*gasp* I know, dozens of threads about what the Settings and RUles do not have and what we want them to add in. How about we do the opposite of that, what we don't want added in later additions.
Now you're thinking to yourself, Steven, how could you be such a meanie poopy head and not want more things in this new system, don't you know lack of content will turn people off to the system.
While this may be true to some extent, I just want to avoid bloat. A common problem that Pathfinder had; is that over the years they kept adding new Feats, Items, Classes, Subclasses, Prestiges, Monsters, Weapons and Spells. But never a new skill. (Something to look into maybe) This caused many problems, for many of you power gamers, addition of feats and other accoutrement; and yes I am using that word correctly, look it up; led to either them being discarded as situational at best or a trap at worst or they were way better than anything else previously added and became a staple in pretty much every build.
I prefer this game tries to avoid that as much as possible, since well it gets boring seeing every build use the same feats. Now this cannot be done by making the classes not need them as options, since people will want 100% Maximum in every numerical category they can, so making choices like Iron Will or a Ring of Resistance not mandatory just in turn makes them stronger as everyone starts at an even higher base value. Too much of that and a Level 1 feels like an epic hero even if they are just a nerf herder. (Not inherently bad either, but the system must support that playstyle)
Now being that this is a new system, albeit a tweaking of the previous one, there is not much to use and a lot to add. What I think is important is to outline what we as a community don't think is beneficial to the overall health of the system, so as to avoid such claims such as, Mathfinder or Numbers the Numbers Game.
Now common problems I observed at my tables over the many years of game playing may not be something you have encountered, or it might be something you knew but couldn't put to words or even something you knew and want to bring up, this is important to have this discussion and I believe we are long overdue.
Problem #1: Multi-classing: Now I enjoy the odd dip, because variety is the spice of life and who else is going to smuggle all that precious spice off Arrakis. The occasional taking of one or two classes to add some features and abilities that compliment and add to the playstyle of your INTENDED character, (we all know the What I made/ What the DM saw/ What I played). But my problem lies in the many many builds of Take 2 Levels of Sorcerer, 3 Monk, 10 barbarian and 1 Cleric of Angry Stick. Those exist solely to hit some ridiculous mark that would never be needed out of a single person.
Now this is a complex problem because frankly how do you prevent this from becoming a problem, you have so many classes doing so many things that eventually some things click and bleed into each other too good or too weird. This to me has to be addressed early on so to prevent it from being a terrible decision all the time or almost mandatory the rest. I think this can be addressed only when the game has a small pool of classes to choose from. And should be looked at not about what the other classes can give you, but what the classes are lacking. So if someone wanted to say be a Melee Mechanic but always dips Soldier or Solarion, look at what can we give the Mechanic so they can stay a melee character if they chose to without needing to dip or for a whole lot. Now this does go into another problem of classes stepping on each others toes, but I would rather have a bad dance partner and a great evening then spend a few hours trying to find the zipper on my dates dress because they wore 18 coats and I need a half a dozen manuals to understand why everything works together. So I feel like more options being available to classes would be a better long term solution than isolating classes into a niche role only they can fill.
Problem #2: Feats: I am not saying I do not want more feats, what I am saying is the feats being added must not just be a requirement to do something common well or only for something exotic that requires a dozen levels before it works.
This is noted in many two-weapon builds, usually requiring some f*~+ery to get feats early or meet requirements in a weird way. I am not much of a fan of that, don't really think anyone is. Countless threads about people dropping one or two of the requirements for two-weapon fighting or just dropping some penalties to not make it take forever before you can dual wield knives without stabbing your own eye. This is a pretty simple problem compared to the last one. Not that feats should be selfcontained but that feats should not rely upon one another to be useful. A possible solution is the removal of prerequisite feats. Allow the players the access to do the things they want to do, but curb the power they receive out of them. Which is actually much easier now, with added levels of items. You can put restrictions on what they can be used with less on what type of item can be used and more on what level it can be used at/with. So this removes penalties that annoy players, why should you be worse at something you took a feat to be able to do.
Problem #3: Rituals: This might be a problem I and very few people had, but it did annoy me plenty, a player, not always the same one. Would try to perform some ritual to gain power, example Lichdom. Having a ritual that exists to change fundamentally what the player is, usually causes problems. So a player wants to be a Vampire, well now they have to go find one, but they can't just be bitten otherwise they are a thrall, so now they need to go on a quest to find a magical item and a book and some old guy in a swamp on a mountain to do a ritual to make them a vampire. This tends to grind everything to a halt and either makes the player way overpowered or just was a way to delay them leveling and now are back in line with everyone else.
