|
My list of 10 underwhelming Starfinder feats
• Diversion - most GMs are going to let you do something similar to this with RP & Skills without using a feat. Most not all.
• Drag Down - Ok this feat is too conditional. Let's picture an example. A creature uses an ability to knock you prone. Then you get to use your reaction to knock them prone (If they are adjacent to you), so if you succeed and knock them prone they can in most cases just use there move action to stand up. And let's not forget that standing up is safe and does not provoke AoO.
• Improved Critical - so I increase my crit range? NO. So I can increase my crit magnifier? NO, just increases the D.C. Of your crit effects by 2. Uh no thanks, not now, not ever, not when I only have a 1 in 20 chance of critting.
• Jet Dash - the amount of times you will need to run that distance is very rare. It's an amazing x6 your speed but it has to be in a strait line and not through any difficult terrain, and if note flat footed is no longer that detrimental.
• Kip up - ooh so cool, false, not cool just stand up like everyone else. I could see some characters using this feat to some success, won't be me though.
• Side step and Improved sidestep - yaaa I can accomplish the same thing by just being tactical and understanding the initiative, delay action, ready action rules.
• Step up - if this didn't take my reaction, I would take it. You can take step up and strike, paying two feats to basically accomplish what you can do in Pathfinder with one feat.
• Strike back - very conditional, not worth a feat slot.
• Veiled threat - I want someone to take this feat so I can make fun of them during the game, then trick them and make them unaware that I mocked them. Definitely, without a doubt get this feat, said no one ever.
• Stand still - Awesome, I can stop your movement with an AoO, sounds great, sign me up, oh wait When you attack them they get +8 AC what the......? Oh you can spend two feats on this to lower it to +4 AC for the target. Seems like an unnecessary penalty to your AoO for trying to protect your team.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For kip up, I think the important thing to remember is that standing up is normally a move action and five foot step is now a move action, so theres lots of reasons to want it to be swift.
For step up, this isn't pathfinder and there's enough rule differences that saying, well I can do that with one feat in pathfinder is meaningless.
Diversion's major benefit is allowing allies to attempt to hide with stealth checks without having cover or concealment. I'm not sure what gms are allowing pcs to hide in plain sight with neither of those things.
For sidestep and improved sidestep I would say two things. The first is that because of more bounded accuracy in starfinder flanking bonus is more important which makes being able to maneuver around an opponent without AoO potentially pretty useful. The second thing I will say is that full attacks are the best dpr usually and you can't full attack if you guarded step but you can if you guarded stepped as a reaction(to get better positioning for your allies to flank.)
Are the feats you listed the best of the bunch? No. But some of them could be pretty useful, and most feats are pretty situational and especially as a soldier you get a ton of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No mention of Combat Casting? It's on my 'take never' list. It doesn't change whether you get AoO'd, it's just that if you give the enemy a chance of interrupting your spell you get a +2 AC against the AoO, as opposed to the at par/no chance of interruption if you move away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kip Up:
Prone is a lot more relevant now in ranged fights (and getting to melee through ranged fire).
Being able to go prone in situations where you're advancing under fire, and then kip up and take a full turn is actually not bad. It really puts prone in the 'free' action with no downsides bucket: even if you can't do it every turn due to only having one swift action.
ie.
Round 1: Run/Jet Dash > prone
Round 2: Kip up > Charge (or charge attack, nimble fusillade, smash through whatever)
I think Kip up is aimed at melee or hybrid melee/ranged (blast weapons like shotguns and flamethrowers), not just because it helps vs trip, but because it allows you to use prone a lot more freely.
Step up/Sidestep:
these let you manage soft cover from enemies a lot more effectively, if someone uses a guarded step to give a firing lane to an ally, step up helps with that.
Improved step up is an accessible way to disrupt standard action spells without needing reach: you can't achieve this with the old pathfinder methods like readying ranged attacks, or combat reflexes. It also lets you AoO ranged attackers obviously.
It's a lot harder to create situations where you can disrupt spells in starfinder (due to rules changes), but when you can make the attempt within the new rules, it's a LOT easier - as you only need to do 1 damage to guarantee failure of the spell.
These are in addition to their flanking/locking in combat purposes.
