Who need house atomics when you have shield gens and laspistols?
Always thought the lasgun-shields thing was a bit iffy. I mean yeah, I get why it was there, but mmmaybe it could set up so that you just have a big boom instead of a super-simple method to trigger thermonuclear explosions? I would kinda maybe nerf that a weeeee bit.
What about Sword and Planet settings, like ERB's Mars or Carson of Venus? Could Starfinder emulate that little bit of science fantasy?
What about Sword and Planet settings, like ERB's Mars or Carson of Venus? Could Starfinder emulate that little bit of science fantasy?
Absolutely.
Though Pathfinder already has that ground really well covered. So it's a matter of choosing mechanics rather than setting.
On the other hand, the ever creeping guns and armor stuff makes for Borderlands (game) pretty well. And in general there's sorta 'magic' in Borderlands with tech. The mooks and opponents scale similarly.
this is the idea that has been floating in my head for the last few months. As soon as I saw scalable weaponry, I knew that this would be a crap game, but that maybe it would work for a Borderlands RPG.
this is the idea that has been floating in my head for the last few months. As soon as I saw scalable weaponry, I knew that this would be a crap game, but that maybe it would work for a Borderlands RPG.
It isn't a crap game, for certain, any more that Borderlands is. I find that the scaling weaponry makes sense for the setting (it is as commercial as our own modern world), and the mechanics work okay, as well, as long as the loot flows properly.
Plus, buying a Mk. IV plasma rifle isn't systematically dissimilar to enchanting your +3 Longsword into a +4 Longsword. You're still spending money for a combat improvement and have to identify the places where you need to invest in, and those areas where you can skate for a few more levels (my Armor Storm Vesk Soldier is now 3rd level and hasn't even considered buying a new weapon, because his punches and natural attacks scale just fine... he sinks his money into armor and personal upgrades).
meh, it's far too video-gamey...which is why it'd work ok for Borderlands.
but for a more apt comparison to a fantasy game, it's more like that you can only buy daggers at level 1 thru 5, but at level six, for some reason ye olde blacksmith will suddenly start selling you shortswords and in five more levels he'll let you get that battle axe that you've heard so much about in the most heroic and legendary of tales!
That technology exists on such a steep arc of acquisition breaks the games verisimilitude for me.
I understand why they did the levels, but tying them into rules for who can and can't use them was a mistake IMO. Should have just kept the price as the barrier to acquisition. And whoa be to any who stray from that path, as we've currently found out; our GM hasn't really read or run by the rules and very early on started giving out or giving access to higher level gear, which completely borked the whole experience. It's so finely tuned (like a video game) that straying outside those parameters ruins the game (which I guess can be both a blessing and a curse).
and these are just the problem with the weapons/economics of the game, let alone absolute crap like the bulk system...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. I like the bulk system. Prevents us from having the GDP of a small nation in our backpacks.
And the rules don't specify who can and can't use the equipment, they specify how easily one can obtain the equipment. I'm not sure your GM's failure to read the rules is a mark against Starfinder, itself.
Honestly I don't know why a futuristic culture wouldn't have some rules about who is allowed to buy a level 20 cosmos buster. Just because the United States' background check laws for purchasing guns are far too easy to circumvent, does not mean that any dope with more money than good sense should be able to buy any weapon in a game built on balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The system falls apart if you compare it to real world laws.
Well, there's no part of Starfinder that's designed to be compared with "real world laws." That much is certainly true. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. I like the bulk system. Prevents us from having the GDP of a small nation in our backpacks.
does it? Cause I can carry around a ridiculous number L bulk pistols, grenades, mods, etc... worth 100's of thousands of credits each. Whereas in say Pathfinder, coins have weight, items worth anything have weight. If your problem is the value of what you carry, Starfinder is much worse than any fantasy system. Or have you read the thread about being able to pick up your fallen comrade and the ysoki couch movers? There was no reason to take a pretty simple table and convert it into an abstraction and then have a kind of, sort of conversion back into weight. It's all sorts of messed up
And the rules don't specify who can and can't use the equipment, they specify how easily one can obtain the equipment.
there is no functional difference.
