|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*says the person with Solarion in their name*
Yes that philosophy, that's the one. That's not a real thing. Its fictional and specific to this setting!
You should probably read the saga of the seven suns series then. It's a huge part of that sequence.
And stars absolutely have a lifecycle, many of which end in black holes.
|
|
I don't even mean mechanically, though its certainly that too.Huh? Solarian fairly rapidly has the highest DPR in the game, and better non-combat stuff than Soldier (not that that's a high bar). Why do people keep insisting it's bad mechanically?
I really like it as a class. Like you said, great combat but more importantly for me great out of combat utility.
I think people are bothered by the fact that you need to invest in Charisma if you want resolve points.
|
I really like it as a class. Like you said, great combat but more importantly for me great out of combat utility.
Yeah, if I ever do a full BAB character (which I might) it'll definitely be a Solarian.
I think people are a bit hung up on the fact that you need to invest in Charisma if you want resolve points.
I guess.
I mean, it's a little MAD, yeah...but that's less important in Starfinder than Pathfinder, and it gets some very shiny stuff to make up for it.
Yeah, I like the class.
I always play human fighters in fantasy games and expected to only ever play human soldiers in Starfinder. The solarion is likely to be the exception though. :)
Well, the Ysoki might be another...
I think people are bothered by the fact that you need to invest in Charisma if you want resolve points.Pretty sure those folks don't fully appreciate the way stats progress with levelling in Starfinder.
Too much Pathfinder hang ups
Possibly. There might be more to it, I tend to gloss over mechanical discussions until I've actually played the class. I haven't looked into the reasons for it's perceived weakness.
The only class I'm disappointed in is the technomancer.
I really like it as a class. Like you said, great combat but more importantly for me great out of combat utility.Yeah, if I ever do a full BAB character (which I might) it'll definitely be a Solarian.
I think people are a bit hung up on the fact that you need to invest in Charisma if you want resolve points.I guess.
I mean, it's a little MAD, yeah...but that's less important in Starfinder than Pathfinder, and it gets some very shiny stuff to make up for it.
I have not played the game yet, but I thing there are two reasons for it (apart for the Charisma and resolve thing).
One was appointed (I think by DeadManWalking, in fact) somewhere; it can be powerfull, but has a slow beginning at level 1, and that is what the people has played right now, and the only real experience: the problems on level one.The second one is the fact that is a MAD class with few incentive to have a good DEX...but only light armor proficiency. With the PF background we have, that seems really strange. You begin with a AC really low for PF standards on a melee character, or feel the Heavy Armor Proficiency is obligatory on level 1.
I'm not seeing is a bad class; only the reasons for that feeling. It works agaisnt many ideas of PF.
Edit: mistakes and better explain my ideas
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big problem I probably have here, is the way Paizo published it. I never knew what the inner sea primer was for a very very long time even though I saw it around. Unlike Shadowrun's "Run Faster", which I understood to be a race and setting expansion book, the Primer just... seemed like an adventure module book. Which I don't really use.
Wait wait wait.
Let me get this straight. You knew, apparently from the title or maybe the book description that "Run Faster" was a setting book, despite the title and description of the book giving no such information, yet you couldn't tell that a primer was a setting book? It's a freaking primer!
I mean, if that's true in any way, then the problem is not how Paizo published their material.
For reference, here's the book description for both:
That in no way suggests a setting book. From the title, I imagined it to be a splat book on gear and abilities about movement. From the description, it is a splat book and it has more than just movement. But a campaign setting book? I have no idea how you'd derive that.
The Inner Sea is the heart of the Pathfinder campaign setting. From devil-worshiping Cheliax to cosmopolitan Absalom, the savage and frozen Lands of the Linnorm Kings to the steaming jungles of the Mwangi Expanse, there’s a place for any character or adventure your imagination can come up with. Yet while a Game Master or player might know all the secrets of the setting, courtesy of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting World Guide: The Inner Sea, what does a character know about his or her world? With the Inner Sea Primer, Game Masters can quickly and easily introduce their players to the Pathfinder campaign setting, and experienced players can customize their characters with new, setting-specific tricks and traits.
