Now that the frustratingly high DCs for mid-late game starship actions have been adjusted, per-FAQ, can we look at addressing the Operative's trick attacks? At 20+CR, the DCs are still at or above starship rolls. Operative's core ability requiring a +11 at first level just for even odds seems a bit much. Even moreso for Explorer/Detective/Hacker/Spy Operatives who need more than just one stat.
Has anyone looked at adjusting those numbers for non-Society play?
You only need a +10 for even odds (roll of 11 or better, +10 modifier).
1 skill point
3 class skill
3 skill focus
4 dex bonus (if using a dex associated skill)
That's +11 for a common build, +15 if you're a ghost using Stealth.
For those using non-dex associated skills, you trade the dex bonus for a free +4 and then add in more from your secondary attribute. That puts you in between the +11 and +15.
If you have an unoptimized character, of course, this won't hold. But you're choosing to be better at something else.
That's +11 for a common build, +15 if you're a ghost using Stealth.
Thanks for the numbers update, I think I was doing some math wrong. I just wanted to note, Ghost only gives +1 (per FAQ) not the +4 in the book.
I do wonder if that should apply to daredevil as well, if it should give +1 instead of no bonus...
Oh, I didn't realize that had been FAQ'd. I think the more reasonable thing would be to take away the Stealth bonus entirely rather than give it to other dex associated skills. I assume the reason they didn't was they didn't want to do a full claw back and fully infuriate those who had built Ghosts specifically for the Stealth bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trick attack becomes neigh automatic once you hit level 7 and can take 10 on the trick attack. Otherwise it should be a bit better than a 50 50 proposition.
Its not like trying a trick attack costs you much.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The trick attack becomes neigh automatic once you hit level 7 and can take 10 on the trick attack. Otherwise it should be a bit better than a 50 50 proposition.
There's some question on that, I think?
Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter. Also, you can’t take 10 when the GM rules that a situation is too hectic or that you are distracted, and taking 10 is almost never an option for a check that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure’s story.
Combat is called out separately from distraction, and the Take-10 entry on specialization skill mastery only calls out distraction. RAW is a bit fuzzy here.
|
And for non-Dex skills, the math goes something like this:
1 skill rank
1 skill focus
3 class skill
4 from operative specialization (all the non-Dex skills get this)
Other modifiers you might have:
+2 racial bonus (Lashunta, Nuar using Survival etc.)
+1 from theme skill
-1 to +4 from ability modifier
So we're looking at a +8 (for severely underoptimized) to +16 (for overspecialized) as a modifier you could get at level 1. The "reasonable" range is about +11 to +14.
The DC you're aiming for will almost never be more than [your level]+22; that's a CR +3 encounter, which is already an extreme threat and probably a solo boss. At level 1, you'd need to roll a 8-11 to succeed at it.
As the game goes on, your skill will increase a bit more than linearly, mainly due to ability increases and eventually operative's edge. But the DC increases only linearly. So this check gradually gets easier and easier.
And (arguably) you can Take 10 on it from level 7 onwards.
The trick attack becomes neigh automatic once you hit level 7 and can take 10 on the trick attack. Otherwise it should be a bit better than a 50 50 proposition.There's some question on that, I think?
Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter. Also, you can’t take 10 when the GM rules that a situation is too hectic or that you are distracted, and taking 10 is almost never an option for a check that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure’s story.Combat is called out separately from distraction, and the Take-10 entry on specialization skill mastery only calls out distraction. RAW is a bit fuzzy here.
No. That rule isn't remotely fuzzy. They can take 10 in combat. Thats what the ability does.
Attempting a skill when someone is trying to kill you would certainly qualify as an adverse condition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From all the research I have been able to do in to this system it looks very much like it's a closed system. It seems the developers created DC's based on the maximum achievable skills/spell DC's and then created a 50/50 chance for them to succeed. This is especially prevalent for spell casting. The maximum DC possible in the current rule system for a spell is 28.
10 + 9 + 6 + 3 = 28.
Base + Max Ability Score (with Mk3 personal upgrade) + Max spell level + Spell Focus feat.
DC 20 Aliens have bad saves of +17 and good saves of +21. They will succeed against your spells just 45% if you maximize your class in every way. Most players do not... so it's safe to assume 50% save chance on the worst saves. For good saves it's a +21. Which means your spells will fail more than they will succeed.