I'm not sure your GM's failure to read the rules is a mark against Starfinder, itself.
then you didn't finish my sentence about that. His ignorance certainly doesn't reflect negatively on the system, but it does point out how extremely balanced the system is, and that any wobble produces disastrous effects, which again, can be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it. Good, because it is exceptionally balanced and it is obvious great care was taken to ensure the rules worked, but Bad because even the smallest bit of straying outside of those carefully crafted lines can turn the whole thing into a pile of garbage rather quickly.
Honestly I don't know why a futuristic culture wouldn't have some rules about who is allowed to buy a level 20 cosmos buster. Just because the United States' background check laws for purchasing guns are far too easy to circumvent, does not mean that any dope with more money than good sense should be able to buy any weapon in a game built on balance.
but level doesn't come with any sort of assumed responsibility, less you think that the Goblin Monark in the core book is just allowed to stroll into any weapon shop and buy whatever he wants just because he's 20th level. It's a weird meta-y rule shoe-horned into the setting without explanation.
I haven't read this entire thread, but I'm sure I will, but I did read the first dozen-ish posts.
Since I'm 3PP, I cannot use the Pact Worlds setting, since I'm developing my own settings, one setting as a background for a series of one-shot space horror modules that I still need to upload to the Paizo Store. Though I have a space horror one-shot that is FREE and Starships, Stations and Salvage Guide by Edward Moyer, with my illustrations and deck plans that I published last week. With these new ship options - more plots, more storylines, more sci-fi subgenres can be achieved where the Core, ast it exist now seem to not - and why this thread even exists at all. More ships fit in our hangers than those of the Core, which opens up more options for squadrons of fighters to make stories that Core seems not optimal for. I think you have more genre and story options with this guide alone.
I'm working on an upgrade of my designed for Pathfinder Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror, and making it the Kaidan Interstellar Empire of Japanese Horror with my own "Pact Worlds" of conquered planets and star systems by the MegaCorp controlled empire and shogunate. I don't know what genre it is specifically, though kind of space opera, elements of Dark Matter, and I want to stick in some cyberpunk, though I'm not an expert in that subgenre. It ain't the Pact Worlds, though and something completely different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh. Once again, the item level rules are not "without explanation". Their explanation was about as explicit as they could possibly be without having an entire sidebar printed in day glo ink. The explanation is "Character level vs Item level represents *all* forms of access, whichever are relevant to a given character." For some this will mean legal permits, for others underworld contacts, for others membership in an organization, for still others simple fame and reputation. It is a unified abstraction so as to avoid having to deal with a million different, but dramatically unimportant, distinctions.
This. A thousand times this.
Hmm. I like the bulk system. Prevents us from having the GDP of a small nation in our backpacks.does it? Cause I can carry around a ridiculous number L bulk pistols, grenades, mods, etc... worth 100's of thousands of credits each.
GM's are explicitly not required to allow you to carry a "ridiculous number" of anything by the bulk system, including items of "negligible" bulk and certainly not items of "light" bulk. The Starfinder system uses bulk instead of weight because you can run into environments where the weight of objects varies; having a system that did not account for this would be stupid, and comparisons to systems that do not account for this are ill-advised.
I'm sorry your GM kinda sucked, by your account. I've been there and that's too bad. That has nothing to do with the game sucking.
It's not too great for Supers, or Super Sentai. Can't do a Mecha based campaign, yet. Cosmic Horror isn't fully supported either. The system is young.
It's not too great for Supers, or Super Sentai. Can't do a Mecha based campaign, yet. Cosmic Horror isn't fully supported either. The system is young.
Will be publishing a Mecha Guide for Starfinder as 3PP, probably in a month and a half, but of course, it is 3PP, and not first party, which seems to be an issue for some people... ;)
Though already working on a custom 3PP Japanese Horror setting for Starfinder, the Kaidan Interstellar Empire of Japanese Horror - certainly some cosmic horror in their with full rules to support such (of course it's 3PP too).