------
There's a bit of an apparent meta shift from pathfinder->starfinder to facilitate more ranged combat, as it was pretty clunky to fit into Pathfinder. Now it's easier: but the understanding is that cover, prone, gap closing, different spell rules, and so on will shift the way you run encounters slightly.
In theory this should change from 'everyone starts in pounce range' to something a bit more dynamic.
In practice, it will depend on GMs, players and module-writers to provide avenues to make this system flow the way it seems to be intended.
At a bare minimum, I see relative positioning and cover availability as being a key component of most encounters in starfinder: whereas before it was not for many groups.
|
|
No mention of Combat Casting? It's on my 'take never' list. It doesn't change whether you get AoO'd, it's just that if you give the enemy a chance of interrupting your spell you get a +2 AC against the AoO, as opposed to the at par/no chance of interruption if you move away.
Oh ya I was going to mention that one too, it's god awful.
|
|
For kip up, I think the important thing to remember is that standing up is normally a move action and five foot step is now a move action, so theres lots of reasons to want it to be swift.
For step up, this isn't pathfinder and there's enough rule differences that saying, well I can do that with one feat in pathfinder is meaningless.
Diversion's major benefit is allowing allies to attempt to hide with stealth checks without having cover or concealment. I'm not sure what gms are allowing pcs to hide in plain sight with neither of those things.
For sidestep and improved sidestep I would say two things. The first is that because of more bounded accuracy in starfinder flanking bonus is more important which makes being able to maneuver around an opponent without AoO potentially pretty useful. The second thing I will say is that full attacks are the best dpr usually and you can't full attack if you guarded step but you can if you guarded stepped as a reaction(to get better positioning for your allies to flank.)
Are the feats you listed the best of the bunch? No. But some of them could be pretty useful, and most feats are pretty situational and especially as a soldier you get a ton of them.
One thing, I think you misunderstand what designers call bounded accuracy, when my soldier gets +20 to hit from BAB and prob 24-26 STR, + other modifiers at higher levels, that does not fall under the topic of bounded accuracy, I'm not trying to defend or criticize bounded accuracy, just want you to do some research on what the term means in relation to game design.
https://olddungeonmaster.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/bounded-accuracy/
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You kind of cut the power of jet dash in half and called it crappy. Jet dash Benefit: When running, you move six times your land speed.
Whenever you jump, double the height and distance you can jump. While running, you don’t gain the flat-footed condition.
Don't look at it for just the run look at it for the jump need to make a 10 high jump to get on a walk way? Dc 20 (not easy at level one but Alot more likely than the dc 40
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally skill synergy annoys me. It's not necessarily bad for what it does, but a lot of times someone just wants to pick up one extra class skill and it's frustrating you can't split the benefit.
Step up - if this didn't take my reaction, I would take it. You can take step up and strike, paying two feats to basically accomplish what you can do in Pathfinder with one feat.
I'm not sure why you think it's one feat in Pathfinder. Step Up and Strike exists in PF too. The Starfinder version is better, even, since it doesn't also cost you your next swift action and includes Following Step baked in.
Not really sure the complaint about Diversion makes all that much sense either. A GM giving you a feat for free isn't really a knock against the feat. It's still a fairly niche thing, admittedly.
Step up - if this didn't take my reaction, I would take it. You can take step up and strike, paying two feats to basically accomplish what you can do in Pathfinder with one feat.I'm not sure why you think it's one feat in Pathfinder. Step Up and Strike exists in PF too. The Starfinder version is better, even, since it doesn't also cost you your next swift action and includes Following Step baked in.
Step up -> step up and strike is an interesting one.
On the one hand, it's good that it's only two feats now.
On the other hand, since step up doesnt provide extra reaction/AoO, it's only purpose without the next feat is to maintain a cover bonus from using your enemy as a meat shield.
Step up, by itself, is no longer a marking/AoO feat at all: unless you get an additional reaction from a different source outside the CRB, or take the second feat.
The feat really needed to provide the extra reaction AoO with the first feat, and a selection of minor improvements with the second (10ft movement and +2 to hit on the AoO, and the ability to take an attack instead of an AoO would be good).
Instead we've converted a:
Good -> mediocre -> Good chain
into a
mediocre -> Good chain
Which is an improvement on the chain once it's finished, but an obvious detriment on the single feat.