To me this is an interesting approach to game design. I don't agree with this particular design philosophy due to it creating a closed loop system. If you want to develop past these boundaries then you tend to throw the balance off for the system.
Basically, you need to maximize your character to ensure even odds for most of your checks. Keep that in mind as you build and level your character.
From all the research I have been able to do in to this system it looks very much like it's a closed system. It seems the developers created DC's based on the maximum achievable skills/spell DC's and then created a 50/50 chance for them to succeed. This is especially prevalent for spell casting. The maximum DC possible in the current rule system for a spell is 28.
10 + 9 + 6 + 3 = 28.
Base + Max Ability Score (with Mk3 personal upgrade) + Max spell level + Spell Focus feat.
Technomancers can squeeze out an extra +1 if they take the Digital Harrow Deck as a spell cache and spend a resolve point and a swift action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From all the research I have been able to do in to this system it looks very much like it's a closed system. It seems the developers created DC's based on the maximum achievable skills/spell DC's and then created a 50/50 chance for them to succeed. This is especially prevalent for spell casting. The maximum DC possible in the current rule system for a spell is 28.
10 + 9 + 6 + 3 = 28.
Base + Max Ability Score (with Mk3 personal upgrade) + Max spell level + Spell Focus feat.DC 20 Aliens have bad saves of +17 and good saves of +21. They will succeed against your spells just 45% if you maximize your class in every way. Most players do not... so it's safe to assume 50% save chance on the worst saves. For good saves it's a +21. Which means your spells will fail more than they will succeed.
To me this is an interesting approach to game design. I don't agree with this particular design philosophy due to it creating a closed loop system. If you want to develop past these boundaries then you tend to throw the balance off for the system.
Basically, you need to maximize your character to ensure even odds for most of your checks. Keep that in mind as you build and level your character.
Well you don't want to be hitting the enemy on its best save. Use your skills to identify its weak save. And then it's only a 50% odds if you don't do anything else. But you're supposed to.
You can try to impose some conditions - Shaken, Sickened, Fatigued will drag down someone's saving throws. There's several others that you can try to inflict. It'll probably require some teamwork - which is good, RPGs should be about teamwork!
Just casting the same spell at everything and complaining that it doesn't work, well, that's the dumb brute force method. Casters are supposed to be the smart people in the party :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From all the research I have been able to do in to this system it looks very much like it's a closed system. It seems the developers created DC's based on the maximum achievable skills/spell DC's and then created a 50/50 chance for them to succeed. This is especially prevalent for spell casting. The maximum DC possible in the current rule system for a spell is 28.
10 + 9 + 6 + 3 = 28.
Base + Max Ability Score (with Mk3 personal upgrade) + Max spell level + Spell Focus feat.
The question then becomes what is the maximum penalty to a saving throw?
Just from conditions we have:
Entangled is -2 to reflex saves.
Fatigued is -1 to reflex saves while Exhausted is -3.
Shaken, Panicked or Frightened are -2 to all saves.
Grappled is -2 to reflex saves while Pinned is -4.
Helpless and Paralyzed just drops your Dex to 0 from whatever it was (potentially dwarfs every other penalty to reflex saves).
Sickened is -2 to all saves.
Class abilities provide:
Mindbreaker's 6th level ability can force a target to take a -2 penalty to all saves for 1 round (or if they fail a will save, multiple rounds).
Technomancer's 8th level magic hack Mental Mark can add a -1 penalty to saving throws onto any spell that forces a will save. -2 if they actually fail the save.
The Bestow curse spell can apply a -4 penalty to saving throws.
And then poisons are nasty:
Dexterity track poisons apply a -2 penalty to reflex saving throws.
Constitution track poisons apply a -2 to -4 penalty to fortitude saves.
Wisdom track poisons apply a -2 to -4 penalty to will saves.
The simple combination of sickened (Solarian, Radiation) + Shaken (Envoy, Quick Dispiriting Taunt) is -4 to all saves for example, and doesn't take all that much setup. Throw in a Mindbreaker Mystic spending a resolve point to apply -2, and a Technomancer casting a will save spell on the 1st turn, can result in the Technomancer's spell on the second turn being saved against with a -8 penalty (or -5 worst case if they save against everything 1st turn). So a 50/50 suddenly jumps up to 90/10.
Creative parties working on it can have enemies with -10 or more to certain saves by round 2 or 3. Which basically makes it save on a natural 20.
