|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with starship skill check DCs has been discussed at great length in other threads.
However, that's not the only place there are problems. All through the game you find skill checks whose DC is a base plus 1.5×the CR of an opponent creature, or something else that you expect to scale roughly with PC level.
What was the thinking that led to this design decision? As far as I can tell, this means that the things that you do all the time will get harder and harder as you get to higher and higher level. The character who focuses on a skill will typically have that skill start out at +4 to +8 (assuming class skill, depending on the controlling score). When that character is 10th level, if he put a skill rank into the skill every level and increased the controlling attribute at both 5th and 10th level, his skill bonus will typically be +16 to +19. Typical DCs, though, will have gone from 15 to 30. Rolls against level-appropriate foes that you were making on a d20 roll of 7-11 now require a roll of 11-14, meaning that you're making it only a little bit better than half as often. And, this is for the skill that you have focused on, investing in it at every level, and bumping the right stats. For other skills, your decline in ability has gotten even worse.
I know that some class abilities give you skill bumps for some skills, but that only partially mitigates the problem, and only for a couple of skills, typically.
As far as I can tell, this is a serious design flaw that is laced all throughout Starfinder, that will make the game very frustrating for players (even if the unplayability of high-level starship combat is fixed) as they level up. To my mind, this makes the game broken, and in immediate need of a truly huge number of errata. What was the design thinking that led to this decision?
|
|
You're probably also likely to have a couple of Personal Upgrades at 10th level, which add another +2. So, you need a roll of 9-12. It's getting close to, but hasn't met, what you could do at first level... for those skills you've put a point in at every level, and whose controlling attribute you've bumped at 5th and 10th level, and in which you've invested the money for a Personal Upgrade.
Your best skills have, practically speaking, declined by ~10-20% since first level. Your other skills have declined quite a bit more in usability since first level.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're missing the interaction of classes together to buff, or assist etc etc.
I also believe this design is far better than 3.5 DnD which in turn carried over to Pathfinder where it got to a point of autosuccess on everything no matter the thing you went up against.
These DC's are meant to be hard for things your level. After all, a creature with a CR equal to player level means it is one creature capable of fighting four players (assuming similar design of Pathfinder). So it should be difficult to beat those DCS. Same goes for traps and hacking etc etc.
The majority of encounters will actually be against things lower than your CR. That's going to be dropping those DC checks by a few points.
I firmly believe the numbers in this game are designed to encourage group tactics to succeed where previous editions have just played the individual can succeed no matter what others do.
I've run a few games now, and I'm already seeing this group dynamic even at low levels.
I think you're missing the interaction of classes together to buff, or assist etc etc.
Please, enlighten us.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1.5 x CR actually maps pretty well to most PCs within their area of specialty.
A Spy Operative with Chr 14 with Diplomacy as a Class Skill making Diplomacy checks, for example. He's got a +7 at 1st level vs. a DC of 16. So 9+.
At 5th, his DC is 22, but his bonus has gone up to +13 (+3 Cha +5 Rank +2 Operative +3 Class). So it's actually still a 9+.
At 9th level it's gone up to DC 28, but the Operative's gone to +19 (+4 Cha, +9 Rank, +3 Operative, +3 Class). Still 9+.
At 13th level it's gone up to DC 34, but the Operative's gone to +25 (+5 Cha, +13 Rank +4 Operative +3 Class). Still 9+.
At 17th level, it's gone to DC 40, but the Operative's gotten to +31 (+6 Cha +17 Skill +5 Operative +3 Class). Still 9+.
Some even numbered levels it'll be higher as PC abilities tend to increase at odd levels, and the DC increases more at even ones, but that's starting at level 2, and just an expected variance, not things getting harder by level.
Now, this is assuming an Operative, yes, but any time before 11th you can get the same result as an Operative's bonus by grabbing Skill Focus, and it's also assuming a secondary stat maxing at 22, not the max of 28 you can get escalating somewhat more quickly in a primary stat. And Envoys do better than this at their specialty skills. Mystics, Technomancers, and Engineers can also very readily get similar bonuses in their skills which receive a bonus from their Class.
So, what Classes does that leave that fall behind in skills at higher levels? Soldier and Solarian. And yes, Soldier and Solarian do indeed fall behind, starting immediately for Soldiers who don't buy Skill Focus, and at 11th level for those who do and all Solarians.
Y'know what else happens at 11th? Soldiers get their third attack and become untouchably better in combat than everyone else except Solarians. A couple of levels later, Solarian gets that too.
So that's the game and the math. Some Classes will in fact fall a bit behind in skills at the highest levels. Specifically, the ones that pull ahead in combat at the same point.
|
|
OK... but I still think it's lagging.
As you level up, you should be succeeding more often in your specialty. This is what you're good at, and you're getting better at it. If it takes a super-specialist just to keep up with the one or two things you're best at, then the regular things that all parties have to do most of the time are going to routinely get harder.
The result is that players will feel frustrated as they level up. Things they used to be able to do routinely when they were low level and just getting started become very difficult. One of the attractions of a steep power-curve class/level system like Pathfinder is that you get a lot more powerful as time goes on. Players aren't going to feel like that, though.
Also, I don't see Skill Focus as a mitigator. Having to take a feat just to keep up in one skill is a bitter pill to swallow. If you spend a feat on Skill Focus, rather than something else, you should get better at that skill. You've chosen to focus in that direction.
I do see the problem in Pathfinder where lots of things turn into autosuccess. But, even there, it's not always the case. If you happen to have somebody (or multiple somebodies) at the table who are just right for what you're trying to do, you get a lot of autosuccesses. But, I've been at level 15 tables where skill checks are dicey fairly frequently. So, yeah, perhaps Pathfinder could use some tune-up, but I think they seriously over-fixed the problem. When the best you can do just just keep up in a few skills, and some classes have no choice but to fall farther behind, it will just be frustrating for players.
(Also, I'm not convinced that the increased attacks and damage of some classes offset this. The foes you face will also be putting out increased damage. I haven't done any math on this for Starfinder. However, my observation from Pathfinder is that the increased damage tends to be more unbalanced than the skill auto-successes. PCs at 10th and higher level frequently do obscene amounts of damage in single shots in my experience.)
|
|
Most of the foes being at lower CR is a good point, though. If you're facing foes whose CR is 2 lower, that reduces the DC by 3. And, that ties in with the group/individual tactics. If you have a lot of foes, it's more reasonable to suppose that people are taking them on individually. If they're just one, it's more of a boss monster and supposed to be difficult.