Their intention was good, but the implementation was a bit uncomfortable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deadly Aim turns out to be a rather poor feat now that I've run the math. The -2 to hit heavily outweighs the +1/2 level to damage and reduces your average damage per round at basically every level and AC range (Save when you are still going to hit on 1s or already only hitting on 20s)
Jet Dash is really really useful on a melee character.
Besides it makes for some cinematic as hell scenes.
That guy shooting you across the room, from around the corner of a shuttle? I can move at him, and literally jump over the shuttle to land behind him.
I find it allows me to stop thinking of cover as a solid wall I have to go around. I can now go over pretty much just as easily.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No mention of Combat Casting? It's on my 'take never' list. It doesn't change whether you get AoO'd, it's just that if you give the enemy a chance of interrupting your spell you get a +2 AC against the AoO, as opposed to the at par/no chance of interruption if you move away.Oh ya I was going to mention that one too, it's god awful.
Uh what?
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to your Armor Class and saving throws against attacks of opportunity you provoked by casting a spell and against readied actions triggered by your spellcasting.
As the first AP gladly shows, you’re not always going to have the luxury of range, so CC is actually really good, and the bonus against readied actions is very nice.
As the first AP gladly shows, you’re not always going to have the luxury of range, so CC is actually really good, and the bonus against readied actions is very nice.
I'll probably be playing the AP at some stage, so if you could keep your reply spoiler-free, I'd be very appreciative: but can you give some general context as to why saving throws against readied actions are meaningful?
Is it a spoilerific monster ability?
Does it affect non-full round action spells?
The rules in the CRB dictate that readied actions process after the action, so they cant be used to disrupt spells, generally in starfinder. This may or may not be something that get's modified in an errata later: i feel they tried to fix a different problem and created a new one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think she is saying that the AP shows that you often end up in close quarters so the feat is actually useful.
For the saves I can see it applying against spells that were readied and for effects that ride with attacks.
I do agree with your last point that that creates some problems and is very likely a leftover error.
Edit: what the two above me said, melee combat is still very much a thing.
I think she is saying that the AP shows that you often end up in close quarters so the feat is actually useful.
My question was mainly aimed at the fact that the readied action rules prevent you from disrupting spells with readied actions, as written, as the attack goes off after the spell is already cast.
(and yes, I hope its an error that's symptomatic of the nonsense readied action vs readied action situations suggested on these forums, and not a desire to remove spell disruption)
You are going to have people up in your face (very often) and thus bonuses against opportunity attacks is going to be very easy.
I have no problem with melee being relevant, so I think that's gratifying to hear. Having it all ranged would be just as annoying as the melee fest that pathfinder was a lot of the time.
They seem to be trying to mix the two more comfortably.
For the saves I can see it applying against spells that were readied and for effects that ride with attacks.
I do agree with your last point that that creates some problems and is very likely a leftover error.
Edit: what the two above me said, melee combat is still very much a thing.
Hope so!
They seem to be trying to mix the two more comfortably.Not... Really?
Most of the enemies we see, at least 1/2, are melee. In my experience so far 2/3 enemies are melee. Melee hits harder than ranged combat (especially at lower levels) and while melee hits less often, they have made it so that melee combatants have equal to or greater range than your average ranged weapon.
At level 2, in heavy armor, I could move up to 75 feet and still attack. That is greater range than most weapons (which have a range of 60).
My comment was more about the fact that in comparison to pathfinder, you don't have to contend with the precise shot problem, where you need to burn a feat to fire into melee effectively.
Whereas before you'd be facing -4 for shooting in melee, -4 soft cover, and ranged penalties, it would really start to stack up.
Since ranged characters no longer immediately get shafted by melee occurring (other than directly being subjected to pummeling) they play better together.
I don't see melee characters reaching melee in the first round as problematic: though I'd argue that starting within 5ft should only happen as often as starting outside of charge range, as a point of balance.
Do remember that basic charging is worse now, and even as a Blitz, you don't get to offset the penalty until level 5 (and you still don't get the attack bonus from Pathfinder).
Also, the math in your comparison is a bit off (not that it actually matters, the point you're making doesnt rely on it being 100% accurate. Just thought I'd let you know.)
