.

I skimmed through the feats, and while some looked pretty cool, nothing stood out as particularly salvaging for the Envoy, I'm afraid.


Meanwhile, I just calculated: the average array you'll go for in Starfinder is equivalent to 12 Point Buy in Pathfinder.
If you instead give 15 Starfinder Points to spread around, the typical arrays get closer to 20PB in Pathfinder, while also letting you get rid of the odd ability score imposed by theme while odd ability scores are really bad in Starfinder and screw you over, making me want to get rid of them.
I think this is a fairly reasonable houserule.


Looking more thoroughly at classes:
The "top 5" classes as per my list in the OP can each stand on their own, not being directly superceded by anyone. They are pretty well designed and work well.
I don't see any compelling reason to play as a Solarian. For most intents and purposes, you're better off refluffing either a Soldier or an Operative to implement the concepts you're looking for.
I don't see any compelling reason to play as an Envoy. For most intents and purposes, you're better off refluffing either a Mystic or an Operative to implement the concepts you're looking for.


Mashallah wrote:

Looking more thoroughly at classes:

The "top 5" classes as per my list in the OP can each stand on their own, not being directly superceded by anyone. They are pretty well designed and work well.
I don't see any compelling reason to play as a Solarian. For most intents and purposes, you're better off refluffing either a Soldier or an Operative to implement the concepts you're looking for.
I don't see any compelling reason to play as an Envoy. For most intents and purposes, you're better off refluffing either a Mystic or an Operative to implement the concepts you're looking for.

Well, I was kind of worried about this. While I could change this depending on how things turn out in actual gameplay/ once I actually have the pdf, I will probably be implementing two house rules.

--------------------------

For Envoys

You gain spellcasting as a bard. Replace versions of spells that exist in pathfinder to their nearest starfinder equivalent if one exists. Otherwise, defer to the rule of "ask your DM about it" before selecting new spells at level ups.

Use the 6th level spellcasting progression of the mystic and technomancer, not the bard, as it changed slightly from pathfinder.

(Honestly I'm not sure why they just didn't do this to begin with).

For Solarions

You gain spellcasting as a bloodrager- choose spells from the bloodrager, paladin, or antipaladin spell lists, convirting pathfinder spells to their nearest starfinder equivalent if one exists. Otherwise, defer to the rule of "ask your DM about it" before selecting new spells at level ups.

---------------------

Again, this might change after I actually get my hand on the book. But this is the way the wind is blowing.


Mashallah wrote:
The Mechanic: Not very memorable. It does what it does, but nothing particularly interested me in it.

To each their own, I was blown away by the flexibility and options the class presented, from a transhumanist cyber-monk to expert ship engineer who pilots a murderbot from orbit, it's a beautiful and elegant design.

The solaria does indeed look all over the place, but I am hoping that it comes together when it is actually in motion. Most of the abilities are not strong on the surface, but with clever use can really turn the tide in some fights. Some fights.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Eric Collins - France wrote:

I plan to play Androids, and like the stats and all... I did think I'd be conflicted and want to play an Ysoki (I like my PFS Ratfolk a lot) and really loved the idea of carrying grenades and such in your jowls... but I do feel, as stated here, that it seems a rather weak race, with no powerful little thing to make up for it.

They're a very weak race plus they have a racial trait that's completely unusable when wearing a helmet to protect against vacuum or atmosphere. And this is just me but I really don't like the Mouse Guard appearance they chose for the Ysoki, I was hoping for more of a Skaven-like appearance.

Liberty's Edge

Ick. I've been worried about the Solarian since that first class preview showed off two objectively terrible class features. Maybe they can get salvaged by new talents/feats in further books.


Michael7123 wrote:
Mashallah wrote:

Looking more thoroughly at classes:

The "top 5" classes as per my list in the OP can each stand on their own, not being directly superceded by anyone. They are pretty well designed and work well.
I don't see any compelling reason to play as a Solarian. For most intents and purposes, you're better off refluffing either a Soldier or an Operative to implement the concepts you're looking for.
I don't see any compelling reason to play as an Envoy. For most intents and purposes, you're better off refluffing either a Mystic or an Operative to implement the concepts you're looking for.

Well, I was kind of worried about this. While I could change this depending on how things turn out in actual gameplay/ once I actually have the pdf, I will probably be implementing two house rules.