Glancing through Rasputin Must Die, a fair number of the foes are at CR=APL or APL+1, but more than half of them are at APL-2 or -3 (with several cases of even lower CR in bulk). (I'm not looking at a high-level Paizo Starfinder adventure, because there aren't any out there yet; this is why I'm looking at a Pathfinder adventure.)
I still think it's kinda tough if you're trying to use something you've been levelling but not focusing on (e.g. putting in a skill point every other level, or two out of three levels). But at least the specialist can start to pull ahead.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK... but I still think it's lagging.
As you level up, you should be succeeding more often in your specialty. This is what you're good at, and you're getting better at it. If it takes a super-specialist just to keep up with the one or two things you're best at, then the regular things that all parties have to do most of the time are going to routinely get harder.
Well, if you're actually a specialist, things do get easier. By above example is someone with the skill as secondary not primary.
An Envoy Diplomat with Cha 18 at 1st can get an effective +11 vs. DC 16 and succeed on a 6+.
At 5th, her DC is 22, but her bonus has gone up to +17 (+5 Cha +5 Rank +4 Envoy +3 Class). So it's actually now a 5+.
At 9th level it's gone up to DC 28, but the Envoy's gone to +23 (+6 Cha, +9 Rank, +5 Envoy, +3 Class). Still 5+.
At 13th level it's gone up to DC 34, but the Envoy's gone to +30 (+8 Cha, +13 Rank +6 Envoy +3 Class). Now a 4+.
At 17th level, it's gone to DC 40, but the Operative's gotten to +35 (+8 Cha +17 Skill +7 Envoy +3 Class). Still 4+.
That's admittedly a slow curve, but it is a distinct improvement over levels.
The result is that players will feel frustrated as they level up. Things they used to be able to do routinely when they were low level and just getting started become very difficult. One of the attractions of a steep power-curve class/level system like Pathfinder is that you get a lot more powerful as time goes on. Players aren't going to feel like that, though.
Well, there are a few things here:
#1: As others note, below-level opponents get much more common in Starfinder than they are in Pathfinder, so that matters and makes them feel more powerful.
#2: If the only skill encounters PCs ever have are with people of their CR or near it, you're doing something wrong. This has always been true. The town guards, or local cops, do not and should not level as the PCs do. The world stops making sense if they do. High skills let you casually avoid situations that would've been troubling at low levels.
#3: So far there aren't very many items to raise skills, but they do exist (there's one each for Stealth and Computers, just off the top of my head). If we assume that such things exist, even if only to the tune of +2 or +3 and relatively pricey, the math starts looking a lot more generous to the players.
Also, I don't see Skill Focus as a mitigator. Having to take a feat just to keep up in one skill is a bitter pill to swallow. If you spend a feat on Skill Focus, rather than something else, you should get better at that skill. You've chosen to focus in that direction.
You do get better. Just not as much as someone whose entire Class is focused on that skill.
And only Soldiers need to really use it as a mitigator.
I do see the problem in Pathfinder where lots of things turn into autosuccess. But, even there, it's not always the case. If you happen to have somebody (or multiple somebodies) at the table who are just right for what you're trying to do, you get a lot of autosuccesses. But, I've been at level 15 tables where skill checks are dicey fairly frequently. So, yeah, perhaps Pathfinder could use some tune-up, but I think they seriously over-fixed the problem. When the best you can do just just keep up in a few skills, and some classes have no choice but to fall farther behind, it will just be frustrating for players.
It's not necessarily 'a few' skills. An Envoy can easily be keeping up in four or five and actively improving to the degree shown above in another four or five. An Operative built for skills can theoretically have every skill in the game maxed eventually (and will be very good indeed at 11 of them), and most Technomancers and Engineers and no few Mystics will be pulling ahead in their focused skills pretty readily, and keeping up with others if they invest Skill Focus.
(Also, I'm not convinced that the increased attacks and damage of some classes offset this. The foes you face will also be putting out increased damage. I haven't done any math on this for Starfinder. However, my observation from Pathfinder is that the increased damage tends to be more unbalanced than the skill auto-successes. PCs at 10th and higher level frequently do obscene amounts of damage in single shots in my experience.)
Comparing the damage in Starfinder and Pathfinder combat is a bad mistake. The math does not line up the same. High level DPR for a Soldier or Solarian is right around double that of high level members of other Classes due to a combination of in-class DPR enhancers and the extra attack.
Doubling damage output is worth lower skill checks, mechanically speaking. Assuming fights that are difficult at all, anyway.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if you're actually a specialist, things do get easier. By above example is someone with the skill as secondary not primary.
An Envoy Diplomat with Cha 18 at 1st can get an effective +11 vs. DC 16 and succeed on a 6+.
At 5th, her DC is 22, but her bonus has gone up to +17 (+5 Cha +5 Rank +4 Envoy +3 Class). So it's actually now a 5+.
At 9th level it's gone up to DC 28, but the Envoy's gone to +23 (+6 Cha, +9 Rank, +5 Envoy, +3 Class). Still 5+.
At 13th level it's gone up to DC 34, but the Envoy's gone to +30 (+8 Cha, +13 Rank +6 Envoy +3 Class). Now a 4+.
At 17th level, it's gone to DC 40, but the Operative's gotten to +35 (+8 Cha +17 Skill +7 Envoy +3 Class). Still 4+.
That's admittedly a slow curve, but it is a distinct improvement over levels.
Whoops, got the 1st and 17th levels slightly wrong here. It's actually as follows:
At 1st, they should be succeeding at a 5+.
At 17th level, it's gone to DC 40, but the Envoy's gotten to +35 (+8 Cha +17 Skill +7 Envoy +3 Class). Back to 5+.
So, my math was off and I was wrong on that one. They never get a whole lot better. That does have to do with being optimized enough to start with that they don't need to...but still. My bad.
OK... but I still think it's lagging.
As you level up, you should be succeeding more often in your specialty. This is what you're good at, and you're getting better at it.
Um... You are getting better and better as you level.
You're able to pass more and more difficult challenges with an average roll.
At 5th you can pass a DC 17 with an average roll. By 17th you're passing a DC 40 with an average roll. That's something you couldn't even dream about accomplishing back at level 5. How in the world is that "not succeeding more often"?
|
|
The impression that you're not improving is not a design flaw; if it's a flaw, it's because your GM's not explaining how you're able to do awesome, epic level things. That's a story issue, not a mechanic one.
The game has to be challenging; more importantly, it has to STAY challenging. The fact that challenges scale with your level is right on, and a strength of Starfinder OVER pathfinder, where auto success is easily achievable.