If you do care at all:
I think you're applying your heavy armor penalty once to your entire charge, rather than once to your speed, which is then doubled.
'Range' in weapon tables refers to range increments, not max range. When you shoot further than that, you take a -2 for each additional increment outside: so you can feasibly shoot quite a lot further than basic charge range. Max range for non thrown weapons is 10 increments, though considering that's -18 to hit, we're entering silly territory there, for the most part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My list of 10 underwhelming Starfinder feats
• Improved Critical - so I increase my crit range? NO. So I can increase my crit magnifier? NO, just increases the D.C. Of your crit effects by 2. Uh no thanks, not now, not ever, not when I only have a 1 in 20 chance of critting.
This is easily the worst. On (nearly) 1/200 shots this feat will do something! That something might be pretty weak or actually nothing, depending on your weapon and its special crit effects or lack thereof.
For the saves I can see it applying against spells that were readied and for effects that ride with attacks.
I do agree with your last point that that creates some problems and is very likely a leftover error.
Edit: what the two above me said, melee combat is still very much a thing.
I can stand still with Combat Casting and have a +2 to my AC and be vulnerable to a full attack next round, or I can move away with Mobility and have a +4 to my AC and no vulnerability to a full attack. I think I know which one I'll choose.
My list of 10 underwhelming Starfinder feats
• Improved Critical - so I increase my crit range? NO. So I can increase my crit magnifier? NO, just increases the D.C. Of your crit effects by 2. Uh no thanks, not now, not ever, not when I only have a 1 in 20 chance of critting.
This is easily the worst. On (nearly) 1/200 shots this feat will do something! That something might be pretty weak or actually nothing, depending on your weapon and its special crit effects or lack thereof.
I can stand still with Combat Casting and have a +2 to my AC and be vulnerable to a full attack next round, or I can move away with Mobility and have a +4 to my AC and no vulnerability to a full attack. I think I know which one I'll choose.For the saves I can see it applying against spells that were readied and for effects that ride with attacks.
I do agree with your last point that that creates some problems and is very likely a leftover error.
Edit: what the two above me said, melee combat is still very much a thing.
Mobility doesn’t give you AC versus readied attacks nor does it give a bonus vs saves. And if the other person was wanting to full attack ya and they have a gun they’re probably gonna full attack even if you are 30 more feet away.
Addressing mostly the spoiler...
Ah, apologies :)
I think you are missing the factor that ACs are supposed to scale jsut as fast as to-hit bonuses. Yeah, soldier is at +30 to hit, but against a 37-43 AC.
I'm not expecting to have many encounters of "hitting on 2" unless there are a lot of enemies of lower CR.
One thing, I think you misunderstand what designers call bounded accuracy, when my soldier gets +20 to hit from BAB and prob 24-26 STR, + other modifiers at higher levels, that does not fall under the topic of bounded accuracy, I'm not trying to defend or criticize bounded accuracy, just want you to do some research on what the term means in relation to game design.
https://olddungeonmaster.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/bounded-accuracy/
Mobility doesn’t give you AC versus readied attacks nor does it give a bonus vs saves. And if the other person was wanting to full attack ya and they have a gun they’re probably gonna full attack even if you are 30 more feet away.My list of 10 underwhelming Starfinder feats
• Improved Critical - so I increase my crit range? NO. So I can increase my crit magnifier? NO, just increases the D.C. Of your crit effects by 2. Uh no thanks, not now, not ever, not when I only have a 1 in 20 chance of critting.
This is easily the worst. On (nearly) 1/200 shots this feat will do something! That something might be pretty weak or actually nothing, depending on your weapon and its special crit effects or lack thereof.
I can stand still with Combat Casting and have a +2 to my AC and be vulnerable to a full attack next round, or I can move away with Mobility and have a +4 to my AC and no vulnerability to a full attack. I think I know which one I'll choose.For the saves I can see it applying against spells that were readied and for effects that ride with attacks.
I do agree with your last point that that creates some problems and is very likely a leftover error.
Edit: what the two above me said, melee combat is still very much a thing.
