| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In order to use trick attack against an unconscious opponent you still have to succeed at your bluff/stealth/computer check and if you fail they...uh...spot you or something I guess?
A handful of spells use Str/Dex for attack rolls OR Int/Wis, but there doesn't seem to be a pattern. At first I thought it was level since most of them that allow you to use your key ability are 4th or higher (but then there's Fatigue, 0th level) and most that require Str or Dex are 3rd level or lower (but then there's Enervation, 4th level).
How many class abilities are not using simple a formula (+1 every 3 levels after 4th, or whatever). It makes programming a spreadsheet more of a pain.
The analog flag, which appears to me should mean "non-powered", yet things like the Bow (or Unarmed) are not analog.
The complaint about the archetypes is that it takes away aspect of classes that are more powerful than what the archetype replaces. But that doesn't mean the archetype abilities aren't interesting in their own right.
No, the complaint is that they take away the INTERESTING things with the classes. Hence why the Soldier loses very little, as feats are rather bland compared to mechanic tricks and such and you still get plenty of them.
For most classes, you trade away most of what gives the class it's identity and customisation ability.
|
...how does that parse? Things can be fluffy AND mechanically interesting. They are not opposed to each other.The archetypes are mechanically interesting. They're just not mechanically optimized. You don't need an ability to be the best in the book for it to be interesting.
The complaint about the archetypes is that it takes away aspect of classes that are more powerful than what the archetype replaces. But that doesn't mean the archetype abilities aren't interesting in their own right.
I disagree, look at the mechanic, if they take an archtype they loose most of what makes them a mechanic. And almost everything that would make them a unique mechanic. This could be alleviated if there was a feat for each class that let them take their special abilities as feats, similar to extra rogue talent or the dozen like ones, but I'm not sure if that would be balanced since most of those abilities appear better than feats. I enjoy RP, and most of those I play with do, but takkng a class and then replacing nearly half, and the flexible individualized half at that, of it with something else leaves me feeling like I'm not really playing the class I picked to start with.
|
|
Doing archtypes as they have, personally I'd much rather if you could choose between your normal benefit, like a mechanic trick, or that level's archtype ability(or a lower one, maybe requiring some of the lower ones for others that later key off of them).
Everyone would take an archtype for each class then you say? So they had the extra choices? Well, sure why not? Starfinder already feels like it's much more into personalizing your character. While there might be common themes to a class they all can develop into very different end results. Why not embrace that? We'd certainly have a ton of psionic soldiers or Starfinder mechanics, but I don't see anything wrong with that, and as more come out we could see a lot more interesting combinations without people loosing big parts of what makes that class unique. That could be what themes appeared to try to do. Themes are interesting, but in a lot of ways they don't really do much of anything. If you have a proest soldier and a mercenary soldier, the difference between the two really comes down to RP and what they did. With their class, not the very minor abilities that you get from theme.
That's my thought at least.
A +3 is fine at low levels but fairly quickly becomes chump change. A soldier just cannot compete in the skills game past about L7 ish or so
The Soldier's out-of-combat trick (if you want one) is Skill Focus and Skill Synergy.
Nonsense. A skill focus Soldier is only one point behind a same attribute Operative starting at level 11, two points behind at level 15. The Soldier can be ahead of the Operative up to level 6 if his skill focus is in a skill the Operative's specialty doesn't help with.
If you're only playing to level 10 and pick skills where you have strong attributes (Stealth and Acrobatics being the obvious two) the Soldier is just fine. A dex ranged Soldier can also afford Intelligence as a secondary attribute and do well as a skill focused computers or engineering skill guy or a knowledge dude if he wants that backup role and no one else is hyper focused on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes that replace fewer of the possible class features might be more appealing to non-soldiers. So far, we have one that replaces features at levels 2, 4, and 6 and one that replaces all possible class features. An archetype that skips 2nd or 4th level might have broader appeal.
Archetypes that replace fewer of the possible class features might be more appealing to non-soldiers. So far, we have one that replaces features at levels 2, 4, and 6 and one that replaces all possible class features. An archetype that skips 2nd or 4th level might have broader appeal.
I really dislike most of the Technomancer's cache capacitor options, so I'd be happy to trade those away at mid levels, but that seems more like a prestige class substitute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All it does is replace a class' shiny unique things with some other shiny unique thing. The Archetypes aren't bad, they just don't fit in with a certain image of the class and/or an optimized version, and therefore people think they're bad.
If you focus on things other than combat and numbers, the archetypes become much more appealing. People who enjoy the numbers aspect of the game more than anything else won't enjoy the archetypes. People who enjoy other aspects, such as playing the role or doing character development on a story-based or emotional scale will enjoy the archetypes. People who enjoy both will have to decide where their preferences lie when the play the archetypes.
Yeah, they really are bad.
Most of the things archetypes do aren't particularly interesting, effective, or fun, don't mesh, remove your ability to customize your own character.
What's more, the archetype does NOT provide the role. The character provides the role. You can roleplay the exact same character without these archetypes. And there are individual feats that are far easier to work into a character than phrenic, and forerunner is just a job. Roleplay tied to bad mechanics does not excuse bad mechanics.