Oh, and take skill focus or skill synergy if you want the extra +2/3, and want to be uber at something. Of course, it's a trade-off.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK... but I still think it's lagging.
As you level up, you should be succeeding more often in your specialty. This is what you're good at, and you're getting better at it.
Um... You are getting better and better as you level.
You're able to pass more and more difficult challenges with an average roll.
At 5th you can pass a DC 17 with an average roll. By 17th you're passing a DC 40 with an average roll. That's something you couldn't even dream about accomplishing back at level 5. How in the world is that "not succeeding more often"?
And:
The game has to be challenging; more importantly, it has to STAY challenging. The fact that challenges scale with your level is right on, and a strength of Starfinder OVER pathfinder, where auto success is easily achievable.
I think both of you are not getting the point I'm making. First, yes, I recognize the problem of Pathfinder where folks can optimize and get lots of autosuccesses on skill checks.
However, Starfinder double-fixed it, by making it harder to get huge bonuses, and by also increasing DCs.
As a specific example, let's think about trying to move through the threatened square of a typical enemy in combat. Let's suppose the PC is not perfectly optimized for acrobatics, but cares about it enough to have put one skill point in it each level, and to have it as a class skill. Let's also assume the PC starts with Dex 14, and bumps Dex at both level 5 and level 10, and by level 10 has a Dex+4 stat booster. (I'm not going to put more resources into Acrobatics, because this is just one skill, and I'm not assuming a PC perfectly optimized for this one thing. It's a PC who can do some other things too. However, this PC is spending a fair amount of attention on Acrobatics.)
At level 1, the PC has a +6 to acrobatics (+3 for class skill, +1 rank, +2 Dex). The typical enemy is CR 1/2 or CR 1. The DC to tumble through an opponent's threatened square is 15-16 (15 + 1.5*(.5 or 1), rounding down). The PC makes this on a roll of 9-10 or higher. A typical boss might be CR 4; the DC to tumble through the boss's threatened square is 21, which the PC makes on a roll of 15 or higher.
At level 14, the PC has a +23 to acrobatics (+3 for class skill, +14 rank, +6 dex). The typical enemy is CR 12. The DC to tumble through an opponent's square is 33 (15 + 1.5*12). The PC makes this on a roll of 10 or higher... which is close to what tumbling past a typical enemy was at first level. This does mean that if you only invest in Acrobatics two out of every three levels, you'll have to now roll 15 or higher. If you don't boost dex with a stat booster, you have to roll 17 or higher. Unless the PC absolutely keeps up with investing skill ranks in acrobatics every level, tumbling past typical enemies becomes something that he could do once, but can no longer do.
It's worse for the boss. At level 14, your boss monster is probably CR 17. The DC to tumble past this guy is 40 (15 + 1.5*17). The PC only makes this on a roll of 17 or higher... and cannot make it if he's only invested skill ranks in Acrobatics two out of every three levels.
So, the question is: should a PCs chance to succeed at something like this against a typical challenge be dependent on the PC investing in skill ranks at every level, and getting the right stat boosters? Perhaps... but if so, then part of system mastery is going to be realizing that investing points in skills needs to be done in a purely min-max way, where to keep skills useful you have to invest a point in them every rank. More generalist sorts of characters will find themselves having a hard time succeeding at anything.
On the other hand, suppose that the DC scaled as 15 + CR. (Or, even better, as (say) 18 + CR).
The PC who invests a skill rank every level and gets the right stat boosts succeeds on 9+ against a standard foe, 13+ against a boss monster at level 1. At level 14, he succeeds on 4+ against a standard foe, 9+ against a boss monster.
The PC who invests as skill rank two out of every three levels, and only has a +2 stat booster for Dex at level 14, succeeds on a roll of 9+ against a standard foe, 14+ against a boss monster.
Yeah, I know, Operatives or Envoys can get more boosts. Consider the Soldier or Solarian who wants to maintain some of the combat mobility that he had at first level.
What does it mean to have a challenge scale with PCs levels? Should a typical combat challenge like this stay the same for PCs who completely focus on something, and eventually completely pass by those who don't focus? Or should the challenge stay the same for PCs who invest without purely focusing, and get somewhat easier for PCs who focus on something? (Getting quite a bit easier for PCs who go above and beyond by investing a feat and class feature on a given ability.)
You are right that Paizo usually swings the nerf bat too hard. The auto-successes for Pathfinder skill checks also feel like they're exaggerated (it's like Schroedinger's Wizards, but with skills and feats).
You do, however, have to realize what you've been told: you're not getting worse at the skill, the checks are getting more difficult because the enemies are better. Your point that skill points have to be spent by min-maxing is far more valid than "I can't do it against current enemies, therefore I've gotten worse."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can definitely agree with all the complaints in this thread.
I just made my first Starfinder Society PC, and I wanted to do a "skill monkey" mechanic who is totally focused on skills himself, and build his drone to be good at combat to keep him safe.
I started with 18 int, took the scholar theme for Life Sciences as a class skill, and tried looking for feats to help boost my "brainy" skill focus. I couldn't find any. Because Skill Focus, Skill Synergy, class bonuses, and equipment bonuses to skills are all insight bonuses, none of them stack.
So if I want to be the best in the universe at computers or engineering, the best I can do is start with 18 int, boost int early and often, and keep the skills maxed out. There's nothing I can do to increase my chances of success with these skills. And since the DCs scale just as fast as the skill boosts, that means, I'll need to roll double digit numbers on a d20 for my entire career. There's nothing I can do to make a 7 or 8 on the die succeed against challenges designed for my level when I'm supposed to be a world class expert at high levels.
In fact, I'm having a hard time finding a better feat than Weapon Proficiency: Longarms or Weapon Focus: Small Arms to take for a skill monkey PC with 12 dex at level 1, who doesn't even want to own a weapon, because combat isn't his thing.
More than anything, this really feeds into the impression that this is the play test version of the game, not a finished product. I feel truly ripped off for having payed $50 for a hardcover rulebook that's obviously going to be errata'd so much that they may as well rewritte it from scratch in less than a year. That may be fine for those who bought the PDF, but I prefer having a physical book. And I already know there will be so many errata changes that my $50 book will be useless in 6 months.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are aware that even world class experts in computers have to work really hard at the cutting edge of computing right?
Because all that's being said here is When I'm level twenty it's not fair that I have to work hard to beat level twenty challenges.
Effectively you're complaining that the game stays a challenge when you take on challenges at your level.
That's what it's supposed to do.