Now what this really boils down to is, I don't much care for miniquests in the books as a way to get power. I understand there are ways for quick power to be gained, at a cost. But they never have these as something that could be done quickly, it's always written as some long, many year process to achieve the goal and then stated it's not intended for players to do this or be careful because they may become overpowered. Just stop adding those, if the player wants to add in they are a space lich or cyber werewolf don't put in rules for how it should be done, just what they get as a result. Let us decide how much power that constitutes. And let us determine what they have to do to achieve there goal.
To be fair I would prefer they don't add it to begin with, as after a certain point the cost benefit is negligible to the point of why is not everyone at a certain point also a Insert Magical Being Here because it only costs a fraction of their time and resources to do and they just get stat increases out of it.
I have other things I would like to have kept out of future books but I see this post is getting long and will want to see what others think should be forgotten on later releases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is deeply amusing that a post decrying bloat within the game would be so bloated.
In the spirit of participation though:
1) 9th level casters. I don't mind them as much as many, but a 9th level wizard-equivalent that can also use longarms at full proficiency might get a bit out of hand.
2) Pathfinder style archetypes. I keep going back and forth, and so may change my mind again, but for now I want them to stay under wraps.
3) We Be Space Goblins. This one is almost inevitable, but hopefully they'll hold off for at least a little longer.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I want is endless possibilities, a system supported by a wide array of various supplemental material that allows me to craft any kind of story or character I want, similar to Pathfinder. What I don't want is the opposite of that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread should be called "Things I don't want in Starfinder" as everyone participating can only really speak for themselves.
I am pretty sure we are safe from space wizards given that Owen K.C. Stephens had that done as 3rd party (Starfairer's Companion).
Now, as for things i do not want in Starfinder:
Retconning. If X happens in published content (be it a campaign or a source book), and it would have any impact down to this point in time, it shouldn't be ignored. There may not be much like this, but lets say a deity/demigod changes alignment, dies, ect. If/when they get mentioned in starfinder it should be acknowledged. Where there is a change between pathfinder and starfinder's setting, there should be an in universe reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’d prefer no 1st-party full casters.
We finally have a fantasy setting where magic isn’t always the best way to solve a problem. Let’s keep it that way.
I am pretty sure we are safe from space wizards given that Owen K.C. Stephens had that done as 3rd party (Starfairer's Companion).
Oh, speaking of a book that is 'Stuff I didn't want in Starfinder' incarnate. I really don't want stuff that is just 'X IN SPACE!', if something new is being made it should be a new take on it rather than just trying to translate the same mechanics from one to the other.
I am pretty sure we are safe from space wizards given that Owen K.C. Stephens had that done as 3rd party (Starfairer's Companion).Oh, speaking of a book that is 'Stuff I didn't want in Starfinder' incarnate. I really don't want stuff that is just 'X IN SPACE!', if something new is being made it should be a new take on it rather than just trying to translate the same mechanics from one to the other.
Oh, there is nothing wrong with conversions, but I think such are left to Conversion Rules, Web enhancement, and 3rd Party.
Im all for the idea the disciplines of old having evolved over the.. however long it has been, but it aught to be an evolution.
What I want is endless possibilities, a system supported by a wide array of various supplemental material that allows me to craft any kind of story or character I want, similar to Pathfinder. What I don't want is the opposite of that.
I second this! ...Hopefully coalesced into one book, and not a bunch of relatively obscure sources you can never find at your local bookstore or game shop.
While I adore the system as a whole and I know it's still pretty new, a relative lack of options is a bit jarring. Especially since I play a Soldier, who gets a starshipload.
I also don't want them to keep the wonky weapon progression they have right now. Like, have complete lines of different weapons types (i.e. spears, swords, elements of ranged weapons) that update every 1-2 levels. And again, preferably not scattered through a bunch of different books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I, a respectable nitrogen based lifeform, would like are highly profitable easily exploited resources. Much like the Bloatmaster 9000tm. A simple to use tool for your fleshly thought organs to process and easy to afford through your pitiful economic systems. Without the added cost of whole sale slaughter of potentially intelligent plant life by robotic slavery to produce primitve forms of communication the Bloatmaster 9000tm Gives you millions of possible options for every available situation but only one that is useful. Not unlike life in the universe.
|
The number one thing I don't want to see is publication categories like Pathfinder has.
The way Pathfinder has a bunch of books getting published that are official first party material but at the same time as a rule will never be errata'd, FAQ'd, updated or even acknowledged by the core development team is pretty ridiculous.