The fact that they remove a feature that lets you make an interesting choice in favor of a static set of abilities that doesn't mesh, doesn't provide meaningful choice, isn't effective, and does not provide any real flavor is damning.
Since the complaint is that archetypes remove "interesting" aspects of a class, then this is all quite literally a matter of opinion.
Those who like the options presented by the archetypes will like the archetype. Those who don't, won't.
If it isn't a question of power, but only removes what you think is interesting, then there really isn't any purpose of flat out stating that they're "bad." They're not bad, they're just not what you happen to prefer.
The problem with this is that the features replaced by the archetypes are more powerful than the typical feat. If you allowed a feat to replace the class feature you lost now you are effectively getting the archetype benefit for the cost of a feat. These benefits are in theory as powerful or nearly as powerful as the typical class features, in other words stronger than a feat. So now you can get features stronger than feats at the cost of a feat, only it's even worse because you can pick and chose which ones you want. It's an optimiser's dream, but it would be very unbalancing.
The problem with this is that the features replaced by the archetypes are more powerful than the typical feat. If you allowed a feat to replace the class feature you lost now you are effectively getting the archetype benefit for the cost of a feat. These benefits are in theory as powerful or nearly as powerful as the typical class features, in other words stronger than a feat. So now you can get features stronger than feats at the cost of a feat, only it's even worse because you can pick and chose which ones you want. It's an optimiser's dream, but it would be very unbalancing.
What if we made people burn a feat on a pre-req for A Path Less Travelled? Seems like that might help the balance, make sure archetypes aren't a no-brainer.
Markov Spiked Chain also has a great point. Any archetype the Soldier takes has features that are exchanged for a feat. Might not be a fair trade, but what they're worth is what they cost.
What something is worth is what people are willing to pay for it. If no one buys the archetype it's overpriced. Soldiers have a debased currency, so they can afford to spend more freely. If even Soldiers don't want it you know it's bad.
Like Xenocrat said the increased value of the archetypes compared to other classes is exactly because they already only loss feats. Their real calss features, full BAB all proficiencies and specializations and their gear boosts aren't touched, and are actually more valuable than feats.
Either way we should probably move the discussion of archetypes, their value or lack thereof, proposed fixes etc to another thread.
As for the actual topic, what I find quirky is the scaling of the DCs. It's usually a number plus either 1.5x CR or 2x starship tier. Going from a Tier-2 ship to Tier-4 increases the DC by 4, but you've probably only added +2 to the relevant skill. Using an Envoy's Clever Attack against a CR 2 creature is a DC 18, but against CR 4 it's 21. And again, unless you're spending feats on increasing Bluff you're falling behind against those levels. I haven't played the higher levels, obviously, so the new method of stat progression and the ability to buy stat increases may offset that, but at low levels it seems out of whack. The Operative fairs better at higher levels, but has trouble at the lower ones with Trick attack (DC 20+CR).
Unfortunately spending feats is a pretty poor method too, since they don't stack with class features. An Envoy can take Skill Expertise (Bluff) and now you have a 50% chance of being better than the Skill Focus bonus, and the chance just goes down as you level, being guaranteed to match at level 13, and guaranteed to be better at 17.
Since the complaint is that archetypes remove "interesting" aspects of a class, then this is all quite literally a matter of opinion.
Those who like the options presented by the archetypes will like the archetype. Those who don't, won't.
If it isn't a question of power, but only removes what you think is interesting, then there really isn't any purpose of flat out stating that they're "bad." They're not bad, they're just not what you happen to prefer.
Power is always relevant. This is still a game, with gamist considerations.
Question. Who would you recommend archetypes tom and why? And no, players who want to roleplay a starfinder forerunner or phrenic adept are not a valid answer; you can put that fluff on any chassis. If you want to go that route, tell me how these mechanics help you accomplish this, why these archetypes as a mechanical structure contribute more to the game than an entry in the setting section of the book about starfinder forerunners and phrenic adepts.
On archetypes:
I think one thing is the majority of class features that make a character effective in combat are automatically baked into every character and their gear. for no character is it hard to get your damage per level and your weapon to do good damage it just happens as you level up. The rest of the criteria is kind of minor compared to what that gives you. So if you loss a +2 to hit or +5 to damage here and there it is not going to make your character unplayable. So if an archetype replaces a few abilities you may lose a 10% to hit but gain some other options.
Now some abilities I wouldn't want to replace. I guess you can look at like ok maybe your mechanic isn't the best mechanic in the galaxy but you can read minds how many mechanics can say that?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A +3 is fine at low levels but fairly quickly becomes chump change. A soldier just cannot compete in the skills game past about L7 ish or so
The Soldier's out-of-combat trick (if you want one) is Skill Focus and Skill Synergy.
+3 is exactly what an Operative has at level 7 actually. Indeed, nobody gets to +4 until level 11 except Envoy...and that's from a very restricted list.
Level 11 is also when the Soldier gets their third attack and becomes unambiguously just better in combat damage by quite a lot than people who get such bonuses. Prior to that, the Operative can't beat the Soldier at her one skill (say, Piloting), though he could equal her. At level 11 he surpasses her...at the expense of falling permanently behind in combat in a big way.
It's rather elegant, actually.