Ive only played one game and i dont have a rulebook just one I borrowed for a short time. I can check the rules online, Thank you Paizo, but actually understanding how to get the best out of a character without guides is a problem.
#1 defense. Defense seems really simple and overcomplicated. There are different damage types but different armors have pretty much equal in terms of Energy and Kinetic armor class. I think with certain upgrades you can be resistant But I dont see something with 100% fire resistance and -1 bullet damage.
#2 weapons. Small arms(which should include shotguns, submachines and carbines) isnt terrible but it looks like he bottom of the barrel in terms of offense.
Unless you start with better weapons types I think must classes have to use feats to unlock weapons that dont tickle.
#3 spells. Spells seem pretty downgraded compared to earlier pathfinder and Dungeons and Dragons. Fewer/lower tiers, overall fewer per character, few spells per known and some keys ones missing like Polymorph. I need to see an FAQ about Miracle and Wish as i think they make other tier 6 spells redundant or Miracle and Wish are actually horrible. Being forced to relearn 1-6 different tiers of the same spell is padding to make players waste valuable spells caps. I dont know if any spells actually improve based on character level.
I dont know if there will ever be Tier 7-9 spells and specialist equivalents like the Cleric. Until then Im hoping.
#4 Skills. It looks like the number of skills have been reduced and the classes have relatively high skill points per level. I dont know enough about the new skills to compare them, but the combat ones are still must-have and the non-combat skills are probably stuck to specialist classes.
------------------
Im worried that Starfinder is going to do something negative by trying to over-correct on the perceived flaws of earlier game versions. I dont want guns to be weak or spells to be useless because of overs-specialized role. If its not broke down fix it.
I know its a waiting game for new rulebooks to add new things like Sniper Rifles that out-DPR rifles.
1.) Starfinder actually reduced the different types of AC there are as compared to Pathfinder. There's no more Touch AC or Flatfooted AC or Combat Maneuver AC. You just have to worry about Kinetic AC and Energy AC, and it's easy to figure out which kind to use. Does an attack against you deal piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing damage? Use KAC. Otherwise, use EAC.
2.) Small arms are definitely the "simple weapons" of Starfinder. The only class that can really get the most out of them is Operatives. Otherwise, yeah, if you want your Envoy or Mystic or Technomancer to deal some decent damage you're going to need to spend a feat or two to get proficient and then specialized. I'm personally fine with that.
3.) Oh no! Magic isn't your one-stop solution to all problems any more! I am personally glad that sometimes technology is the best way, or maybe the only way, to deal with certain situations. No one should need to play a spellcaster in Starfinder if they don't want to, which is not something you could usually get away with in Pathfinder.
Also, Miracle and Wish are considered capstone features of the Mystic and Technomancer classes respectively. Look at the Level 20 for those features to see how they work in Starfinder.
4.) Which skills do you consider combat and which do you consider non-combat?
In response to your third point, if memory serves, you only need to know the spell at the highest level to be able to cast it at all the lower ones. When your mystic gets access to 2nd level spells, you can learn mystic cure level 2 and in exchange switch the 1st level one for a new spell while still being able to use mystic cure as a 1st level spell when you feel like it. So the padding isn't actually all that bad.
In response to your third point, if memory serves, you only need to know the spell at the highest level to be able to cast it at all the lower ones. When your mystic gets access to 2nd level spells, you can learn mystic cure level 2 and in exchange switch the 1st level one for a new spell while still being able to use mystic cure as a 1st level spell when you feel like it. So the padding isn't actually all that bad.
Let me think. For MYSTIC you have Mind Thurst 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, as well as Mystic Cure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. So 2 spells every tier are reserved and rendered obsolete as soon as you reach the next tier.
Okay to have a scaling, kinda, spell you would need to take it 6 times as opposed to the caster-level improving spells from at least D&D 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
I think I read there is a way to forget the obsolete lower tier versions. Oh yeah its in the "variable spell section". That helps a lot, but I would still have to look to see if any lower tier spells scale up by caster level in terms of effect.
This really feels more like the change between 3.5 and 5.0 dungeons and dragons which did something similar with fixed spells.
ChaosTicket. Every time you gain a level, you can swap out one spell you already know and learn a single new spell of the same level in its place. In effect, you lose the old spell in exchange for the new one. You must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time you gain new spells known for the level.
Copied directly from the technomancer and mystic spell class feature.