The item does let you carry a silly number of light items. You could fit 19 dueling swords inside your Ysoki's mouth.
The rules gives the GM the ability to interpret what is within reason at any time. There's nothing that requires GMs to allow patently ridiculous things. If you want to carry fifty pistols or a warehouse worth of batteries at a time, or fit 19 of anything larger that a fruit in your ysoki's cheek pouches, your GM can and should ask how exactly that is happening.
"The bulk system allows silly/ridiculous things" is therefore simply not a correct claim. Whether it "allows" ridiculous things depends on whether the GM is applying common sense to the rules. Frankly I prefer the designers' approach to this; bulk guidelines should not require exhaustive specification in order to manifest common sense.
This is the Rules Forum, so we assume rules as written.
This isn't the Rules forum, actually, but I see what you're getting at.
The rules as written do however follow a fairly clear pattern of assuming commonsensical readings and already state that it's within the GM's purview to rule on what constitutes an unreasonable amount of "n" bulk items. I'll grant you they do not explicitly draw a line from there to "the GM can say 'no' to your stupid plan to stuff nineteen swords in your Ysoki's cheek pouches" but based on what's there I don't think that level of granularity is necessary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had GMs say ysoki can only fit ten grenades in their mouth. I've had GMs say that 5 L = 1 bulk.
It's just a fact of life that some GMs make idiotic decisions without realizing the severity of impact their house rules will have on the game.
I've had GMs say ysoki can only fit ten grenades in their mouth.
Madness! Who wouldn't want ten explosives in their mouth? Heck, who could stop at that many? ;)
What was that old Pringles catch-phrase? Bet you can't eat just one...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder works just fine for "medium" scifi like Mass Effect. You just need some house rules. For instance:
* Mystic "spells" are actually psionic powers... or even just strip out their spell progression and give them progression from Complete Psionics. In this latter case, unless you're intending to increase the power level of the class, you'd probably want to give them the Psychic Warrior progression but with the Psion power list. If, say, Metacreation powers don't feel right for your setting, just don't allow access to that discipline.
* Technomancer "spells" are actually hyperscience invention widgets that work on minovsky physics. During the period of the day where they would be "preparing spells," they are fiddling with their widgets to prepare them for the day. Only the technomancer is familiar enough with the weird science involved to make them work, so they can't just hand out their "spell slots" to other party members to use. Remove any spells from the list that directly interact with alignment or magical energy.
* Weapon fusions are either psionic, entirely hyperscience, or some combo of the two rather than magic.
* Drift is just hyperspace and doesn't yank out sections of other realities. Or alternately replace it entirely with a system like, say, you travel 1 light per day (or per hour if you want civilizations to spread farther) per point of Drift rating of the drive.
* Monsters with magic powers are psionic instead, etc.
Tecnomagic is what engineers and sentinels do in Mass Effect. Overload is Chain lightning, incinerate is fireball, and there are debuffs like Invasion which look like a carbon copy of Microbot Assault.
Biotics is close to mysticism, except Biotics does not include telepathy. Solarian powers look like Biotics too (pull with black holes and such).
I'm using a ton of Mass Effect inspired stuff in my game, including the Shadow Broker, Spectres, and ancient threats. Last week players discovered the last Formian Queen (thought to be extinct by Lashuntas) and we played basically the same in game decision that Shepard has to take with the Rachni Queen.
I would say my Starfinder game is the bastard child of Guardians of Galaxy and Mass Effect.
GM's are explicitly not required to allow you to carry a "ridiculous number" of anything by the bulk system, including items of "negligible" bulk and certainly not items of "light" bulk.Hmm. I like the bulk system. Prevents us from having the GDP of a small nation in our backpacks.does it? Cause I can carry around a ridiculous number L bulk pistols, grenades, mods, etc... worth 100's of thousands of credits each.
so what is ridiculous to you? 5, 10, 100? But the number really wasn't the argument brought up, it was that somehow a carrying capacity allowed one to carry the GDP of small nations on their back. Lets say a guy has 5 lvl 20 grenades, a character in Pathfinder is going to be hardpressed with max level gear to equal the value of JUST those five grenades, let alone accounting for weapons that near a million apiece.
getting back to the system, because they can't list the bulk for everything a character can interact with, they have to list a "kinda conversion" for bulk to weight, which just highlights how silly the system is to begin with. If you need to convert stuff, just use pounds. Or again, we run into the silliness of not being able to drag off your ally RAW, or that you can stack 20 couches on the back of your ysoki and as long as he wasn't the one to put it on himself, he can carry them around (again RAW).