--------------------------

For Envoys

You gain spellcasting as a bard. Replace versions of spells that exist in pathfinder to their nearest starfinder equivalent if one exists. Otherwise, defer to the rule of "ask your DM about it" before selecting new spells at level ups.

Use the 6th level spellcasting progression of the mystic and technomancer, not the bard, as it changed slightly from pathfinder.

(Honestly I'm not sure why they just didn't do this to begin with).

For Solarions

You gain spellcasting as a bloodrager- choose spells from the bloodrager, paladin, or antipaladin spell lists, convirting pathfinder spells to their nearest starfinder equivalent if one exists. Otherwise, defer to the rule of "ask your DM about it" before selecting new spells at level ups.

---------------------

Again, this might change after I actually get my hand on the book. But this is the way the wind is blowing.

I'd agree on the Envoy. It feels like the class needs spellcasting to function, but the developers somehow forgot to add it. The class simply feels incomplete at the moment.

Hard to tell on the Solarian - the class is just very convoluted. It'll probably take a while after the game releases for people to figure out what to even do with Solarian.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Michael7123 wrote:
Mashallah wrote:

Looking more thoroughly at classes:

The "top 5" classes as per my list in the OP can each stand on their own, not being directly superceded by anyone. They are pretty well designed and work well.
I don't see any compelling reason to play as a Solarian. For most intents and purposes, you're better off refluffing either a Soldier or an Operative to implement the concepts you're looking for.
I don't see any compelling reason to play as an Envoy. For most intents and purposes, you're better off refluffing either a Mystic or an Operative to implement the concepts you're looking for.

Well, I was kind of worried about this. While I could change this depending on how things turn out in actual gameplay/ once I actually have the pdf, I will probably be implementing two house rules.

--------------------------

For Envoys

You gain spellcasting as a bard. Replace versions of spells that exist in pathfinder to their nearest starfinder equivalent if one exists. Otherwise, defer to the rule of "ask your DM about it" before selecting new spells at level ups.

Use the 6th level spellcasting progression of the mystic and technomancer, not the bard, as it changed slightly from pathfinder.

(Honestly I'm not sure why they just didn't do this to begin with).

For Solarions

You gain spellcasting as a bloodrager- choose spells from the bloodrager, paladin, or antipaladin spell lists, convirting pathfinder spells to their nearest starfinder equivalent if one exists. Otherwise, defer to the rule of "ask your DM about it" before selecting new spells at level ups.

---------------------

Again, this might change after I actually get my hand on the book. But this is the way the wind is blowing.

I'm still transitioning from 5e to Pathfinder rules, so the nuances of balance escape me, but I was thinking about giving the Envoy access to bonus feats, a good BAB, and an extra weapon proficiency of their choice, along with tweaking any improvisations or skill talents where I see fit. Probably extra augmentation capacity too to give them a skill edge over the Operative. In essence, they'd get to be a connoisseur class for Starfinder's range of non-class feature customization options. This is all assuming I'm dissatisfied with the Envoy class as it is.

As for the Solarian, I'd have read it more. I suspect it'll probably involve just optimizing their casting abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fun thing to note:
The Kasatha physical description says other races can't tell apart their genders.
The Kasatha depictions show their females as possessing a very easily visible set of 4 breasts.
Quite the mismatch between the lore and art.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mashallah wrote:

Fun thing to note:

The Kasatha physical description says other races can't tell apart their genders.
The Kasatha depictions show their females as possessing a very easily visible set of 4 breasts.
Quite the mismatch between the lore and art.

Huh. Thats the double the amount they have in this and this pic

I guess that goes under the category of "nobody gave artists guidance on what they are supposed to look like" unless they just meant facial features

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
rooneg wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P

Every other Specialisation says you get +4 to the skill on Trick Attacks.

Thief and Daredevil don't have that clause.
Oh, I heard about that. It took a little bit to work out, but those two have Dex-based skills, and the class is Dex-based. The other specializations have +4 to make up for relying on a secondary (or even dump) ability score, that way they aren't pushed into having a really high charisma or wisdom just to succeed at their trick attacks.
Note that Ghost also uses a DEX based skill (Stealth), and they get the +4 bonus. Perhaps they're assuming that it's not always practical to use Stealth in combat?

Ghost was not supposed to get a +4. QuidEst is correct that the +4 is to make up for not using a Dex-based skill, so that Ghosts wouldn't be better than every other choice, but it looks like an extraneous +4 slipped into ghosts (this is something that I noticed at Paizocon because the pregen is a ghost).