And here we go
Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat
Thank you. Is there a "dev reply search" function around here I'm missing? Seems like it would be really useful.
Thank you. Is there a "dev reply search" function around here I'm missing? Seems like it would be really useful.And here we go
Specialization skill mastery allows you to take 10 with the related skills in combat
That guys the lead developer on starfinder so searching his posts usually works. Although when I tried that I missed his post and found it by googling something else...
I try to ue the wishlist function to keep track of rules I need to dig up more than once.
From all the research I have been able to do in to this system it looks very much like it's a closed system. It seems the developers created DC's based on the maximum achievable skills/spell DC's and then created a 50/50 chance for them to succeed. This is especially prevalent for spell casting. The maximum DC possible in the current rule system for a spell is 28.
10 + 9 + 6 + 3 = 28.
Base + Max Ability Score (with Mk3 personal upgrade) + Max spell level + Spell Focus feat.The question then becomes what is the maximum penalty to a saving throw?
Just from conditions we have:
Entangled is -2 to reflex saves.
Fatigued is -1 to reflex saves while Exhausted is -3.
Shaken, Panicked or Frightened are -2 to all saves.
Grappled is -2 to reflex saves while Pinned is -4.
Helpless and Paralyzed just drops your Dex to 0 from whatever it was (potentially dwarfs every other penalty to reflex saves).
Sickened is -2 to all saves.Class abilities provide:
Mindbreaker's 6th level ability can force a target to take a -2 penalty to all saves for 1 round (or if they fail a will save, multiple rounds).
Technomancer's 8th level magic hack Mental Mark can add a -1 penalty to saving throws onto any spell that forces a will save. -2 if they actually fail the save.
The Bestow curse spell can apply a -4 penalty to saving throws.
And then poisons are nasty:
Dexterity track poisons apply a -2 penalty to reflex saving throws.
Constitution track poisons apply a -2 to -4 penalty to fortitude saves.
Wisdom track poisons apply a -2 to -4 penalty to will saves.The simple combination of sickened (Solarian, Radiation) + Shaken (Envoy, Quick Dispiriting Taunt) is -4 to all saves for example, and doesn't take all that much setup. Throw in a Mindbreaker Mystic spending a resolve point to apply -2, and a Technomancer casting a will save spell on the 1st turn, can result in the Technomancer's spell on the second turn being saved against with a -8 penalty (or -5 worst case if they...
I agree that all of this is possible to pull off, however ask yourself if it makes sense... You are basically using 2 rounds of your allies to give a single spell a better than even chance of success.
That makes little sense to me to attempt unless the spell is SO good that it basically decides the outcome of the encounter for you.
This, of course, assumes that your spell slinger and other players are optimizing to make this happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that all of this is possible to pull off, however ask yourself if it makes sense... You are basically using 2 rounds of your allies to give a single spell a better than even chance of success.
That makes little sense to me to attempt unless the spell is SO good that it basically decides the outcome of the encounter for you.
I do think it makes sense, given that those particular debuffs do a lot more than just give a single spell a better than even chance of success. They also work together to make each other more likely. It also only takes 1 round to apply those debuffs, many of which will likely last multiple rounds and apply to multiple spells, effects, and attacks (-4 to hit, -2 to damage, -2 to AC, -4 to skill checks, -8 to saves, possible staggered for 8 rounds if the will spell used to trigger mental mark is Slow).
This, of course, assumes that your spell slinger and other players are optimizing to make this happen.
True enough. But I thought we were discussing what was possible in the game environment already?
To me this is an interesting approach to game design. I don't agree with this particular design philosophy due to it creating a closed loop system. If you want to develop past these boundaries then you tend to throw the balance off for the system.
I'm merely commenting on the fact we can already go well past the boundaries of 50/50 odds in terms of saving throws in just the core rulebook.
We can indeed get past the boundary of 50/50 odds. Meta-gaming will let us break that boundary. Now all I need to do is convince 3 other players to create characters and play them exactly how I tell them to play them.....
Possible vs Probable is a more valid discussion. While technically possible to set all this up, the probability of it happening is so remote that we can say it's non-existent.
It's far more probable that players will face worse than even odds when it comes to saving throws. This is sad considering that once players learn this, they will be forced to min/max for even odds. OH well. what can we do. System is working as intended.
We can indeed get past the boundary of 50/50 odds. Meta-gaming will let us break that boundary. Now all I need to do is convince 3 other players to create characters and play them exactly how I tell them to play them.....