The Starfinder system uses bulk instead of weight because you can run into environments where the weight of objects varies; having a system that did not account for this would be stupid, and comparisons to systems that do not account for this are ill-advised.
I don't think simple multiplication or division is that out of reach for the standard player. The reinvented the wheel into a triangle.
And whoa be to any who stray from that path, as we've currently found out; our GM hasn't really read or run by the rules and very early on started giving out or giving access to higher level gear, which completely borked the whole experience.
That is pretty much the same if your GM gives you a full plate +3 and shield +3 at level 2. You become invulnerable to regular CR enemies
And a Wand of Fireball would be even worse
Bulk system also allow to make bulky stuff hinder you more. Yes, you can look for flaws like 19 dueling swords. Same goes with encumbrance. Someone with high strength can carry 50 ten feet poles, because they don't weight much
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
+3 armor and +3 shield is +6 AC, and full plate itself is a factor too. AC 32 at lvl 2 is just as gamebreaking as a lvl 11 armor in SF.
At lvl 2, a set of lvl 10 wands of fireball also wrecks the game. Same with Scrolls of Summon Monster IX, or winged boots with permanent flying. The point here is that although WBL are guidelines a different not a hard cap, a complete disregard of WBL destroys any kind of balance.
I submit that no amount of AC is game breaking, as it is purely defensive, doesn't increase the character's control over the narrative, character's are generally expected to survive anyways, and there are plenty of other things that can still ruin a character's day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder is bad for the same type of scifi campaigns that Pathfinder is for fantasy: ones where combat is rare or only a last resort.
You certainly *can* play a SF game where you have combat once in a blue moon and talk your way throigh most things, but in a game where 75% of your character's crunch is devoted to combat or combat-related (such as healing), theres a lot of wasted design space.
Starfinder is bad for the same type of scifi campaigns that Pathfinder is for fantasy: ones where combat is rare or only a last resort.
I'd say it gives latitude to design characters for many types of campaign. There are combinations of theme, class, feat and character ability paths and spells available that would make it easy enough to build a party that could be competent in combat but optimised for the more cerebral approach. By the same token you can very easily build a group of combat monsters designed to blast first and ask questions later, and pretty much all points between.
One of the best features of the system, really. Along with how character design makes similar character concepts possible via multiple routes.
sort of post-human utopias or near utopias like the Culture, Jean le Flambeur series, the Golden Oecumene, the Commonwealth Saga
Starfinder is bad for the same type of scifi campaigns that Pathfinder is for fantasy: ones where combat is rare or only a last resort.I'd say it gives latitude to design characters for many types of campaign. There are combinations of theme, class, feat and character ability paths and spells available that would make it easy enough to build a party that could be competent in combat but optimised for the more cerebral approach. By the same token you can very easily build a group of combat monsters designed to blast first and ask questions later, and pretty much all points between.
One of the best features of the system, really. Along with how character design makes similar character concepts possible via multiple routes.
I don't know what your experience level with non-DnD-based systems (as PF and SF are) is, but what I'm trying to express might be more difficult to explain if you haven't played any "talk-focused" systems like World of Darkness. But it goes like this:
Observe any given class' entry in the core rulebook: the class progression table, the description for its class features, it's list of talents, etc. Imagine taking a thick, black marker and crossing out everything that applies only to combat: health, weapon proficiencies, primary class features, talents that improve damage, etc.
Now examine what's left. Cross out everything that has isn't exclusively related to combat, but has a common combat application. Saving throws, healing abilities, increases to speed, the Stealth and Intimidate skill... after you do this, how much of each class isn't blacked out?