Hopefully Paizo's stated release plans for Starfinder avoid that. Though I guess on the flip side I'm a little worried about 5e-esque content droughts too.
well... their current schedule is a bit of drip every two months in the AP and then a big book every 6 months.
I think this is the best way to go. It's both affordable and digestible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll echo those calling for restraint. Especially when it comes to feats and spells. Pathfinder has gotten *incredibly* unwieldy when it comes to those two aspects of character advancement.
I'd also like to see continued restraint on bonuses (this ties into feats and spells). Pathfinder has become a game of stacking bonuses on tops of bonuses. It's fun in its own way but it's no way to keep a system clean.
The problem here though is that I'd really like Paizo to also continue to make money. But I really want them to resist the temptation to just start publishing content at a Pathfinder rate in order to do so.
Not having some type of 9 Level spellcaster would be setting breaking. The only reasons for such a thing to happen would be if A) Magic had actually waned in effectiveness in the universe (which doesn't seem to be the case), or B) Because people don't want it in there.
It could be that a 9th level caster would not be a Society legal class, require great age, or something else, but to not exist breaks the logic of the worlds.
Now for how to handle them, that's where restraint could come in. In many ways I could picture spells above 6th level having their own system (something like Words of Power, but Starfindered). The implication being that once you go past a certain level you're kinda on your own. There isn't a script kinda thing.
Feats, keep them rarer, but useful.
And one thing that came to mind in the discussion of Multi-Classing would be additional themes. E.G. The core classes are also themes. So a Ysoki Soldier(theme) Mechanic (class) would pick up 1 Str or Dex (stat that is key ability score), gain +1 BAB at levels 1 and 12, and select a primary style at level 6, treating your solider level as Character level-5.
Multi-classing with full levels of classes is almost always going to either end up very sub-par (but possibly flavorful) or gimmickly broken. That's why I think themes are where the dual focus could come from best.
I don't know about themes, I think you are talking more about archetypes. Either way I agree that it would be nice for those of us that want that multiclass feel.
The thing I don't want is something I've seen mentioned many times in other threads, I don't want feats that turn something I could conceivably do without a feat turned into feats. Feats should be about adding options, not reducing them.
The problem with Archtypes is they inherently take away something from the primary class (especially in Starfinder). Very few classes, at a glance, aren't severely hampered by taking an archtype. Themes however are specifically something in addition to the primary class (which is what most people are going for when they want to multi-class).
It could be that a 9th level caster would not be a Society legal class, require great age, or something else, but to not exist breaks the logic of the worlds.
I don't see how. Whatever caused the Gap didn't just erase everyone's memories, but also changed the very fabric of reality, including the way magic worked.
It's plenty logical to say such things existed, but no longer do.
That's the whole point of the Gap--it's a literary tool used to explain away all the differences between the systems' mechanics. It's also a big fat juicy hook on which can hang a thousand stories and adventures. If you ask me, it's lazy, but effective.
Why are things different? Nobody knows, but it likely has something to do with the Gap. In fact, most probably don't know enough to even recognize that anything is different!
What your saying though is that an Android Technomancer or Mystic who, lets say decides to forgo releasing his hold on his body for several hundred years, would reach a point where is magical abilities would no longer improve past a certain point. If this is what is being said, that should be (at some point... yes, it is still early) stated as some type of glass ceiling or such.
I don't have my AA handy, but I do recall there being beings with magical abilities that seem to be well beyond what a PC could achieve. This would contradict the limited magic aspect as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What your saying though is that an Android Technomancer or Mystic who, lets say decides to forgo releasing his hold on his body for several hundred years, would reach a point where is magical abilities would no longer improve past a certain point.
How is that different than in pathfinder where level 9 spells are the cap. A person who studies for hundreds of years would still never get past 9th level spells. It may be a higher cap but it's still a cap.
@kappaIan
I understand that archetypes cost more than themes, but that's kinda the point. You can't get very much out of a theme because if you make a theme grant very much more than the other themes (none of which grant a great deal so far) then it becomes such an obvious choice that there really isn't any choice at all. An archetype costs a lot, but it can then grant a lot, which leads to something closer to a multiclass while still allowing a class to scale in a way more in line with normal single class characters.
There are two problems with archetypes as they stand, one is that for most classes taking one of the two archetypes we've seen so far means giving up their chosen class abilities until a high level. This is bad because you don't get to feel very much like your base class. The second problem is that the soldier gives up the least to get an archetype by a lot, so it's an obvious choice to take an archetype as a soldier as soon as there are archetypes that don't suck in general. This may change as more feats become available and the opportunity cost of giving up combat feats increases.