Inside this Pathfinder Player Companion, you’ll find:
•Player-friendly overviews of every nation of the Inner Sea Region, telling characters what they need to know about their homelands—or those of their enemies.
•New character traits for every country and region, helping to flesh out characters and tie their backgrounds and mechanics into the setting.
•New archetypes for three Inner Sea sword fighting styles: the Aldori swordlord, the Qadiran dervish, and the Taldan rondelero duelist.
•A complete overview of the major gods in the region, and what every resident should know about them.
•Three new arcane schools: the item crafters of the Arcanamirium, Egorian’s infernal binders, and the stealthy illusionists of Osirion’s mages of the veil.
•Overviews of the most common races of the region, from elves to half-orcs, as well as the most common human ethnicities.
It flat out says it's a campaign setting on the back of the book, and primer is right there in the name! It couldn't be more blatant!
Seriously; the problem here isn't Paizo.
Then again, Paizo aren't really setting guysHeh. This is so far away from my position I can't begin to imagine how anyone can think this. That's not a challenge, it's just that I find your comment as incredible as if you'd suggested the moon landings were faked.
The world is a big place. Thank you internet. :)
It is a common misconception, usually because they only get or have seen the RPG line.
The handgun is accurate to 30ft, which is just its first range increment, not its total range. It's full "range" is 300ft, and it's not like the projectile stops so much as it just isn't reliable enough to hit something that far.You know, that actually doesn't make it much better. So, you're right, it's maximum range is 300ft, but even then the penalty to that attack is a neat -18. So, they can shoot a bit further than a paintball gun. A contemporary 9mm can shoot far, far further than that, and we don't have FTL travel, power armor or plasma weaponry. It is entirely at odds with the setting itself, and while it is better than I thought it was, it's still pretty bad.
And in that case, there's some bad editing going on here that needs to be addressed, and the range note needs to be added into the 'reading weapon tables' as at first glance, many players aren't going to know this.
Then again, Paizo aren't really setting guysHeh. This is so far away from my position I can't begin to imagine how anyone can think this. That's not a challenge, it's just that I find your comment as incredible as if you'd suggested the moon landings were faked.
The world is a big place. Thank you internet. :)
The setting is a kind of not good and Pathfinder wasn't much better at this.
Still; i'll explain to you why I don't think the setting is good, but to start why they're not good fluff people, i'll read this quote. "To understand the significance of this particular solar system, one must first understand Starfinder's history... or rather, it's lack of one."
Now, you may have never played a game with a established setting that actually has it's own thing going on, and i'll list a few of my favorites. Shadowrun, where cyberpunk meets fantasy. Warhammer 40k, where in the grimdark future there is only War. Dragon Age, a modern one that should be familiar. All of these game systems have their setting firmly...
They are called adventure seeds to use as you will.
If you want Asmodeus, Urgathoa, and Groetus to come together and form Supergod end duke it out with Triune, go nuts!
For that matter, don't wait for Paizo to tell you what to do with the Vesk, Klingon them up if you want.
*says the person with Solarion in their name*
Yes that philosophy, that's the one. That's not a real thing. Its fictional and specific to this setting!
Like the Jedi!
I wonder if they're supposed to be similar...
I don't even mean mechanically, though its certainly that too.Huh? Solarian fairly rapidly has the highest DPR in the game, and better non-combat stuff than Soldier (not that that's a high bar). Why do people keep insisting it's bad mechanically?
Because the solar weapon doesn't do 1d8 damage and the solar armor is only a +1 at first level.
They don't care about out of combat, it's all about the numbers.
|
|
I don't even mean mechanically, though its certainly that too.Huh? Solarian fairly rapidly has the highest DPR in the game, and better non-combat stuff than Soldier (not that that's a high bar). Why do people keep insisting it's bad mechanically?Because the solar weapon doesn't do 1d8 damage and the solar armor is only a +1 at first level.