The only thing I've found that's going to need to be erratad is ship combat DCs.
A better way of putting it
At level one, I'm the computer tech at the workplace who fixes the errors other folks just don't get. It's hard work because networks are complex and people are really good at breaking system software.
At level twenty I'm redesigning quantum algorithms to help compute the key pass for a completely alien technology that looks like it might go nuclear. It's really hard work because no one has ever done it before.
As for the hyperbole on the book being useless in six months. Six months is a huge exaggeration. However there always comes a point in every game I've ever bought a hard copy of the rules, where the hard copy is now redundant. Errata happen, especially as new rules from supplements get added in.
It still irks me that people are complaining about what might be happening at level twenty when the full rules for thismsystem haven't even been release yet.
The Alien archive ismincluding a massive amount of player based content, including new gear, playable races, feats and spells.
Maybe hold off until you see what's being offered in that before crying Doom and gloom.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1.5 x CR actually maps pretty well to most PCs within their area of specialty.
I agree. But I have a huge problem with that "within their area of specialty"
First, this means that the characters HAVE to devote all their resources just to stay still. They don't improve at all over time (I agree they improved too much in Pathfinder, but not improving at all seems wrond). Worse, it means they cannot afford to branch out very much.
Second, it means that at mid to high levels ONLY the characters with the appropriate area of specialty get to compete at all. If you want to shmooze you HAVE to be an Envoy or Operative. No spending enough resources as a soldier or solarion.
There is actually a very simple fix to this. Create Greater Skill Focus and Magnificent Skill focus feats that add stacking +3's to a skill.
Then at least I CAN play a diplomatic Soldier if I want and not be forced to choose Envoy as the chassis
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, this means that the characters HAVE to devote all their resources just to stay still.
Which resources? From what I can tell, all the resources you have to devote all come from your class features. There's no additional resource expenditure required.
They don't improve at all over time (I agree they improved too much in Pathfinder, but not improving at all seems wrond).
This is flat out false.
They "don't improve" relative to the level appropriate challenge, but that's not the same as not improving.
A level 1 PC cannot even attempt a Level 20 challenge. A level 20 PC cannot fail a level 1 challenge. That's improvement. Just because a level 20 PC has the same chance to succeed a Level 20 Challenge as a Level 1 PC has to a Level 1 challenge does not mean there is no improvement.
[QuotemWorse, it means they cannot afford to branch out very much.
Yes, they can. There was even some math posted above for non-specialization and how it improves as you level.
Second, it means that at mid to high levels ONLY the characters with the appropriate area of specialty get to compete at all. If you want to shmooze you HAVE to be an Envoy or Operative. No spending enough resources as a soldier or solarion.
You may not be as good as an operative or envoy, but you can still be decent at them.
There is actually a very simple fix to this. Create Greater Skill Focus and Magnificent Skill focus feats that add stacking +3's to a skill.
And create feat trees? Ugh. No. Worse still, you're now creating feats that an operative or envoy must take and then they're leagues above the soldier or Solarion without them and we're right back at where we started if they do take them. The only way to make your scenario work is to ban the envoy or operative from taking those feats.
But then, what the point of playing those classes when you can now have a soldier who the best at combat and be the best at skills with just a few feats?
Want to be the best at combat (Soldier), yet compete equally with skill-based classes at their best skills?
No. Just no.
Two feats already make a PC comparable (other than the stat difference), which is to say functional.
That's like saying there should be a feat tree for Envoys to have equal BAB & bonuses to damage as Soldiers or there should be a feat tree for non-spellcasters to get up to 6th level spells.
And thematically a warrior could be such a diplomat, by starting Soldier and switching classes...much like modern day generals have, being more Envoys than anything.
It's hard to take your complaints seriously anymore. Sorry.
Because all that's being said here is When I'm level twenty it's not fair that I have to work hard to beat level twenty challenges.
I think what people are bothered by is the prospect of adventures where at level twenty they never get to do anything but face level twenty challenges. Every lock in the world is suddenly a level 20 lock, every wall you want to climb is suddenly a level 20 wall.
I'm a little unclear on whether this actually is likely to be the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, I'm having a hard time finding a better feat than Weapon Proficiency: Longarms or Weapon Focus: Small Arms to take for a skill monkey PC with 12 dex at level 1, who doesn't even want to own a weapon, because combat isn't his thing.
Why do I keep seeing people trying to make characters that are intent on never participating in combat? This is a d20 game, not Call of Cthulhu or World of Darkness.
I'm not saying this to be mean; I'm honestly confused by it.|
|
In fact, I'm having a hard time finding a better feat than Weapon Proficiency: Longarms or Weapon Focus: Small Arms to take for a skill monkey PC with 12 dex at level 1, who doesn't even want to own a weapon, because combat isn't his thing.
Why do I keep seeing people trying to make characters that are intent on never participating in combat? This is a d20 game, not Call of Cthulhu or World of Darkness.
I'm not saying this to be mean; I'm honestly confused by it.
I've got to admit this sorta boggles my mind, too. Participating in combat is a core assumption of D&D, then Pathfinder, then Starfinder. Not being capable in it is distinctly odd.
Focusing on other things, sure...but actively trying to be bad/uninvolved? That's weird.
|
|
In fact, I'm having a hard time finding a better feat than Weapon Proficiency: Longarms or Weapon Focus: Small Arms to take for a skill monkey PC with 12 dex at level 1, who doesn't even want to own a weapon, because combat isn't his thing.
Why do I keep seeing people trying to make characters that are intent on never participating in combat? This is a d20 game, not Call of Cthulhu or World of Darkness.
I'm not saying this to be mean; I'm honestly confused by it.
Did you bother reading the rest of the post you're quoting? I want the mechanic to be completely focused on non-combat areas, but he built a drone to protect him that will be completely combat focused. I have a specific personality in mind for this PC.
But apparently, the rules don't support that possibility. All mechanics must be cookie cutter clones of each other. They all start with exactly +9 engineering and computers at level 1 (+4 int, +1 skill rank, +3 class, +1 insight from their class ability). They all advance those skills at the exact same rate. There are no feats, equipment, or other investments possible to ever change that, not even if you're willing to sacrifice other areas to do so.
And if you're not a mechanic or other int based class with those skills as class skills, then any skill ranks you put in them will be a waste of ranks. You'll never succeed, so don't even bother.
My complaint is that the skill system isn't the least bit customizable. All mechanics will have engineering and computers at exactly the same bonuses at the same levels. All mystics will be the only ones to bother with mysticism, and they'll have exactly the same bonus at every level as every other mystic. Etc. Making DCs this much harder means that everyone is required to max out their class skills tied to their key ability modifier, and not bother with any other skills.