Do the same with the equipment section, or the spells section: how much space in this rulebook is devoted to combat or combat-adjacent rules, and how much has nothing to do with combat whatsoever?
It's a very, very small amount that has nothing to do with combat. That isn't a bad thing: combat is what this system and its ancestors were designed for! If you ignore combat, or very rarely utilize it, you are utilize very little of the games design. Your entire experience, more or less, is relegated to skills checks and a small handful of feats or talents.
Compare to a game like World of Darkness: 2/3 of the book are devoted to Mental and Social attributes, skills, and abilities. The section on combat is very small (the weapon and armor tables take up about a single page combined, for starters). No character is given any sort of combat prowess unless they choose it. No experience is granted for winning combat: you get experience points for succeeding (or learning a lesson while failing) at your character's goals. There is no such thing as "Enemy CR", because there is no assumption that you will be fighting anyone. You can remove every single line that reference combat directly or indirectly and be left with most of your rules present.
tl;dr: Starfinder was designed with the assumption that fighting will be a primary draw of your campaign, and the rules reflect that. A campaign with zero, or close to zero, combat would not be utilizing most of the system they opted to pay for and learn. It can be done, sure, but why unscrew the bolt with the tip of a butter-knife when you can use a screwdriver?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what your experience level with non-DnD-based systems (as PF and SF are) is, but what I'm trying to express might be more difficult to explain if you haven't played any "talk-focused" systems like World of Darkness.
No, it's not difficult to explain. It's just I think you're mistaken.
I mean yes, obviously, the tactical rules are a major part of the system. I'm not saying otherwise. They suck up a lot of detail even after much of Pathfinder's excess has been trimmed out -- indeed "combat" now also means three distinct sets of sub-rules, one of which is radically different from the others and favours completely different character abilities. Whether or not this means they're the "primary draw" of the game is questionable (I'll come back to that) but certainly there are large tracts of the system that are tightly designed around tactical detail.
But OTOH, look at what you do here:
Imagine taking a thick, black marker and crossing out everything that applies only to combat: health, weapon proficiencies, primary class features, talents that improve damage, etc.
No. Class features don't apply "only to combat" unless you're a Soldier. Health doesn't apply "only to combat." It also applies to survival scenarios like coping with disease and hostile environments. And it is not a minor detail that Starfinder allows characters to be built from 1st to 20th level with minimal emphasis on combat powers.
I mean, there's a reason certain sorts of Pathfinder players can be found on Starfinder forums complaining endlessly about, say, the Envoy, or about the profusion of Tricks and Revelations and other class features that aren't relevant to a dungeon-crawling combat grid. The tactical detail is there, but substantial chunks of the CRB are also devoted to environmental and hazard rules, starship building, computer construction, and all manner of things with only tangential combat relevance or potentially none at all.
Now yes, I've played systems that aren't descended from the wargame like DnD and its many brethren and children, and aren't designed to simulate tactical detail or particularly concerned with combat. You know what I notice? You don't really need much in the way of rules to simulate something like social conflict. I mean I've seen many systems that try to use "social combat" rules -- Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits, stake-setting systems, certain forms of PBtA "Moves" and "Playbooks" -- and they all have advantages and disadvantages, but the more elaborate systems are not in fact particularly more useful for social roleplaying. Often they tend to confuse roleplaying as much as anything.
Devoting "design space" to something can therefore be misleading as an indicator of emphasis -- much less of effectiveness -- and for my money it's a mistake to conflate the two. For example, you can largely ignore the elaborate weapons and equipment lists and play a group focused on wilderness exploration, diplomatic encounters with strange aliens, scientific problem solving and hacking strange alien computers in long-lost ruins if you want. You are not "wasting" all the "design space" devoted to combat if you do this, it's still there for you on those occasions when you might need it; you are just leaning in to different parts of the system that are also there for that purpose.
My only complaint about combat in starfinder is that it feels stale and unrewarding compared to its counterpart. If anything I'd say it runs a non-combat game better as there's just more to do outside of combat.