They don't care about out of combat, it's all about the numbers.
Yeah, I laugh at these Solarian discussions already.
I'm building a Solarion at the moment. I've gone the armour option and just going to buy weapons honestly. He's more about versatility. I put ranks into stealth, took Lashunta and his armour is the absolute black of a long dead star.
He's an assassin for all intents and purposes. High stealth, put in the night vision mod for his armour and use detect thoughts to probe the number of targets in the area before attacking.
Now I'm just working on feat choice. Maybe step up, not sure. But something more interesting than "must choose heavy armour, rawrrrr"
Out of combat he has diplomacy. Then it comes down to theme for anything else I want utility wise. So,far I've toyed with bounty hunter and Xenoseeker. One for survival skill and cool ability stuff withntracking targets, the other for the charisma bonus.
The Lashunta skill buffs are really useful too. Helps completely negate the wisdom penalty I get from the race for any skills I've got. And the class is strong in wisdom saves so I'm not going to suffer in that aspect too long either.
They don't care about out of combat, it's all about the numbers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with you not caring for those depictions.
I am annoyed however with how all of your posts frame Paizo as being the sole contributor of all those depictions and not, ya'know, going off how they've pretty much always been depicted in tabletop and video games.
Paizo didn't "mess up" bucklers, they've always been depicted that way.
Paizo didn't "mess up" shotguns, they've always been depicted that way.
Paizo didn't "mess up" monks... I'm not honestly not even sure what type of monk you'd be comparing it to for them to be using it incorrectly as you say.
Small Arms also aren't piddly and weak, they lag behind longarms, yes, but they're not useless or dismissible.
Got to agree again Rysky. Twice in one day. These things aren't unique to PF. The dagger is a "waste" weapon in a lot of systems, maybe not CoC. You kind of have to do this otherwise what's the diff between a dagger and a great sword, a buckler or a shield? You may as well play the original WHFRPG like rules and have three weapons, hand, great and ranged, except then people would complain there's NO then difference between a dagger and a sword, or a sword and mace etc.
All of these choices - feats, skills, equipment - add to the variety in the game. Variety = good.
I think people are bothered by the fact that you need to invest in Charisma if you want resolve points.Pretty sure those folks don't fully appreciate the way stats progress with levelling in Starfinder.
Too much Pathfinder hang ups
Possibly. There might be more to it, I tend to gloss over mechanical discussions until I've actually played the class. I haven't looked into the reasons for it's perceived weakness.
The only class I'm disappointed in is the technomancer.
What dissapointed you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What dissapointed you?I think people are bothered by the fact that you need to invest in Charisma if you want resolve points.Pretty sure those folks don't fully appreciate the way stats progress with levelling in Starfinder.
Too much Pathfinder hang ups
Possibly. There might be more to it, I tend to gloss over mechanical discussions until I've actually played the class. I haven't looked into the reasons for it's perceived weakness.
The only class I'm disappointed in is the technomancer.
Would you have preferred a dubstepmancer?
The only class I'm disappointed in is the technomancer.What dissapointed you?
I just don't really see the value thematically. It feels like the pages could have been used for something more useful.
Envoy, Mechanic, Operative and Soldier seem like obvious SciFi classes to me.
The mystic provides the science fantasy, spellcaster element.
The Solarion is a kind of weird, flavour-motivated, niche semi-spell casting class.
Then the technomancer just seems like another niche class - to me it's like the Solarion but more generic.
I'd have preferred the Tech Mage concept to be rolled into the mystic, personally. (Divine, arcane and psychic casters all got lumped in there. I figure a technomancer connection would have fitted in seamlessly).