They may as well have just removed skill ranks from the game and told you what your bonus is at each level with the skills your class knows. Why bother pretending that the skill system is customizable when doing anything remotely different than any other PC in the same class is a trap option?
And forget about knowing anything about monsters you're fighting from skill checks. You get one question for every 5 that you beat the skill DC, which means that a nat 20 will get you 3 questions at most, if it's a class skill tied to your main ability. That's not enough to know what you're up against when fighting a dragon, devil, or demon at level 10 that could have DR, energy resistances, special attacks, SR, spell-like abilities, fast healing, etc. But apparently, the smart, well educated PCs in Starfinder aren't as smart and well educated as their Pathfinder counterparts.
I feel truly ripped off for having payed $50 for a hardcover rulebookYou feel ripped off... because you can't trivialize skill check DCs? Really?
Again, did you read the post you're quoting? I feel ripped off paying $50 for a play test product that Paizo claimed was a completed product. They've already admitted that ship combat will need to be completely reworked. Given the sheer quantity of problems with the system, half the Core Rulebook will have "errata" to correct major problems within 6 months. That means my $50 hardback book will be obsolete and useless.
|
|
Did you bother reading the rest of the post you're quoting? I want the mechanic to be completely focused on non-combat areas, but he built a drone to protect him that will be completely combat focused. I have a specific personality in mind for this PC.
Ah. This is actually quite doable, and potentially very effective. I can think of several cool things you can do with this if you want a list.
But apparently, the rules don't support that possibility.
They most certainly do. You can have your Drone Full Attack and use one of the several non-attack options Mechanics get as a Standard (Overload leaps to mind). Entirely valid strategy.
All mechanics must be cookie cutter clones of each other. They all start with exactly +9 engineering and computers at level 1 (+4 int, +1 skill rank, +3 class, +1 insight from their class ability). They all advance those skills at the exact same rate. There are no feats, equipment, or other investments possible to ever change that, not even if you're willing to sacrifice other areas to do so.
That's because they're already maxed out in those two skills. You can easily use Feats and several other things to aid in skills other than those two. And there actually are gear options to increase Engineering and Computers (unlike most skills). Get yourself a datajack for Computers and an Engineering Specialty Kit as appropriate for Engineering.
And I wouldn't assume all Mechanics start out with Int 18. That's actually gonna be fairly uncommon among more combat oriented Mechanics.
And if you're not a mechanic or other int based class with those skills as class skills, then any skill ranks you put in them will be a waste of ranks. You'll never succeed, so don't even bother.
This is not true. There are actually a number of categories of check you can be quite good at. And if you grab Skill Focus (something not available to help out a Mechanic) you can manage to at least equal them through level 12 and be within 2 points of them all the way through level 19.
My complaint is that the skill system isn't the least bit customizable. All mechanics will have engineering and computers at exactly the same bonuses at the same levels. All mystics will be the only ones to bother with mysticism, and they'll have exactly the same bonus at every level as every other mystic. Etc. Making DCs this much harder means that everyone is required to max out their class skills tied to their key ability modifier, and not bother with any other skills.
Actually, given their scaling bonus to Mysticism, even as a Wis skill Technomancers are quite good at it. Also see above regarding Skill Focus. And bear in mind that high stats in general can make one quite adequate in a skill.
And you're vastly exaggerating things. Maxing out skills tied to secondary stats is also useful, as is maxing out skills that use opposed checks. And anything used for monster Knowledge. And anything used in ship combat...really, lots of stuff.
They may as well have just removed skill ranks from the game and told you what your bonus is at each level with the skills your class knows. Why bother pretending that the skill system is customizable when doing anything remotely different than any other PC in the same class is a trap option?
It's really not. Skill Focus lets you be quite decent at any skill you have the stat to support, and getting any skill as a Class Skill is trivially easy as well. And you have few enough really necessary Feats you can easily afford a few Skill Focus feats if you want 'em.
You won't be as good as the character whose whole Class is built around it...but that assumes you have that guy in the party. And that was even more true in Pathfinder. The Bard with +16 Diplomacy at level 2 in Pathfinder made anyone else taking Diplomacy silly.
Really, all that's changed is you can't stack modifiers until your Engineer is better at Diplomacy than an Envoy, and I personally don't consider that a huge problem.
And forget about knowing anything about monsters you're fighting from skill checks. You get one question for every 5 that you beat the skill DC, which means that a nat 20 will get you 3 questions at most, if it's a class skill tied to your main ability. That's not enough to know what you're up against when fighting a dragon, devil, or demon at level 10 that could have DR, energy resistances, special attacks, SR, spell-like abilities, fast healing, etc. But apparently, the smart, well educated PCs in Starfinder aren't as smart and well educated as their Pathfinder counterparts.
That's exactly the same amount of questions you get in Pathfinder. But you mean the DC of the check is higher. That's true enough. Of course, for the most part, there are only two skills to make that check with rather than 6 or so. A dedicated Life Scientist Technomancer could easily have a +23 in Life Science by 10th (assuming Skill Focus), and a +18 in Mysticism and average a 33 vs. DC 20-30.
This has taken less than 22% of their skill points. Or so.
A Wizard in Pathfinder, assuming he had all the skills in question, would likely be rolling about +20 vs. a DC 15-25.
This has taken 60% of their skill points. Or so.
I'd rather go with the first option and actually have other skills that aren't just Knowledges.
You can pretty easily justify this by saying that education in the Pact Worlds tends ton focus on breadth in terms of different creatures. Which makes sense considering they're dealing with dozens of times the number of different species. Or say the Drift left incomplete records of some creatures. Or both.
Or you could accept that it's a different game and applying the standards of one to the other is a mistake.
Again, did you read the post you're quoting? I feel ripped off paying $50 for a play test product that Paizo claimed was a completed product. They've already admitted that ship combat will need to be completely reworked. Given the sheer quantity of problems with the system, half the Core Rulebook will have "errata" to correct major problems within 6 months. That means my $50 hardback book will be obsolete and useless.
Actually, the only things that seems really in need of errata are one Feat and the Skill Check DCs of ship combat (wdell, and listed Gunnery bonuses). Everything else about ship combat will probably remain the same, as will most other stuff.
|
|
Effectively you're complaining that the game stays a challenge when you take on challenges at your level.
That's what it's supposed to do.
If you go back and read my last post, that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that things that start out challenging but possible against typical high-end foes become completely impossible against typical high-end foes unless you min-max for that specific thing.