Possible vs Probable is a more valid discussion. While technically possible to set all this up, the probability of it happening is so remote that we can say it's non-existent.
It's far more probable that players will face worse than even odds when it comes to saving throws. This is sad considering that once players learn this, they will be forced to min/max for even odds. OH well. what can we do. System is working as intended.
I wish I could show you some of the play sessions I've been in. :)
In my typical play group we coordinate character builds. Or because I'm the resident optimizer, they sometimes ask me to sketch out a character build that does X and Y, and fits concept Z. And then we play as a team, looking for things like flanks, or stacking bonuses (or debuffs), delaying actions to sequence them properly, all to maximize our chance for victory.
I think our worst offending Pathfinder Society party was the half-orcs theme. There's something satisfying about having multiple characters with 24 or 26 strength for every round of combat, and rolling +8 or +9 and 2d6+16 or 2d6+18 damage (yes, that is expected 46 or 50 damage on a crit which happened a few times). At level 1. While simultaneously passing all skill tests with flying colors and providing magical spells to solve other problems trivially.
So it really does depend on your play group.
How do you get higher than 18 strength at level 1?
Well, he said in pathfinder, so you can start at 20. And he said for every round of combat, so rage gets you 24. And he said half orc, so maybe they all took the amplified rage teamwork feat, so 26 or even 28 would be possible. Also, because he said entire party, I'm guessing a skald may have been involved.
Balancing around min-maxing rules lawyers will always be bad game design IMHO.
Balancing around min-maxing rules lawyers will always be bad game design IMHO.
On the bright side, Starfinder hasn't been balanced around them (i.e. groups that include a player like me). As noted trick attacks pretty much just work at 7th level and higher, and tend to be around 50/50 or higher below that. Spells for a typical caster are likely to be around 40/60 or 60/40 excluding external factors.
The game works fine without requiring the absolute best combinations and at these more typical success rates.
However, the developers did put things in if you want to go beyond. It just requires teamwork. But teamwork in my opinion should be a force multiplier anyways. I was pointing out the optimization space is greater than Magyar5 indicated, but it involves looking at debuffs rather than just bonuses.
How do you get higher than 18 strength at level 1?
Hammerjack basically has the right of it. It was a Pathfinder example. Amplified Rage feats on a Barbarian with base 18 strength and Bloodrager with base 16 Strength, Warleader's Rage feat on a Skald, plus a wand of moment of greatness in one hand.
Anyways, sorry for the derail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree Hiruma. Teamwork should be a force multiplier, however it shouldn't be required as optimization space. I don't particularly enjoy meta gaming.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of playing a role-playing game is playing the role. When you build a team that is specifically designed on other characters on the team, you lose a fantastic aspect of the game. Individualization. Your character isn't your character any more. The character is part of a sum equation instead of a character. One of my favorite parts of gaming is the boundaries of differences within a party.
For example, we have a player in our group, whose character WILL NOT LIE. At all. For ANY reason. Nor will they attempt to deceive anyone for ANYTHING. This character is far more suited for conversation and diplomacy in our group rather than my Vesk Soldier, however due to the way our GM designed the game and it's evolution (we have a Space tube channel that our Envoy uses for income of our exploits) my character is most often in the forefront doing the talking and let me tell you, it's led to some unforgettably spectacular failures. I've intentionally left my character's perception untrained and insist on taking the lead in almost ANY environment. He's a big stupid Vesk who loves his companions and he's played that way and there's a few running jokes about the mishaps and failures we have all had to endure due to his terrible attributes (he actually jumped out of a moving Starship to chase down an enemy ship as they were pulling back their docking umbilical) . Conversely we have had some of the most unforgettable and creative saves by players in our group to overcome these failures. (Brosni's Vesk brother saw him running by at full speed and without any hesitation followed right behind him, saving his ass.)
One of my favorite book series is the Dragonlance Trilogy. Weis and Hickman ensure that each character in the series has some kind of major flaw which they need to overcome to become whole.
I've never seen role-playing games as ones in which it's me vs the GM, but more of an opportunity to craft a narrative showing how my character, with all his flaws and problems, has overcome them. We recently hit level 10, and while other characters would have dumped points in to Str, Dex, Con, and Wis to optimize your character, I dumped mine in to Int, Cha, Str and Con. Demonstrating his growth as a character as opposed to optimization. My INT will never be anywhere near a Technomancer's Int as I started with an 8.. but Brosni has gotten much smarter during his 10 levels and far more likeable..