Imagine taking a thick, black marker and crossing out everything that applies only to combat: health, weapon proficiencies, primary class features, talents that improve damage, etc.No. Class features don't apply "only to combat" unless you're a Soldier. Health doesn't apply "only to combat." It also applies to survival scenarios like coping with disease and hostile environments. And it is not a minor detail that Starfinder allows characters to be built from 1st to 20th level with minimal emphasis on combat powers.
I will concede that health should go in my "combat-focused" category rather than my "only combat" category, but I feel that's splitting a hair.
I also feel you misread what I was saying, perhaps on purpose, by ignoring the word "primary" in "primary class features". I was not claiming that all class features apply only to combat, but that if you remove the ones that apply only to combat (trick attack, weapon and armor proficiencies), much of what you are left with is still strongly associated with combat and has more lines devoted to its combat use than much else (operative's edge, saving throws, health). If you remove that as well, you are left with very little defining each class and a very thin book.
You brought up the Envoy as a class that is complained about as being less effective in combat. Whether or not that is true, let's take a look at their primary class feature, and the first one listed in their entry: Envoy Improvisations:
As you gain experience, you learn envoy improvisations—little tricks that bolster allies, confound enemies, or change the ebb and flow of battle using guile, inspiration, or luck.
Of the 10 Envoy improvisations available to choose from at 1st level, only 3 do not mention enemies, attacks, or initiative rolls, and one of those merely allows you to use your other improvisations. Of the 4th level options, there are arguably 0 such options (I'm not sure if there are any situations that cause someone to be flat-footed or off-target outside of combat, or non-combat scenarios that require taking turns, but I may be wrong there).
Even if you could choose exclusively non-combat improvisations for your envoy (or exclusively non-attacking spells for your mystic, etc), each class automatically grants combat training to every class. That makes it technically impossible to make a character with no combat training/experience.
Let's remember that this is not a discussion of what can be done, but what can or cannot be done well. We both have may different definition of what constitutes "done well" but, personally, I don't think a this class based system will ever be the best option. Classes by their nature narrow options for the sake of simplicity. In Starfinder's case, the lines are drawn based on how they fight, so a group that chooses to run a combat-less campaign with SF are needlessly limiting their narrative choices.
But let me turn the question back to you.
Why is Starfinder good for combat-less campaigns?
If all else is equal, and the GMs and players are familiar with all the scifi/science fantasy game systems on the shelf, why pick this one for their non-combat campaign? If Starfinder can be said to do it well (as opposed to "okay" or "poorly"), there must be a reason why.
I see some interesting points there. I also see a reference to "combat-less" campaigns, which I did not mention.
And then I see this:
I also feel you misread what I was saying, perhaps on purpose
Happy to have these conversations, but not while having my honesty questioned. If that's where this is going I'll have to take a pass.
+6 AC is way less gamebreaking than +11. Especially as Pathfinder values AC much less. There are way more touch attacks and spells.+3 armor and +3 shield is +6 AC, and full plate itself is a factor too. AC 32 at lvl 2 is just as gamebreaking as a lvl 11 armor in SF.
At lvl 2, a set of lvl 10 wands of fireball also wrecks the game. Same with Scrolls of Summon Monster IX, or winged boots with permanent flying. The point here is that although WBL are guidelines a different not a hard cap, a complete disregard of WBL destroys any kind of balance.
there is no difference in the example we are talking about, low level characters. A lvl 2 char in +3 full plate and +3 shield can only be hit by 20s. He could have AC 50, or 5000, and there is no difference
10th level wand is not really reasonable for a level 10 character to have though. Its too expensive. The scroll and boots wouldn't break much. Low level characters already have access to near permanent flight(druids for instance) and a 1 use scroll is going to require careful decision making.
OF COURSE it is unreasonable.
Just like it is unreasonable to give high level plasma guns to low level starfinder characters. That is my point. If you do unreasonable stuff, you break the game
I plan to include lots of politics and social encounters involving using bluff, sense motive, intimidation and diplomacy. I plan to include investigations and murder mysteries in my game as well. Certainly there will be combat, but that should only be 50% of the encounters.