I like the idea of a few classes expanded via themes and archetypes, rather than a different mechanical structure for each character concept.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Yet while a Game Master or player might know all the secrets of the setting, courtesy of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting World Guide: The Inner Sea, what does a character know about his or her world?" That sounds like a players guide to adventure module while this other book has the setting stuff.
This does not make sense at all.
Reading the book description, you managed to derive that a larger setting book exists, and from that you concluded that no setting books existed, which led you to the conclusion that the Paizo folks aren't setting people.
There's just multiple layers of wrong here. Like, on a fractal scale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*says the person with Solarion in their name*
Yes that philosophy, that's the one. That's not a real thing. Its fictional and specific to this setting!
You should probably read the saga of the seven suns series then. It's a huge part of that sequence.
And stars absolutely have a lifecycle, many of which end in black holes.
I wonder if telepathic trees will show up somewhere in Starfinder eventually.
"Yet while a Game Master or player might know all the secrets of the setting, courtesy of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting World Guide: The Inner Sea, what does a character know about his or her world?" That sounds like a players guide to adventure module while this other book has the setting stuff.This does not make sense at all.
Reading the book description, you managed to derive that a larger setting book exists, and from that you concluded that no setting books existed, which led you to the conclusion that the Paizo folks aren't setting people.
There's just multiple layers of wrong here. Like, on a fractal scale.
I think the difference is likely that Chaos Isaac was introduced to Shadowrun by someone or actively went looking to find out how FASA structured their books.
They mentioned upthread that they got into PF in 2009 and were unaware that Golarion was already well established. It seems obvious that impression is based from a cursory reading of just the RPG books, or possibly even just from a rules website.
I suspect there might be a non-native English speaking issue here too (though that's just a hunch based on sentence structure).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
... because that would be a couple thousands of pages long book then?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The core rules may be setting neutral, but that doesn't mean paizo doesn't have a rich and interesting setting in Golarion.
The primer is just that, a primer. The bulk of the setting can be found in the Inner Sea World Guide and is expanded upon in each month's Player Companion and every single Campaign Setting book. There is an entire line of books devoted to expanding upon the campaign setting. It is aptly named.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A primer is a small introduction of a subject. In this case, a short intro to the Inner Sea. By nature of it being a primer, it won't have all the detail.
The Guide, which has a ton more information on each country, is also available. The primer points you to it, as it's right there on the back of the primer.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than keep harping on at Isaac, let's just agree that his perspective is skewed by lack of reading the material available.
Which brings up a point I'm seeing a great deal of so far in threads about a game less than a week old. Lots of folks making broad sweeping statements about the state of the game, the balance of a class and the lack of magic etc. All of it seems heavily skewed by personal experience, much of which comes from preconceptions and poorly designed homebrew encounters.
Would be nice to see a few months of game play before folks start theory crafting things in to oblivion.
(Except maybe the space ship DC discussions I'm seeing. Pretty sure something got lost in translation for the rules in that one)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the spaceship rules are just fine.
|
I don't even mean mechanically, though its certainly that too.Huh? Solarian fairly rapidly has the highest DPR in the game, and better non-combat stuff than Soldier (not that that's a high bar). Why do people keep insisting it's bad mechanically?Because the solar weapon doesn't do 1d8 damage and the solar armor is only a +1 at first level.
They don't care about out of combat, it's all about the numbers.
Or because youre a frontliner who can't frontline or a backliner who sucks.
Or you are a medium classed switch hitter.
Sure long term you deal gobs of damage.
In the meantime you're just the resident "guy who spends most of the battle on his back"
Source: Running a whole lot of starfinder at gencon where the solarion spent a whole lot of time on his back at both level 1 and level 4.
|
|
Source: Running a whole lot of starfinder at gencon where the solarion spent a whole lot of time on his back at both level 1 and level 4.
Was this the Pre-gen Iconic? Because, well, he's not the greatest example being significantly less optimized than any of the other Iconics.
Saying Solarian is bad because of him is like saying Ranger is bad because of Harsk (okay, not quite that bad, but it's the same line of thinking).