The things the caster cares about are (1) getting the spell off and (2) not taking damage, in that order. Anything else is just a bonus. Moving guarantees (1), and Mobility succeeds 10% more often at (2). Since readied actions (pending a FAQ resolving the ambiguity in an unexpected direction) don't disrupt spells anymore and saves as a result of an AoO or readied action are super fringe I don't care about those.
Mobility doesn’t really help with “I ready an action to shoot em if they cast a spell”. And if you play Dead Suns you reaally like having those boosted saves.
I am aware.
|
|
I've pondered a few starfinder feats and it looks like there are some unexpected traps, particularly when you consider technology. Other folks have mentioned other stuff on my list, so I'm not including, say Deadly Aim or Stand Still here.
————————————————
Potential traps
————————————————
Adaptive Fighting: Once a day, as a move action, with high prerequisites. I'm not impressed; there's just not really enough in the combat feats to justify this.
Antagonize: I don't know why you would ever take this instead of Amplified Glitch, for that type of action.
Climbing Master: Now that it's pretty easy to get jetpacks, I feel like this is less valuable. But if you've got extra arms, it probably is.
Fast Talk: While cool and thematic for a lot of builds, you really have to trust your party to make this worthwhile. If you're not doing a bunch of super surprise assassinations, I think you won't get much mileage.
Fleet: Now that you can replace your legs with better, faster legs, I think it's less useful.
Master Crafter: Crafting takes you max 4 hours. I don't see a lot of situations where saving 2 hours would ever really matter.
Nimble Moves: Again, jetpacks and jump jets. If you can fly, you don't need to worry about difficult terrain as much.
Opening Volley: I want this to be cool, but it's just so situational I can't trust that it's going to be.
Quick Draw: For a lot of items, you can quick draw out of your cyberarm. It doesn't work for everything, but in a tight spot, it'd be an affordable way to turn ~3000 credits into a feat's bonus. (Or be a Ysoki and kinda get Quick Draw and Kip Up for free)
Spry Cover: You'd have to have a really specialized synergy with your party to make this work.
Toughness: Given how Stamina works, I'm not sure this is as good an investment as it used to be.
————————————————
That being said, I did have a few feats I really liked in Starfinder:
————————————————
Surprisingly good?
————————————————
Veiled Threat: This pretty much lets you turn Intimidate into Diplomacy. If you don't have a lot of skill points, that can be pretty handy. But, pretty hefty requirement.
Suppressive Fire: I like how there's an option for automatic weapons that isn't "use up all of your ammo at once." I think you could get a lot out of this one, if your party is in on you using it. That being said: not for envoys. They have better use for their Move actions, to say the least.
Skill Synergy: I am all about this skill. First, it reduces clutter by taking out all of the +2/+2 skills left over from D&D 3.5, and second, it adds class skills. If you're a Soldier, especially, this is super handy at odd levels. I've taken it twice in my Dead Suns game.
Kip Up: There's no real good technological replacement for this (well, or you could be a Ysoki), and you can do a lot with proneness as a defense against ranged.
Jet Dash: I love the idea of going a billion miles per hour and jumping fifteen feet in the air, so sue me.
Cleave: I think this might be really worth it, since it's one of the few ways to get multiple attacks on a Standard action.
I think you are missing the factor that ACs are supposed to scale jsut as fast as to-hit bonuses. Yeah, soldier is at +30 to hit, but against a 37-43 AC.
I'm not expecting to have many encounters of "hitting on 2" unless there are a lot of enemies of lower CR.
One thing, I think you misunderstand what designers call bounded accuracy, when my soldier gets +20 to hit from BAB and prob 24-26 STR, + other modifiers at higher levels, that does not fall under the topic of bounded accuracy, I'm not trying to defend or criticize bounded accuracy, just want you to do some research on what the term means in relation to game design.
https://olddungeonmaster.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/bounded-accuracy/
Nah, they're not missing anything. According to that article they linked, the purpose of bounded accuracy is less "you have the same chance to hit an equal difficulty challenge" so much as "a level 1 threat never stops being a threat, but likewise a level 1 PC might be a threat no matter the enemy's difficulty." By that definition, Starfinder does not in fact count as Bounded Accuracy, because while you may always have an X% chance of hitting an equal CR opponent, if you were to face an enemy a few levels above you you'd be hard-pressed to hit them at all, while an enemy a few levels below you will probably be a cake walk.
|
|
In regards to improved critical.