It may be that this is the game you want to play -- where people start out sort of as generalists, but over time they must accept that they will fail to keep up with some kinds of challenges, and where they must build their characters a certain way to even be able to keep up with a subset of the challenges they'll meet.
Myself, I'd rather have a game where as characters get to higher level, those who secondarily focus on something (e.g. by investing a skill rank two out of three levels, and stat boosts) are able to come close to keeping up with typical challenges, and those who primarily focus on them get better at overcoming typical challenges.
As others have pointed out, in order for your character to continue to be effective at anything (and, again, I'm talking about vs. level-appropriate challenges; the ability of a 15th level character to overcome a CR 1 encounter simply isn't relevant), you have to min-max for it, and in general your choices of what to min-max for are highly influenced by your class. This will lead to a smaller diversity of the sorts of character types you see. And, perhaps, this is the intent of the designers. After all, the fact that the difficulty of tumbling past a foe depends only on the CR of the foe, and not anything about what kind of foe it is, suggests that monsters are meant to be less defined by their individuality and more by just what challenge rating they have.
Effectively you're complaining that the game stays a challenge when you take on challenges at your level.
That's what it's supposed to do.
If you go back and read my last post, that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that things that start out challenging but possible against typical high-end foes become completely impossible against typical high-end foes unless you min-max for that specific thing.
It may be that this is the game you want to play -- where people start out sort of as generalists, but over time they must accept that they will fail to keep up with some kinds of challenges, and where they must build their characters a certain way to even be able to keep up with a subset of the challenges they'll meet.
Myself, I'd rather have a game where as characters get to higher level, those who secondarily focus on something (e.g. by investing a skill rank two out of three levels, and stat boosts) are able to come close to keeping up with typical challenges, and those who primarily focus on them get better at overcoming typical challenges.
As others have pointed out, in order for your character to continue to be effective at anything (and, again, I'm talking about vs. level-appropriate challenges; the ability of a 15th level character to overcome a CR 1 encounter simply isn't relevant), you have to min-max for it, and in general your choices of what to min-max for are highly influenced by your class. This will lead to a smaller diversity of the sorts of character types you see. And, perhaps, this is the intent of the designers. After all, the fact that the difficulty of tumbling past a foe depends only on the CR of the foe, and not anything about what kind of foe it is, suggests that monsters are meant to be less defined by their individuality and more by just what challenge rating they have.
I think I get what you're saying, but I can't help but feel there is still some hyperbole tied to it.
You're mentioning secondary skills and still being competitive. I think that largely depends on what you think warrants a secondary situation.
What I mean by this is, there are many skills with examples of static difficulties. Take Engineering for example on page 142. Disabling a complex explosive has a recommendation of 25 for a difficulty. Soldiers get Engineering as a class skill. They can accomplish a large majority of the tasks listed under this skill without being an immeasurable genius like an optimized Mechanic/Technomancer.
Some problematic difficulties could be a Soldier/Solarian that wishes to use feint/demoralize options in combat regularly. Those face a DC of 10 + total relevant resist skills (sense motive/intimidate respectively) *or* 15 + 1.5 x CR. If a target NPC has either of these skills as their "master" skill then success of either action may likely become impossible for a Soldier or Solarian since they don't gain the same kind of escalating skill boosters as the other classes. Then again, both of these classes gain quite a bit more in combat over what demoralize or feint offers anyway.
When you take a deep dive into what the skills of the game offer, then you can see a trend of secondary/tertiary activities gravitate towards base DC is 5 + 1.5 X CR, 10 + 1.5 x CR, *or* a static difficulty ranging from 5 to 40. Primary challenges tend to have 15 + 1.5 x CR and some can go even higher.
Some example primary challenges would be hacking complex systems (top DC is 53, or 73 if you want root access which then makes everything else trivial), or using several skills in the moment of combat like Acrobatics to avoid attacks of opportunity, Bluff to feint, Intimidate to Demoralize, etc...
Sadly, a Soldier probably won't be hacking the most sophisticated of computer systems unless they build specifically towards it. Even if a Soldier had a 28 intelligence and skill focus they wouldn't hit a DC 53 without a roll of an 18 (or a 16 with an accelerated datajack). Then again, that may lead one to ask, why didn't you just play a Technomancer, Mechanic, or Hacker Operative if you really wanted to be the best of the best at hacking.
That's a lot for me to just say, so what exactly should be a secondary task that you can remain competitive with while not having a fully invested character? Because saying that characters cannot do *anything* unless they min max for it just isn't even true according to the rules if you look at what several skills set as difficulties for their tasks.
|
|
If you or your GM (if you are a PC) design every adventure so that every single element has DCs on the exact CR then yeah there is going to be problems, but thats because you/your GM are designing adventures in a s@~!ty way. Put it this way you don't make all your combat encounters against a single CR=APL creature do you? Of course not that is s%!%ty and boring.
Check this out. Notice the CRs assumed in examples.
Wish I made an edit to my last post while I was thinking about the acrobatics example.
Acrobatics for moving past threatened squares likely won't become a trivial task for those that are not dex based or using armor without a skill penalty. However, that's not too far from Pathfinder either, at least not at my player table.
So in some cases, some characters will not be able to tumble through threatened spaces as easily as others. That doesn't mean the same characters can't perform well at other tasks available to the Acrobatics skill like some fly checks.
Anyhoo, I do agree there are some cases in which the skill tasks as is encourage some min maxing but overall much it doesn't seem nearly as bad as it sounds.
|
|
A boss shouldn't be easy to tumble past.
A boss fight shouldn't be easy to bluff.
That's the point of a boss fight. They're hard, and often shut down the tricks you normally try on their minions. So you have to adapt and work hard to beat them.
If you're fighting a creature as powerful as all of your party (so a creature of CR equal to your level), then the difficulty to beat it should be hard even for the best trained in your group. After all, this thing is capable of taking on four of you and giving a good account of itself.
What youre asking is to cater for the middle. That makes things boringly easy for the elite.
What the game has done is make things challenging for the elite, at the elite level. That's how a good game should be designed.
Your soldier example. - lets say he takes bluff so he can use improved Feint occasionally. (Something my Solarian has done). Now if he wants to do this all the time then he needs to keep focusing on it. If it's his signiature move after all, then it makes sense he is training in it constantly, and he'll likely to even invest in gear and feats to help. This will make him competitive at the top level, but even then not as good as the most elite charismatic professional bluffers in the Galaxy. After all, he's a fighter by profession, those guys are gamblers or envoys or operative by profession.