I think that takes care of your issue? Take Mind Thrust 2 and Mystic Cure 2 on level up... forget Mind Thrust 1... replace it with something else from 1st level. Then next level up forget Mystic Cure 1 and get something else there etc.
And the very process of learning a higher level version of a spell automatically frees up the spells known slot for the lower level version. This is in addition to the spell swap every level mentioned by Azih.
Whoah. Didn't realize that. That's even better! Takes away a lot of the pain points of being a spontaneous caster in Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ive only played one game and i dont have a rulebook just one I borrowed for a short time. I can check the rules online, Thank you Paizo, but actually understanding how to get the best out of a character without guides is a problem.
This is your problem right here. You only played once and borrowed a book. Most humans hate change. If you played other dnd/paizo games this book changes a lot and a lot of the changes don't immediately show their benefits.
1) Already talked about by Ventnor.
2) The equipment chapter has a lot of content in it. Most of the debates on the board stem from people skimming this section.
3) They aren't down graded. Removing lvl 7-9 spells was one of the best things they changed. You don't need 7, 8, 9th lvl spells when you can do it in 6.
Over a decade of added books and expansions there is so much fluff and convoluted rules that it makes the game not easy for new comers. Even someone like myself (over 10 years experience in tabletops) find reading through all the rules a chore.
Im worried that Starfinder is going to do something negative by trying to over-correct on the perceived flaws of earlier game versions. I dont want guns to be weak or spells to be useless because of overs-specialized role. If its not broke down fix it.
This is why they change everything for Starfinder. They have corrected those issues because they were in Pathfinder. In Pathfinder late game always went to spell casters. Starfinder you are viable late game if you don't use spells because you have lvl 20 guns or melee weapons. You need to spend more time with the book.
I know its a waiting game for new rulebooks to add new things like Sniper Rifles that out-DPR rifles.
This isn't call of duty. Characters shouldn't be running around 360 no scoping NPCs. If you want a sniper rifle that does that then make one. Just like all corebooks they are guidelines not commandments.
Okay there is going to be alot after this but I have to go to work.
So #1 should armor be either hard core and bulletproof or more realistic and the best defense be to never be seen or shot?
#2 similar note, should guns be realistic? Guns, even handguns can be very damaging. Even a very low caliber gun can be fatal but what about a game that treats ultra-heated laser beams as flash lights?
#3 magic just magic. Why play any game based on Dungeons and Dragons if you dont want the unique draw of magic as designed by Jack Vance. id play Rocket Age or Shadowrun if I could find a group.
#4 skills. These vary by situation. Since combat skills are usually Life-And-Death while utility skills are more about the challenge a GM through at you.
|
no realistic is not really part of starfinder, nor should it be
remember that stamina points and even hit points do not usually represent actual wounds , there....action hero plot armor
magic works fine in starfinder and is still notable vanican
losing 7-9 level spells does not take away from this.
not sure your point on # 4?
So #1 should armor be either hard core and bulletproof or more realistic and the best defense be to never be seen or shot?
#2 similar note, should guns be realistic? Guns, even handguns can be very damaging. Even a very low caliber gun can be fatal but what about a game that treats ultra-heated laser beams as flash lights?
Are you asking advice on homebrew? Read the equipment chapter fully. It will describe what the weapons do and how powerful they are.
#3 magic just magic. Why play any game based on Dungeons and Dragons if you dont want the unique draw of magic as designed by Jack Vance. id play Rocket Age or Shadowrun if I could find a group.
This is loosely based on D&D. If you want D&D you should play D&D or pathfinder. This is a game based in space. Technology is half the game. You don't need need to spend years in a magic school to learn a light spell to light your way. You can use a flashlight.
I used to play Shadowrun and it was fun but I would never go back after reading starfinder. Especially after reading shadowrun 5. That book was just awful.
Okay havent checked this in a while.
I dont see the Starfinder characters being as specialized as D&D. Everyone has 4+ skill points, can use light armor and pistols by default. There arent a lot of useful feats so right now I expect everyone class you take the same upgrade paths.
This isnt going to be hard picks of feat chains like choosing to sink feats into two-weapon fighting path or focusing on summoning feats.
Looking at the classes some of the basic feats you would want to take are given free. Weapon specialization is free for class based proficiencies for example.
I dont see the Starfinder characters being as specialized as D&D.
I started with D&D3. When d&d was first released there were only a few classes. More classes and expansions weren't released until a year or two after the game was released. There will be more releases in the future but the Themes give you a boost in diversity of the class available now.