I played three session so this game with a live group. In three sessions my players landed six criticals. Those criticals used lasers which set fire to the enemy.
For the most part that wasn't a big deal since low level enemies die easy without being set on fire.
But against higher level opponents, doing extra damage each round due to burning is going to really add up. Doubling the save to put it out is nasty.
|
Toughness: Given how Stamina works, I'm not sure this is as good an investment as it used to be.
What is your reasoning about this?
Stamina is the easier one to recover. The more stamina you have, the fewer resources you spend healing hit points. I would think that makes SF's Toughness more valuable than PF's version.
|
The rules generally stop players from playing the semantic game. Starting to cast the spell is the same action as casting the spell.
I mostly agree with you.
But, there are occasions when the rules more or less REQUIRE one to play that semantic game.
For example, an incorporeal creature attacking out of the wall. Unless a ready action can be taken to attack the incorporeal creatures hand as it strikes there is NOTHING that PCs can do to harm it. Which would mean that incorporeal means "run or die". And I don't think that is either what the game wants or anything at all desireable.
I have to agree with hwalsh here. There are a lot of situational feats that adaptive fighting can help you grab and use as needed. In addition to the examples he gave I'd like to add blind fight and farshot. It's important to note that if you decide you want one of those feats permanently or decide it's not very good you get a chance every level to reshuffle the three. It's actually a very good feat, especially for feat starved builds.
Starfinder changed readied actions to occur after the triggering action, so readied actions to attack someone when they cast a spell now go off after the spell is cast.
Only purely defensive actions readied go off before the triggering action.
I am aware.
You're aware there's no longer any incentive to ready an action against a spellcaster, but believe a small AC bonus against readied actions makes Combat Casting worthwhile?
Does not compute.
|
|
I've played SFS twice as melee, and a melee build in a private AP game. Granted, all of that's been at max level 4 with a pregen. In my private game, I'm only level 3 so adaptive fighting hasn't been a possibility yet.
Quick draw: Yep, you're right. But for certain conditions, you can get around it. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's got a big benefit for two-handers, but if you're more of a wild west high noon quickdraw mcgraw kinda feller, you might get more mileage out of cybernetics and a different feat.
Long story short, if I spent a feat on quickdraw as an Operative, I'd be upset that I wasted a feat.
Amplified glitch: The targets have to be within sight or hearing of a technological device, so if you've got one, you can pull this off. For the investment of an L-bulk tier 1 computer for 55 credits, it can work within 30' of you.
Long story short, if I took Antagonize at level 5 and saw someone with a palm pilot and Amplified Glitch getting more out of their debuff (shaken vs off-target) two levels earlier, I'd be upset that I wasted a feat.
Kip up: You know, jump jets activate "as part of a move action in order to fly during your movement..." Maybe you can just use jump jets to boomp yourself up off the floor. If that's the case, then ditch kip up, I'd say.
Long story short, yeah probably not worth it, but I think you could make it work for you.
Toughness: I've always had a mystic around in the games I've played, and they've never had much to do with their HP healing. I'm more looking at this in terms of in-combat killability.
At first level, a vesk soldier will have at least 13 HP and 8 SP (12 con). A dwarf fighter would have 11 HP (12 con). Adding 1 HP to that dwarf fighter is +9% of their HP total. Adding 1 HP to the vesk is less than 5% more killability units.
Going up to level 10, with game-specific con boosts, the vesk (con 16) would have 76HP/100SP baseline (6 + (7*10)) ((7*10) + (3*10)), and the dwarf (con 14) would have 84HP (10 + (6*9) + (10*2)). Adding toughness adds about 5.7% killability units to the vesk, but 11.9% killability units to the dwarf.
Long story short, it depends on whether you look at single-combat killability units (SP+HP) or avoiding ever taking HP damage. If I had a fifteen minute adventuring day, I don't think it'd be too helpful.
So yeah, not like, universally trap options, but given some tech options and other stuff, I don't think they're as handy as they SOUND like they should be.