However, if he only dabbles in this, then he's only expecting to do so against the odd opponent where it's likely to work. Certainly he wouldn't be trying this against a boss fight, because it's not his specialty. That's the expectation, and honestly the reality of the situation.
It means classes will actually be able to still reign supreme in what they're meant to do. It helps prevent the entire situation of redundancy of character that we see so often in Pathfinder.
Also remember, there are actions in the game to help buff/debuff that have fixed DC's and provide decent advantage in a fight. Covering fire, suppressing fire both only have an AC 15 to succeed, and boost AC or reduce to hit accordingly. Both of those remain effective into the higher levels because they're great ways to affect an enemy that you may not be able to do much to normally.
This type of game design encourages team play far more than pathfinder.
More difficult challenges should demand more difficult skill checks. So, a powerful monster might be more difficult to hit, a skilled assassin more difficult to stop, a more powerful spell more difficult to resist.
The problem is that the starship combat rules make the difficulty of many tasks based on the tier of *your* starship, which makes no sense in many cases. In fact, it should be easier to pilot more powerful starships of the same size, as they have more advanced human factors engineering built into them. For example, the F-35 (newest, highest tier US fighter), has a HUD display that lets the pilot see through the plane as though it were invisible.
If you are a 20th level ace pilot flying a tier 18 fighter, it should not be harder to perform a stunt than if you were flying a tier 2 fighter. In fact, due to your MK 8 duo-node, it should be easier. Instead the difficulty should come from fighting very dangerous opponents, trying flybys against dreadnoughts while simultaneousl evading and shooting down tracking weapons as they leave a ships tubes. The DC to do something like that should challenge you at high level, not the DC to simply do the same evade maneuvers you did at 3rd level.
Starship combat shouldn't be brought into this discussion, as the devs have said that the skill check DCs for starships were a mistake and they're working on fixing it.
Starship combat shouldn't be brought into this discussion, as the devs have said that the skill check DCs for starships were a mistake and they're working on fixing it.
But its not just that the DCs don't scale properly, its that in many places they scale based on *your* starship's tier, not on what kind of outlandish maneuver your attempting, nor on the power of your opponent. So, in that sense, I think its fair game to bring in starship skill DCs.
Starship combat shouldn't be brought into this discussion, as the devs have said that the skill check DCs for starships were a mistake and they're working on fixing it.But its not just that the DCs don't scale properly, its that in many places they scale based on *your* starship's tier, not on what kind of outlandish maneuver your attempting, nor on the power of your opponent. So, in that sense, I think its fair game to bring in starship skill DCs.
Yup. Even the original poster is aware of this, and specifically calls it out as not being the subject of discussion for this thread.
Starship combat is a known issue that will be dealt with. Scaling DC's in other aspects of the game (acrobatics, bluff, diplomacy, computer hacking, etc...) are the focus of this discussion.
Starship combat shouldn't be brought into this discussion, as the devs have said that the skill check DCs for starships were a mistake and they're working on fixing it.But its not just that the DCs don't scale properly, its that in many places they scale based on *your* starship's tier, not on what kind of outlandish maneuver your attempting, nor on the power of your opponent. So, in that sense, I think its fair game to bring in starship skill DCs.Yup. Even the original poster is aware of this, and specifically calls it out as not being the subject of discussion for this thread.
Starship combat is a known issue that will be dealt with. Scaling DC's in other aspects of the game (acrobatics, bluff, diplomacy, computer hacking, etc...) are the focus of this discussion.
I’m not a fan of the typical skill DCs increasing faster than what I consider to be the reasonable expectation of what a player puts into his skills (namely, the 1 skill rank per level, as I think everything else should be icing on the cake, rather than the minimum expectation), but that is the big difference between the skill DCs and the starship combat DCs.
An average CR 10 creature has a DC of 25 to identify it. That’s when you’re at level 1, level 6, level 14, and level 20. It exists in the game world as a CR 10 creature independent of the PCs. So even if you can never get your skill modifier up to the point where you can learn the same number of useful pieces of information about it at level 10 as you did about the CR 2 creature you faced when you were level 2 (probably more likely to be the case with a higher CR creature, but you get the point), you are still improving.
Where the starship DCs went from wrong to extra wrong was making them dependent on the player’s level.
I think the complaint is that there is not enough variance between someone who actively pursues a skill and someone who hyperoptimizes in it.
In PF people are used to being good enough to likely make it if they focus on a skill, and basically autosucceeding if they hyperfocus on it. I am not saying this is right or wrong. I am just pointing out what I think the expectation is.
I haven't crunched any numbers, but if you are good at something, even if you are not world class I would think you should have a good chance, and if you are world class you should have a great chance to succeed when compared to level=CR challenges.
World class experts don't really struggle on things that are common in their area, even if they work just as hard to get there as the person who is not as good.
PS:With all of this being said I am sure Paizo know they have to leave room for splat books, and those will help later on. I don't expect for Starfinder to get to autosuccess levels though. I am guessing that another +2 to +3 will be available at some point.
|
It sounds like this topic is polarized between those that dislike the idea at a more equal scaling of DCs and those that think that it is a great idea. It has boiled down to game mechanic preference and can no longer be discussed objectively. Either you like it or you don't.
Any continuation of this discussion is going to be a furthering of "I like it this way, so it is better." An arguing of preference.
As an additional note: Starfinder was made intentionally different than Pathfinder in the ways that they are different. Therefore beginning with, or utilizing "..well in pathfinder it is this way...I don't know why it changed..." is mute because the differences are intentional. Disagreeing with core mechanics of a game isn't terribly productive.
Disclaimer: I am not attempting to trivialize anyone or their point of view, I am merely pointing out how certain points of view interact with the reality of the situation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having read through most of this thread, there's something I feel the need to point out about any check made in opposition to a creature. I don't have any direct experience with starfinder (yet), but I've played enough d&d to know that that CR=level monster isn't going to perform to stats on its own, becouse the party will dogpile it. More times than not, a CR 10 monster is going to be used as part of a group of baddies in a fight against level 14 ish PC's. The stuff you're fighting *now* is most likely CR-2 or -3, but coming in groups to alltogether add up to something at or slightly above CR=level. This does however mean that you're operating at lower DC's than the 'even level hypothesis' a number of you have been operating under assumes for the vast majority of time.