Wat
|
|
Ranger is bad.
Harsk is just worse than bad.
I disagree, but okay, then it's like saying Gunslinger is bad at damage because of Lirianne. Whatever example you like, my point is that using the Solarian Iconic as an example has a few problems, given its serious lack of comparative optimization (especially in regards to AC). Even then he does okay at 7th (when the stat boosts kick in).
I mean, he's got Str 14, Dex 12, Cha 12, and lacks Heavy Armor Proficiency (something he could have easily). That's...seriously suboptimal on a level that effects the character more than Class ever will.
Here is my biggest concern for the game. Although damage scales up very, very quickly as characters level, at the early game damage is way too low vs the hps everything has.
I'm drawing from the lessons learned from 4E D&D (yes, a game I played for many years). One of the biggest lessons learned from that game is everything just had too many damn HPs. It caused combats to drag on longer than needed. A correction I eventually applied was to drop monster hps down 25-33%. In return, there was a corresponding boost in monster damage. It made combat much, much smoother.
Looking at the conversion guide for converting Pathfinder monsters to Starfinder, it suggests bumping monster HPs up 25%. No! No! No! No! No! Especially not in the early game when you're doing d6-d8 ranged damage with no ability mod damage increases.
Anyways, my point is, early level Starfinder is like slogging through mud. It's tempting to just start everybody off at level 5, just when things start to get interesting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as class mechanics are concerned, IMO the classes are fine as they are. Most likely the only people b$%!+ing are the munchkins who are frantically looking for a way to break the game with their preferred class.
Here is my biggest concern for the game. Although damage scales up very, very quickly as characters level, at the early game damage is way too low vs the hps everything has.
I'm drawing from the lessons learned from 4E D&D (yes, a game I played for many years). One of the biggest lessons learned from that game is everything just had too many damn HPs. It caused combats to drag on longer than needed. A correction I eventually applied was to drop monster hps down 25-33%. In return, there was a corresponding boost in monster damage. It made combat much, much smoother.
Looking at the conversion guide for converting Pathfinder monsters to Starfinder, it suggests bumping monster HPs up 25%. No! No! No! No! No! Especially not in the early game when you're doing d6-d8 ranged damage with no ability mod damage increases.
Anyways, my point is, early level Starfinder is like slogging through mud. It's tempting to just start everybody off at level 5, just when things start to get interesting.
Conversely, monsters in Starfinder have lower ACs than PCs. Pathfinder also had a slight issue of rocket tag fights, three rounds and the fight's done. Starfinder looks to be increasing the time to kill on purpose, a 25% increase only comes out to an extra round anyways.
My issue with Starfinder is that the weapons and armor (personal and ship based) are level based. It makes no sense in a SciFi game. Star Wars d20 handled this well and with the introduction of stamina they could easily have kept Health and stamino lower and just kept the weapons and armor tighter so every couple levels you do not have to go buy new weapons and armor and keep threats relevant for many more levels. This is not a quest/dungeon grind (which I love) that pathfinder is with constant treasure upgrades. This involves the character having to go from his trusty Laser pistol his father gave him to a new one every 5 levels just to be useful. Disappointing given I will likely be taking new weapons off boss opponents or flying to a "specia" place just to get a laser powerful enough to hurt the "special" bad guys I encountered. And a low level NPC with a laser is likely no threat at all as I will shrug off his d4 like its nothing. They did not make the transition to scifi but landed in fantasyfi of spelljammer or spacejammer. This is no longer magic its tech they should have adapted for that. This is the biggest failing to me, love alot of it and like the rest so I will play for sure.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...They did not make the transition to scifi but landed in fantasyfi
..
Everyone has their own preferences, of course and I'm not challenging yours.
However, I thought I'd point out that they weren't aiming for SciFi. It was always intended that Starfinder would be Science Fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...They did not make the transition to scifi but landed in fantasyfi
..Everyone has their own preferences, of course and I'm not challenging yours.