Sorry for the aside. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
Not having some type of 9 Level spellcaster would be setting breaking. The only reasons for such a thing to happen would be if A) Magic had actually waned in effectiveness in the universe (which doesn't seem to be the case), or B) Because people don't want it in there.
Perhaps here could be a setting reason: Only through the pursuit of magic of a specific expression can achieve some of the greater feats, and those methods have been lost to time. Most have come to understand magic as a singular primary method/force, which may make it easier to channel and utilize (both thematically and mechanically) but it does limit it. Additionally, what if such levels of magic were responsible for what got the gods to get together, move Golarion, and wipe everyone's memory.. Or such more simply; Such levels of magic could at least give answers that the gods do not want known.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My headcanon is that Golarion was a uniquely magically charged place as it was the prison planet of Rovagug which all the gods dedicated themselves to defeating and containing. As such, it attracted an incredibly massive amount of divine interest and the attention of magic focused gods like Nethys also led to an extreme amount of arcane energies to tap into.
With the gods being more distant now and Golarion vanished, we're now playing in a setting with a far more sedate amount of magic.
The Starfinder setting doesn't have an usually low amount of magic. It's got quite a lot! It's the Pathfinder setting that had a weirdly high amount of magic.
Hell the amount of reality warping energies that rampaged across Golarion probably caused problems everywhere else and might be why the gods said "Screw this" and vanished it away.
I guess my point is it shouldn't be head cannon or something we guess at. While obviously many aspects of the Gap are unknown and will likely remain unknown, this is something that would have been researched and tested.
"Hmm, before the gap, we had wizards who could do X. Now they've all lost their upper level power." "let's research and find out what happened"
Because presumably there would have been 9th level casters who lived through the gap if it is what demagicked the setting, then there would be post Gap records of their realization and research in to the matter.
A more specific statement would be that not having 9th level casters WITHOUT a pretty well known explanation (hopefully in Pact Worlds) would break some consistency in the setting since it is supposed to be a continuation (albeit far in the future). If there is no reason given, then it comes across as hand waving to do away with many peoples favorite (though some would say problematic) character type.
I wouldn't mind an Adventure Path built around trying to find that answer :). Of course it seems like the Starfinder design team is reserving the right to put in higher level spell casting if they want to in the future. Hell maybe they could have an Adventure Path that reintroduces high magic! (though I really hope not. 6th level spellcasting is a pretty sweet spot).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I want to know is what a pre-Gap 20th-level elf wizard archmage looks like post-Gap.
Is he now a technomancer? Still a wizard? A unique being with a monster stat block that is inaccessible to PCs under any circumstances? What?
Because presumably there would have been 9th level casters who lived through the gap if it is what demagicked the setting, then there would be post Gap records of their realization and research in to the matter.
That's a pretty big assumption to make. If the entire universe was rewritten, it doesn't seem outrageous that all casters with 7th-9th level spells got "put on a bus." It doesn't even have to have been at the end. This could have happened at the beginning of the gap, and everyone simply got used to them being vanished by the time memory reasserted itself.
My headcannon is Pharasma ate them all (L9 casters) to preserve the Cosmic Balance and end the horribly insanely long arguments about C/M disparity.
"Right... According to the depictions, this sword had a problem cutting through a wooden door... (Mechanically doing 1d8+5+Strength/Feats/Etc) ... A Molecular Rift Longsword with a Holy Fusion and a dispelling fusion puts that thing to absolute shame. (Mechanically doing 10d8+Strength/Feats/Etc)"
This seems like a weird comparison to make, for me, since Pathfinder weapons were never meant to scale with your level like Starfinder weapons do.
I'm pretty sure magic just fundamentally changed.
I feel like discussions about "magic must have changed" are the Starfinder equivalent of the Star Trek "debate" about the klingon makeup changing, and people insisting that there was an in-story reason for it. When there actually was an in-universe conversation about it in DS9, it broke disbelief, and took what could have been a good episode and ruined it. That Enterprise made it a major plot line was a reason I stayed away.
Who says there's no split between arcane and divine magic? There's just no MECHANICAL split. See recent editions of Shadowrun and how they reduced or eliminated the mechanical differences between mages and shamans. Or, if you want a mechanical reason, it's because as learning and science grew, magic was analyzed like just another fundamental force, and from that understanding came new ways of learning how to use it. These new techniques mean that the methods of use are the same, no matter where the power comes from. (Which I think is exactly what they said in the core rules...)
So yeah, put me in the "don't care about 7-9 level magic" crowd. The important stuff from those levels can be made into more limited use abilities like Wish and Miracle. It's like the weapon enchantments getting rid of the +1/2/3/4/5, which became less necessary from a balance perspective after DR was changed from needing said +1/2/3/4/5 to flat "magic" or material based.