And specifically in terms of hacking challenges, your level has diddly squat to do with what places have what kinds of computers in them. A certain type of installation will have a computer of a matching tier. People's comlinks are always going to be tier 0 (unless they have specific reasons to spend exhorbitant amounts of cash securing them) and most pirate bases aren't going to be sporting tier 10 supercomputers no matter how badass their boss is. The only thing you've proven by showing that level appropriate challenges stay roughly the same difficulty, is that the game's challenge rating calculations work as intended.
|
|
But its not just that the DCs don't scale properly, its that in many places they scale based on *your* starship's tier, not on what kind of outlandish maneuver your attempting, nor on the power of your opponent. So, in that sense, I think its fair game to bring in starship skill DCs.
But this post is about Skill DC (which I suppose Starship combat is a skill DC) but there's an entire other thread about Starship combat skill DC that has run its course because the devs has said its a thing they're going to fix.
If you think the starship combat DC system is fundamentally flawed because of using your ship's power rather than the opponents that's fine, but its not topical to what we're discussing here.
You are aware that even world class experts in computers have to work really hard at the cutting edge of computing right?
Because all that's being said here is When I'm level twenty it's not fair that I have to work hard to beat level twenty challenges.
Effectively you're complaining that the game stays a challenge when you take on challenges at your level.
That's what it's supposed to do.
The only thing I've found that's going to need to be erratad is ship combat DCs.
A better way of putting it
At level one, I'm the computer tech at the workplace who fixes the errors other folks just don't get. It's hard work because networks are complex and people are really good at breaking system software.At level twenty I'm redesigning quantum algorithms to help compute the key pass for a completely alien technology that looks like it might go nuclear. It's really hard work because no one has ever done it before.
As for the hyperbole on the book being useless in six months. Six months is a huge exaggeration. However there always comes a point in every game I've ever bought a hard copy of the rules, where the hard copy is now redundant. Errata happen, especially as new rules from supplements get added in.
It still irks me that people are complaining about what might be happening at level twenty when the full rules for thismsystem haven't even been release yet.
The Alien archive ismincluding a massive amount of player based content, including new gear, playable races, feats and spells.Maybe hold off until you see what's being offered in that before crying Doom and gloom.
Wrath beat me to it, and frankly I probably couldn't have said it better.
You can't move the goal post and complain tat things aren't easier at higher levels.
You did get more powerful. The same tasks did get easier.
You had a hard time hacking I to that library at level 1, but now it's trivial for you at level 5. The fact that you're now attempting to hack secured banking systems instead of libraries doesn't mean you didn't get better--it means you are now good enough to take on more difficult challenges that would have been high impossible for you before.
|
|
My real issue is that people who aren't focused on something can accomplish it (vs. a level-appropriate challenge) at lower levels, with a good roll, and cannot accomplish it at higher levels.
Those who are completely focused on it tend to have the same chance, or perhaps slightly better chance, of accomplishing a level-appropriate challenge. I don't have a problem with that. I would prefer it if things got easier for somebody who really focuses on something as that person levels up, but as long as it doesn't get actively harder (as is the case with starship piloting, a different thing), it's not bad.
The problem is the difference between those who completely focus and those who take it on as a secondary task. I'm fine with it being hard for those who take it on as a secondary task. But, in practice, it goes from being medium-hard at low level to impossible at high level. That's just weird. If it's supposed to be impossible, then it probably should be impossible at low level too. If it's not supposed to be impossible -- then the DCs are too high in the system as written.
And yes, I know that everybody gets better against a static DC if they put any points in a skill! This is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about checks against level-appropriate challenges, the things that scale with level.
But its not just that the DCs don't scale properly, its that in many places they scale based on *your* starship's tier, not on what kind of outlandish maneuver your attempting, nor on the power of your opponent. So, in that sense, I think its fair game to bring in starship skill DCs.But this post is about Skill DC (which I suppose Starship combat is a skill DC) but there's an entire other thread about Starship combat skill DC that has run its course because the devs has said its a thing they're going to fix.
If you think the starship combat DC system is fundamentally flawed because of using your ship's power rather than the opponents that's fine, but its not topical to what we're discussing here.
My point is that at high levels you should not have to worry about making the skill check you had to make at low levels. Making a skill DC based on your level or on your gear's tier does just that (many starship combat skill checks are examples).
Instead, either you should be worried about beating a powerful opponent (stealth vs perception, bluff vs. sense motive, etc.) or succeeding at something outlandish, like engineering + medicine checks to find a way to jury rig your nervous system to an alien artifact, a survival check to live for a few hours without an environment field on a planet with an methane atmosphere, or skill checks to operate a dreadnought with just a 4 person crew. High level adventures should put you in situations where you will have to do this. The checks that you made at low levels should not get more difficult just because you're higher level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead, either you should be worried about beating a powerful opponent (stealth vs perception, bluff vs. sense motive, etc.) or succeeding at something outlandish, like engineering + medicine checks to find a way to jury rig your nervous system to an alien artifact, a survival check to live for a few hours without an environment field on a planet with an methane atmosphere, or skill checks to operate a dreadnought with just a 4 person crew. High level adventures should put you in situations where you will have to do this. The checks that you made at low levels should not get more difficult just because you're higher level.
Which is why they've admitted the scaling is off, but the problem is if something doesn't scale properly the other way something that you need to do at both levels (say piloting) is a coinflip at low level and then becomes an auto succeed at high level, which is just as bad as it becoming impossible.
My real issue is that people who aren't focused on something can accomplish it (vs. a level-appropriate challenge) at lower levels, with a good roll, and cannot accomplish it at higher levels.
Alright, so? Someone who doesn't specialize can hide versus an unmodified goblin at low levels but if they aren't specialized in hiding they can't hide versus a balor. That doesn't seem wrong to me.
I think it really depends on if there are moderate challenges along with the epic challenges. When only an expert has a chance at any of the skill challenges, no characters will have less than full skill ranks in a skill.
In my opinion Pathfinder Society specials already have the problem that there is too little difference between the easy and hard skill checks. It looks like they may have made it even worse in Starfinder —so even the people who specialize in a skill will fail more than about a third of the time. It may be impossible for anyone not heavily invested to succeed at the skill checks that are ‘CR appropriate’.
I think we will have to see where they place the DCs for checks in the various APs, modules and scenarios.
If they do a GameMastering starfinder supplement at some stage, I'd love for CR and DCs vs Skills to be explored in depth for how difficult tasks should be at certain levels, and how to balance:
- people with no ranks in a skill
- people with basic ranks=level
- specialized and fully geared for the check
As well as advice for how to walk that line when GMing.
Yes, I'm aware that this would confine the ability of splatbooks to add more and more stacking skill bonuses as time goes by.
In my opinion that would be a good thing, though.