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mashallah wrote:
Mashallah wrote:

Expanding a bit on Operative, math edition:

The bonuses you get to skills as long as you aren't Thief or Daredevil (both of which get screwed for no apparent reasons) are absolutely mindblowing.
Here's a level 1 Ghost Operative who didn't invest anything into Stealth and just has 16 DEX:
First of all, you get +3 to Stealth from Dexterity. Nothing surprising here yet.
Then, you get your class level to ranks in Stealth and it's a class skill, so you're at +7 now.
Then, you get free Skill Focus, and you're already at +10.
Then, you remember Operative gives +1 to all skills at level 11. Wow, +11 without any investment other than having 16 DEX.
Then you try to Trick Attack and remember you have +4 to Stealth on Trick Attacks. Suddenly, you're looking at +15. And thus, with 0 investment other than just having 16 DEX, you hit the DC 21 (to trick attack a CR 1 monster) on a roll of 6.

Oh, reading through stuff more attentively, Skill Focus is an insight bonus, as is Operative's bonus to all skills, meaning they don't stack.

This is an extremely weird decision, given that Operative's bonus to all skills eventually becomes bigger than the Skill Focus bonus, making those two free feats dead feats.
I dislike classes giving dead feats as part of the progression and think this is an extremely weird decision.

Skill Focus isn't an insight bonus; skill synergy is an insight bonus.

EDIT: Or it was.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Mashallah wrote:

Expanding a bit on Operative, math edition:

The bonuses you get to skills as long as you aren't Thief or Daredevil (both of which get screwed for no apparent reasons) are absolutely mindblowing.
Here's a level 1 Ghost Operative who didn't invest anything into Stealth and just has 16 DEX:
First of all, you get +3 to Stealth from Dexterity. Nothing surprising here yet.
Then, you get your class level to ranks in Stealth and it's a class skill, so you're at +7 now.
Then, you get free Skill Focus, and you're already at +10.
Then, you remember Operative gives +1 to all skills at level 11. Wow, +11 without any investment other than having 16 DEX.
Then you try to Trick Attack and remember you have +4 to Stealth on Trick Attacks. Suddenly, you're looking at +15. And thus, with 0 investment other than just having 16 DEX, you hit the DC 21 (to trick attack a CR 1 monster) on a roll of 6.

Oh, reading through stuff more attentively, Skill Focus is an insight bonus, as is Operative's bonus to all skills, meaning they don't stack.

This is an extremely weird decision, given that Operative's bonus to all skills eventually becomes bigger than the Skill Focus bonus, making those two free feats dead feats.
I dislike classes giving dead feats as part of the progression and think this is an extremely weird decision.
Skill Focus isn't an insight bonus; skill synergy is an insight bonus.

I'm looking at the feat right now.

Benefit: Choose a skill. You gain a +3 insight bonus to checks involving the chosen skill.

Paizo Employee Designer

Mashallah wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Mashallah wrote:

Expanding a bit on Operative, math edition:

The bonuses you get to skills as long as you aren't Thief or Daredevil (both of which get screwed for no apparent reasons) are absolutely mindblowing.
Here's a level 1 Ghost Operative who didn't invest anything into Stealth and just has 16 DEX:
First of all, you get +3 to Stealth from Dexterity. Nothing surprising here yet.
Then, you get your class level to ranks in Stealth and it's a class skill, so you're at +7 now.
Then, you get free Skill Focus, and you're already at +10.
Then, you remember Operative gives +1 to all skills at level 11. Wow, +11 without any investment other than having 16 DEX.
Then you try to Trick Attack and remember you have +4 to Stealth on Trick Attacks. Suddenly, you're looking at +15. And thus, with 0 investment other than just having 16 DEX, you hit the DC 21 (to trick attack a CR 1 monster) on a roll of 6.

Oh, reading through stuff more attentively, Skill Focus is an insight bonus, as is Operative's bonus to all skills, meaning they don't stack.

This is an extremely weird decision, given that Operative's bonus to all skills eventually becomes bigger than the Skill Focus bonus, making those two free feats dead feats.
I dislike classes giving dead feats as part of the progression and think this is an extremely weird decision.
Skill Focus isn't an insight bonus; skill synergy is an insight bonus.

I'm looking at the feat right now.

Benefit: Choose a skill. You gain a +3 insight bonus to checks involving the chosen skill.