Put another way: Starfinder purged a lot of holdouts in the rules that have annoyed me since 2nd Edition D&D, and unlike 5e or the SW "Saga Edition," it didn't put others back in...
Well, yes, that's my real headcannon, that none of it was real from an in-character perspective and its all just player side game rules, but it didn't seem worth the argument to make.
I can't get into starfinder because of the lack of options, really.
Not enough to work with, the inability to exel at most things due to an inability to specialize enough.
When the best ac you can have still sees you getting hit 40% of the time or more, the game seems to me like it's "apprentice, the bumbling."
Not enough options, nor enough power.
I more or less have a stance exactly opposite the op's.
The more options, the more you can do, the better-
I want to be able to create a fighter who dances around projectiles like they're nothing.
Or a marksman who almost never misses.
Or some of the most crazy, off the wall builds I can muster, like the time I built a fighter who possessed a pixie familiar so they could always roll max damage and be hard to hit, so they could dance around with preformance feats every single round.
If the entire universe was rewritten, it doesn't seem outrageous that all casters with 7th-9th level spells got "put on a bus." It doesn't even have to have been at the end. This could have happened at the beginning of the gap, and everyone simply got used to them being vanished by the time memory reasserted itself.
I considered this kind of an option too, but it would be pretty heavily lifted Dragonlance. IIRC the gods removed all their true clerics immediately prior to the destruction is Istar.
60% chance to be missed by an equal level (And thus a reasonable threat for your level) foe seems pretty fair. I mean, if you push it lower than that...how are they an equal level threat?
60% chance to be missed by an equal level (And thus a reasonable threat for your level) foe seems pretty fair. I mean, if you push it lower than that...how are they an equal level threat?
In pathfinder, I can get them to a 95% miss chance for a CR equal enemy if I invest in it enough.
Usually at first level and every level beyond, if I try.
And from there I make sure to get abilities that can force rerolls for nat 20's.
When I make a specialist, I don't want the specialist to fail 40% of the time.
A 60% sucess rate is awful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
60% chance to be missed by an equal level (And thus a reasonable threat for your level) foe seems pretty fair. I mean, if you push it lower than that...how are they an equal level threat?In pathfinder, I can get them to a 95% miss chance for a CR equal enemy if I invest in it enough.
Usually at first level and every level beyond, if I try.
And from there I make sure to get abilities that can force rerolls for nat 20's.
When I make a specialist, I don't want the specialist to fail 40% of the time.
A 60% success rate is awful.
Those are some absurdly high expectations.
The fact that you can't do that in Starfinder isn't a flaw. It's a feature.
The current odds are perfectly fine (and logical) considering two equally skilled combatants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’d prefer no 1st-party full casters.
We finally have a fantasy setting where magic isn’t always the best way to solve a problem. Let’s keep it that way.
I second this notion.
Options will come I'm sure. Being run by Paizo, Starfinder isn't likely to be set up with minimum work/money investment required for the developers & their company and virtually no new material as a result (q.v. D&D 5e).
In pathfinder, I can get them to a 95% miss chance for a CR equal enemy if I invest in it enough.
Usually at first level and every level beyond, if I try.
And from there I make sure to get abilities that can force rerolls for nat 20's.
When I make a specialist, I don't want the specialist to fail 40% of the time.
A 60% sucess rate is awful.
And that's a flaw with Pathfinder, where defence does not scale properly with offence. What's the point of having a dice system if you want to have 95%+ to succeed at things?
In pathfinder, I can get them to a 95% miss chance for a CR equal enemy if I invest in it enough.
That's just broken though.
When I make a specialist, I don't want the specialist to fail 40% of the time.
A 60% sucess rate is awful.
That's a flawed way of looking at it, considering we're talking about a check made by what's supposed to be a CR equivalent threat.
To put it another way, your enemies can be specialists too. You say a 60% success rate is awful. So how then is a 5% success rate from an enemy that, according to the CR system, is supposed to be just as trained and experienced as you supposed to be okay?
I agree with you that Starfinder definitely could stand to have more options and certain features and archetypes need expansion. I'd even argue that Starfinder's math actually makes the game a little more unfriendly than it needs to be to low-Op.
But for this specific issue I think the problem is less Starfinder and more that we've become so accustomed to the utterly broken math in PF and 3.5 that we're actually seeing better tuning as a design flaw.
Seriously think about that for a second. You're in essence complaining about a CR appropriate challenge actually serving as a somewhat CR appropriate challenge.