Everyone has 4+ skill points, can use light armor and pistols by default.
Well yes. Everyone does have 4+ skills.
Envoy/Operative 8 + Int modifierMystic 6 + Int modifier
Soldier/Technomancer/Mechanic/Solarian 4 + Int modifier
Light Armor and small arms are pretty standard because it's like padded armor and crossbows in d&d. Everyone can wear armor but not everyone can wear heavy armor. Check out the Vesk on page 32. That Armor needs to be trained.
There arent a lot of useful feats so right now I expect everyone class you take the same upgrade paths.
I am playing a campaign with 4 other people and only 2 people have the same feats so far. It's pretty easy to choose others feats. The Soldier in our party choose Bodyguard which is pretty awesome and no one in our group will probably ever get it other than him.
This isn't going to be hard picks of feat chains like choosing to sink feats into two-weapon fighting path or focusing on summoning feats.
There won't be two weapon fighting feats because they took two weapon fighting out. Could they do something in the future? Sure, But I seriously doubt it from reading the book and listening to interviews. They took it out on purpose.
There won't be two weapon fighting feats because they took two weapon fighting out. Could they do something in the future? Sure, But I seriously doubt it from reading the book and listening to interviews. They took it out on purpose.
There already is a two weapon fighting feat, called Multi-Weapon Fighting. It just reduces the penalties for making full attacks, it doesn’t increase the number of said attacks. It is also limited to small arms and operative weapons.
Like many things, the changes to the base system changed how other things are implemented.
Okay one key point of Dungeons and Dragons and by extension Pathfinder is the "do-anything...well" classes being top-tier and its seems like trying to correct that just looped back to the same point.
Its not like comparing a D&D Fighter to a Wizard. You can make a Technomancer with an Artillery Laser and Powered Armor. There arent enough efficient or specialized feats to make it a hard choice. Everyone is a Warrior good at everything. Only class features are unique.
Two-Weapon Fighting was an entire feat tree. Here its one meh skill that provides a +1 to hit over not having it. Most feats an spells are pretty mediocre on the bonuses.
Also Wizards and Clerics have basically been replaced with Magi and Warpriests?
Why is it a terrible thing that all classes are broadly competent...?
Because if all the existing classes are broadly competent, rather than "niche competent," then there will be little to no reason for Paizo to make even more niche classes for us to play!
;P
IIRC ChaosTicket had a problem with Inquisitors being not broad enough in Pathfinder. I'm not sure what brought this change of heart on.
Why is it a terrible thing that all classes are broadly competent, rather than being utterly gimped at some ( or a wide swath! ) of all tasks? Why, exactly, would it even be a plausibly good thing for parties to be composed of one-trick ponies?
So that when you roll a d20 you dont need a critical 20 to succeed? For that matter high tier characters are ones that arent "horribly gimped" as they can do many things well.
Whats the point of having classes is theyre all going to start end somewhere the same? If thats the case do something radical and do away with the class system and instead have a Create-A-Character method, picking your own features.
In general I dont like a class based system as its often about unusual bans and defies logic. You may not remember older versions where you couldnt even HOLD things you werent allowed by your class.s rare to see a game where a character grows NOT based on level, but something like lifting weights to increase strength.
With multiclassing not having the penalties as older versions of DUngeons there really isnt anything to stop you from putting levels in any or all classes. With classes becoming average, class features are the only thing keeping characters unique. Wait until you see a Technomancer with a drone.
Now that is very much based on opinion and will cause so many problems.
Every roleplaying game whether videogames or tabletop have had choices that are better or worse. There is an entire list of tropes like Min-Maxing, Power-Gaming, Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards, and so on you can look up.
If can come down to something as simple as Can you fly? In Pathfinder one major decider on just the physical classes there was whether you could move and get full-attacks. Barbarians could learn Pounce while Raging and easily outpace a Fighter making 1 attack per turn if that character has to move. Any class with an animal companion could pick a pet like a Big Cat, learn Pounce and outpace the Fighter.
In Starfinder there are already tiers. Its changed from Pathfinder but when the dreaded spellcasters can learn almost everything a dedicated Soldier class can and youve gone back to a loop as this thread has.
Its a nice attempt at equalization. Its much better than Dungeons and Dragons 5.0 that wrecked many things and just tried to force Fighters as the #1 physical class.
I have very mixed feelings as today Im planning to carry a large laser and blast things like Master Chief as a Jedi or maybe Shepherd as a Biotic.