Yeah, after I read a second person who saw it, I just cracked open my copy. It totally does say that now. Skill Synergy was initially the feat for when you don't already have an insight bonus to catch up a bit to classes that do and Skill Focus stacked, which is why the operative gets it. Good to know.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Mashallah wrote:

Expanding a bit on Operative, math edition:

The bonuses you get to skills as long as you aren't Thief or Daredevil (both of which get screwed for no apparent reasons) are absolutely mindblowing.
Here's a level 1 Ghost Operative who didn't invest anything into Stealth and just has 16 DEX:
First of all, you get +3 to Stealth from Dexterity. Nothing surprising here yet.
Then, you get your class level to ranks in Stealth and it's a class skill, so you're at +7 now.
Then, you get free Skill Focus, and you're already at +10.
Then, you remember Operative gives +1 to all skills at level 11. Wow, +11 without any investment other than having 16 DEX.
Then you try to Trick Attack and remember you have +4 to Stealth on Trick Attacks. Suddenly, you're looking at +15. And thus, with 0 investment other than just having 16 DEX, you hit the DC 21 (to trick attack a CR 1 monster) on a roll of 6.

Oh, reading through stuff more attentively, Skill Focus is an insight bonus, as is Operative's bonus to all skills, meaning they don't stack.

This is an extremely weird decision, given that Operative's bonus to all skills eventually becomes bigger than the Skill Focus bonus, making those two free feats dead feats.
I dislike classes giving dead feats as part of the progression and think this is an extremely weird decision.
Skill Focus isn't an insight bonus; skill synergy is an insight bonus.

I'm looking at the feat right now.

Benefit: Choose a skill. You gain a +3 insight bonus to checks involving the chosen skill.
Yeah, after I read a second person who saw it, I just cracked open my copy. It totally does say that now. Skill Synergy was initially the feat for when you don't already have an insight bonus to catch up a bit to classes that do and Skill Focus stacked, which is why the operative gets it. Good to know.

It honestly feels like an oversight that Operative now has bonus feats that don't stack with its' own class features and are pointless past a certain level.


Mark Seifter wrote:
rooneg wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P

Every other Specialisation says you get +4 to the skill on Trick Attacks.

Thief and Daredevil don't have that clause.
Oh, I heard about that. It took a little bit to work out, but those two have Dex-based skills, and the class is Dex-based. The other specializations have +4 to make up for relying on a secondary (or even dump) ability score, that way they aren't pushed into having a really high charisma or wisdom just to succeed at their trick attacks.
Note that Ghost also uses a DEX based skill (Stealth), and they get the +4 bonus. Perhaps they're assuming that it's not always practical to use Stealth in combat?
Ghost was not supposed to get a +4. QuidEst is correct that the +4 is to make up for not using a Dex-based skill, so that Ghosts wouldn't be better than every other choice, but it looks like an extraneous +4 slipped into ghosts (this is something that I noticed at Paizocon because the pregen is a ghost).

That feels silly and arbitrary.

Realistically, many Operatives will have 16 in two stats.
16 DEX/16 INT, 16 DEX/16 WIS, and 16 DEX/16 CHA will all be pretty common.
Why should Operatives who use DEX-based skills be 4 points behind all other Operatives? It doesn't make much sense to me.


Mark Seifter wrote:


Ghost was not supposed to get a +4. QuidEst is correct that the +4 is to make up for not using a Dex-based skill, so that Ghosts wouldn't be better than every other choice, but it looks like an extraneous +4 slipped into ghosts (this is something that I noticed at Paizocon because the pregen is a ghost).

In that case should it give you the ability to use acrobatics for your trick attack instead? Removing the +4 means that the Ghost specialization gives nothing to the trick attack ability.

Mashallah wrote:


It honestly feels like an oversight that Operative now has bonus feats that don't stack with its' own class features and are pointless past a certain level.

I'm guessing that the skill focus feat was originally supposed to be untyped or upgraded to +6 like the pathfinder version.

Also did anyone notice that the Mindkiller ability on page 87 doesn't cost a resolve point? It gives you an at-will phantasmal killer effect for no cost.


Mark Seifter wrote:
rooneg wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P

Every other Specialisation says you get +4 to the skill on Trick Attacks.