However, I thought I'd point out that they weren't aiming for SciFi. It was always intended that Starfinder would be Science Fantasy.
Totally understand but I was hoping that aspect of Fantasy RPGs would be left behind to support the Science part of Science Fantasy. It was a hope which left ME disappointed and only posted to see if anyone else did and I think D'Eon hinted at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have liked more science and less fantasy, but it'll do. It's the first scifi game I've ever played, and I'm happy for something rather than nothing.
It's hard to get my gaming group off of fantasy.
Totally understand but I was hoping that aspect of Fantasy RPGs would be left behind to support the Science part of Science Fantasy. It was a hope which left ME disappointed and only posted to see if anyone else did and I think D'Eon hinted at it....They did not make the transition to scifi but landed in fantasyfi
..Everyone has their own preferences, of course and I'm not challenging yours.
However, I thought I'd point out that they weren't aiming for SciFi. It was always intended that Starfinder would be Science Fantasy.
Gotcha. I probably misunderstood the bit of your post I quoted.
I probably misunderstood the bit of your post I quoted.
No I think you got it and rightfully challenged to ensure I understood the background and intent. Fair enough.
Well that internet argument fizzled. :p
Well that internet argument fizzled. :p
Was not intended to be an argument though I do enjoy a good heated debate. I have run many d20 star wars campaigns but my own Universe (sans Jedi) and was hoping this ruleset would better support my Scifi campaigns without the reliance, on the Star Wars canon, and for the most part it does, I will try rejig/houserule to support more emphasis on the characters and their ships and less on the weapons and armor. Maybe a future expansion will offer that up as a an alternate ruleset but till then its more work that I was hoping for and being inherently lazy well....disappointed.
Well, Chaos Isaac, if the sales model for Starfinder works anything like Pathfinder, the core book is just a taste of what's there.
They will release splat books based specifically on setting material you're discussing right now. Like they did with all those countries in Golarion, and many of the gods, and even a full setting book. That way, people can choose to follow the canon realeased by Paizo OR just fill the gaps in with their own ideas.
I'd like to point out 40k as something you've specifically used for good setting.
In 1988 I bought Rogue Trader, the first ever edition of what is now 40k. It was a table top game set in a distant future and it had a setting that was barely discussed but hinted at sooooo many things. The God Emperor was a minor footnote in the book. Elder were all pirates, Jokaero were Orangutan space men with the best technology in the galaxy, Tau didn't exist, Tyranids didn't exist (genestealers were just another space alien to be feared) most of the chaos stuff wasn't detailed. However, they had stats for a huge array of monsters and space vampires and other cool sci fi stuff to design adventure based skirmish games around.It's taken 30 years for Warhammer 40 k to reach the setting detail it currently has. Much of that was written in the 90s and has just been rehashed over and over again since then. What's worse, they actually removed a huge amount of the cool species and setting material that existed in the original rogue trader book. Squats being the classic example that people still complain about (suddenly an entire race of space faring combatants are removed from the setting with no reason why.)
Paizo does great settings, which they detail over time but still manage to leave enough mystery that players can create their own spin on things without stepping on creative toes.
Nice going Wrath, you've mentioned the race that shall not be mentioned, which resets the release clock yet again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, you may have never played a game with a established setting that actually has it's own thing going on, and i'll list a few of my favorites. Shadowrun, where cyberpunk meets fantasy. Warhammer 40k, where in the grimdark future there is only War. Dragon Age, a modern one that should be familiar. All of these game systems have their setting firmly...
So you're complaint is that Starfinder that's been out a little less than 30 days, doesn't have as rich a setting as say Shadowrun, that's been out a little less than 30 years? I mean I guess that's a valid complaint..
My largest issue with Starfinder at the moment is that the Core Rule Book was setting tied. PF's moving towards this with splats, fair... but your core having the equivalent of the Pact Worlds Primer?