Topic change:
I can dig why you'd like adaptive fighting. But, from what I've seen in the AP, you'll often get a few waves of enemies, broken up by looting the room or what have you. So you'd be using your one/day feat on a single group of two or three dudes, out of three or four groups. That might have been my gamemaster, but I don't know. Seems familiar, in terms of how other APs I've run have gone.
You'd probably get more mileage out of it in society play, because the combats are less crawly, but that hasn't been an option for me yet. Only three total SFS sessions and all.
The situational bonuses seem like they'd be pretty helpful, but I'm not impressed with the action economy. I might change my tune once I hit level 5 blitz and can charge on a standard action, but the way combats have been going I haven't seen an opportunity when it would really have tilted the balance.
Actually, you know... this whole perspective might be specific to me playing a soldier rather than a solarian.
|
|
The rules generally stop players from playing the semantic game. Starting to cast the spell is the same action as casting the spell.
I mostly agree with you.
But, there are occasions when the rules more or less REQUIRE one to play that semantic game.
For example, an incorporeal creature attacking out of the wall. Unless a ready action can be taken to attack the incorporeal creatures hand as it strikes there is NOTHING that PCs can do to harm it. Which would mean that incorporeal means "run or die". And I don't think that is either what the game wants or anything at all desireable.
Can they actually do this? Incorporeal creatures that is.
You can't see through a wall, so you can't target a creature. This means the incorporeal needs to not be in the wall to make the attack.
In order to make the attack and then withdraw into the wall, you need to be making guarded steps or face attacks of opportunity. How thick is the wall? This means readied actions will work, because the action goes off after the attack and before the guarded step.
So unless you're wall runs through the middle of a square rather than along the edge like most of them, attacking from within a wall isn't possible via the rules.
If it's sticking its head and arms out to attack something on the other side of the wall, technically it's trying to inhabit that opponents square to do so, this also isn't possible by the rules.
Does this limit the types of attacks by incorporeal? Yes it does. Is that better than making them impossible to hit? Yes it is.
Starfinder changed readied actions to occur after the triggering action, so readied actions to attack someone when they cast a spell now go off after the spell is cast.
Only purely defensive actions readied go off before the triggering action.I am aware.You're aware there's no longer any incentive to ready an action against a spellcaster, but believe a small AC bonus against readied actions makes Combat Casting worthwhile?
Does not compute.
We've had a discussion above speculating that the readied action rules will be errata'd back into a state where readied actions are functional methods of interrupting casting.
Since the existence of certain things like combat casting seems to imply an environment where combat casting should still work in some manner.
It's just as possible that combat casting would have made sense before the rules were changed/refined into their current state, and it's simply a vestigial feat that accidentally got included, or didn't get an update pass that it should have prior to the CRB being released.
There is no reason for readied actions to be able to interrupt casters.
I'm not disputing your reading of the rules RAW, but there are several reasons:
- its the first printing of a new ruleset, and we've yet to recieve a comprehensive FAQ or Errata
- it's functioned differently for 17 years previously (both the parent system, and the grandparent system)
- a feat's functionality in conjunction with the rule is of questionable value
One of those might be considered insufficient for doubt, but it adds up: it's obviously insufficient for you, and that's fine: RAW will back up your interpretation until we know otherwise.
I personally don't mind either way the chips fall: I'm not a big fan of readied actions to disrupt spells already, I believe it slows down play, and if they give options for ranged characters to do it, I'd prefer them to be automatic class features that dont require a readied action. I can totally see why they might have made such a change.
With that said: I disagree that there's "No reason" for doubt.
|
|
Combat casting has far more utility than you're giving it credit for.
There are going to be times where you can't take a guarded step and avoid an AoO if you're trying to cast.
Back against a wall (or whatever you were using for cover before the guy with the sword appeared in your face), surrounded by enemies, reach are all examples where that's applicable. All of them mean having the bonus to not fail the spell is important.
You could of course choose not to bother with that feat, but then there's no reason to be complaining when you're caught in the situations outlined above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggested that moving and taking the AoO from movement, then casting, was preferable to staying there, taking the AoO from casting and hoping the +2 from combat casting would save you. In the one case the spell's at risk, in the other it isn't. Guarded steps where possible are ideal of course but for combat casting to be an option they must be ineffective for some reason.
Readied actions, mentioned by Rysky, can't interrupt a spell either.