Thief and Daredevil don't have that clause.
Oh, I heard about that. It took a little bit to work out, but those two have Dex-based skills, and the class is Dex-based. The other specializations have +4 to make up for relying on a secondary (or even dump) ability score, that way they aren't pushed into having a really high charisma or wisdom just to succeed at their trick attacks.
Note that Ghost also uses a DEX based skill (Stealth), and they get the +4 bonus. Perhaps they're assuming that it's not always practical to use Stealth in combat?
Ghost was not supposed to get a +4. QuidEst is correct that the +4 is to make up for not using a Dex-based skill, so that Ghosts wouldn't be better than every other choice, but it looks like an extraneous +4 slipped into ghosts (this is something that I noticed at Paizocon because the pregen is a ghost).

Even if that is your intent, the numbers are wack. It seems pretty weird to assume that even the most specialized of Operatives won't have a 14 in their secondary (that's even on the Focused Stat Array). If the only goal is to bridge the game between an 18 and a 14, you should be granting a +2 bonus. And, even if we consider that stats may change with level, it's easier to boost a 14 than an 18, even if boosting the 18 will be a higher priority.


sunderedhero wrote:

Also did anyone notice that the Mindkiller ability on page 87 doesn't cost a resolve point? It gives you an at-will phantasmal killer effect for no cost.

Wow, I somehow missed that. To be fair, it's only once per target per day, but still pretty solid.


Also, I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly (it might easily be incorrect), but I think Overlord Mystics get no-save-allowed Charm Person at level 3?


Illia- wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
rooneg wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
Porridge wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
This is the Rogue I always wanted, but never had. I dislike that Daredevil and Thief are screwed over with trick attacks for no apparent reason, though.

Wait, where does it say Daredevil and Thief are different with respect to trick attacks? I have the pdf, but can't find where it says that...

I think I'm missing something... :P

Every other Specialisation says you get +4 to the skill on Trick Attacks.

Thief and Daredevil don't have that clause.
Oh, I heard about that. It took a little bit to work out, but those two have Dex-based skills, and the class is Dex-based. The other specializations have +4 to make up for relying on a secondary (or even dump) ability score, that way they aren't pushed into having a really high charisma or wisdom just to succeed at their trick attacks.
Note that Ghost also uses a DEX based skill (Stealth), and they get the +4 bonus. Perhaps they're assuming that it's not always practical to use Stealth in combat?
Ghost was not supposed to get a +4. QuidEst is correct that the +4 is to make up for not using a Dex-based skill, so that Ghosts wouldn't be better than every other choice, but it looks like an extraneous +4 slipped into ghosts (this is something that I noticed at Paizocon because the pregen is a ghost).
Even if that is your intent, the numbers are wack. It seems pretty weird to assume that even the most specialized of Operatives won't have a 14 in their secondary (that's even on the Focused Stat Array). If the only goal is to bridge the game between an 18 and a 14, you should be granting a +2 bonus. And, even if we consider that stats may change with level, it's easier to boost a 14 than an 18, even if boosting the 18 will be a higher priority.

That 14 could go to Con and be much more useful, though. Dex will get the best stat boost item, Con would normally get second-best, leaving the eventual leftover +2 for a skill stat. The +4 catches the other skills up for comparable investment, but you have the option to focus on a social stat and do better than the Dex-based option.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

When you talk about Starfinder vs. Pathfinder, and compare SF character creation to a 12 Point Buy in Pathfinder, you have to remember these are different games, with different systems.
Seems to me that SFS starts out a little less powerful, and then amps up way faster (maybe even crazy faster?).
In SF you can add +2 to four ability scores every 5 levels (and at least +1 to those four) vs. +1 every 4 levels in PFS.
In SF a Mk I Personal Upgrade (+2 to ability score) costs 1,400 Cr. (compared to 1,000 starting Cr. that is nothing, and way cheaper than the magic enhancements in PFS.

And the balance will also be vs. the DCs and monsters etc..
I am preparing 1-1 to DM it, and, without spoiling (I hope) there are a lot of DC12 things. It seems to me like the SFS DC12 is like the PFS DC15? (at low level at least).

My feeling is that it is probably best to play the game a bit before house ruling things based on PFS.

I have obviously not had time to read all the combat rules etc., but I have already found a lot of changes (sometimes small), like Aid Another where you must roll to Aid before the person trying to accomplish the task rolls ; or reach weapons which (I am still looking around to confirm, but seems quite sure it is so) now threaten all squares (not just 2 squares away without the closest one...).

Anyhow, I'll play it as written for a while at least before seeing what could be changed etc..

1 to 50 of 621 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Starfinder: Early Impressions All Messageboards