The hardest part of this particular gaming system is that since I take this approach, there will never be a time where I can use many of the skills I have chosen and expect a reliable return. I would LOVE to use Intimidate on a more consistent basis, but even with dumping a point in the skill every level, my skill sits at a whopping 14 at lvl 10. Demoralize looks like a really fun thing to attempt in combat, but with a DC of 30... for a lvl 10 creature.. there's no way I can use this skill and expect a reliable result. Wasting a standard action for a 20% chance of success is foolish as opposed to just attacking..
This is why I don't like this balancing method. You either play according to the designers wish (maxing your character without multi-classing), or you become far less effective which in turn reduces your enjoyment of the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like people think I'm arguing for something that I'm not.
No where have I said that it is necessary to play to the level of optimization that I tend towards. Nor am I saying how I play is the way everyone should play. The game seems to play fine without serious optimization.
I am merely stating that the game rules allows for it. This tangent started because Magyar5 was stating the absolute limits of optimization in terms of spell saving throws. I just wanted to point out it was possible to go well beyond single character optimization. That is it. He felt that was unlikely to ever occur, and I wanted to point out some people do play like that, so its not necessarily a hypothetical situation.
Again I'll note that is not the same as saying that level of optimization is necessary. The difficulty of the game is balanced around that 50/50 or 40/60 or 60/40 probability point. And at the end of the day, its up to a good GM to figure out the appropriate challenge level for his or her play group and what they want out of the game in general.
I disagree Hiruma. Teamwork should be a force multiplier, however it shouldn't be required as optimization space. I don't particularly enjoy meta gaming.
It is not required. Never said it is or should be. I am merely saying it is possible and that it is part of optimization parameter space. I'm not demanding you must play with a fully optimized party, in the same way you are not demanding that I send my untrained in perception character in first (although my SFS Solarian, being melee and untrained in perception does tend to fill that role anyways).
I've intentionally left my character's perception untrained and insist on taking the lead in almost ANY environment.
The hardest part of this particular gaming system is that since I take this approach, there will never be a time where I can use many of the skills I have chosen and expect a reliable return. I would LOVE to use Intimidate on a more consistent basis, but even with dumping a point in the skill every level, my skill sits at a whopping 14 at lvl 10. Demoralize looks like a really fun thing to attempt in combat, but with a DC of 30... for a lvl 10 creature.. there's no way I can use this skill and expect a reliable result. Wasting a standard action for a 20% chance of success is foolish as opposed to just attacking..
Why are you willing to take sub-optimal rolls and actions from a mechanics standpoint in the name of fun outside of combat, but not in combat? The point of the game is to have fun and you clearly enjoy the thought of it. Just do it! If you have a good GM, which it sounds like, the story will continue. Maybe not in the best way, but perhaps in a more interesting and fun way.
So what if you waste one standard action every combat on something low probability? As you like to point out, half the time you're going to miss with your attack anyways, so its no different from rolling a 3 on your attack roll, but you'll remember it a lot better than all those hundreds or thousands of times you've missed. Even if you fail. Sometimes, you'll remember it because you failed (spectacularly).
I've pulled off (and seen others do) silly low probability stuff in combat before because either I or they tried. And the results are memorable.
In society play (or a home campaign for that matter), I would never stop a player with a character untrained in diplomacy from walking up and initiating a critical conversation and rolling that diplomacy roll. I might in character do something in response, but that is the point of role playing, responding to the situation presented by the GM and other players.
At the beginning of a session, I'll briefly note what I'm good at and what I'm bad at, as I believe knowing your allies capabilities is important. If I'm the only one trained in diplomacy, I'll tend to act as the party face, but its certainly not a given. I'd never demand the highest bonus on a character sheet determines who rolls.
The reason I play the way I do is I like understanding the system, I like the puzzle that optimization presents in presence of requirements ("Build me a scary dragon themed tank!"), and I like playing heroes.
That last one, playing heroes, is interesting because I find scenarios like to dangle the easy path, the path of compromised morals in front of you. I want to be able to walk into a situation and do it the right way. If that means sending one member to take the boss on round 1, while another deals with mooks, and a third goes and saves bystanders or prisoners, we do it. But that play style requires a certain level of power to work out well.
Each Specialization gives 2 skills that get Skill Focus and a number of ranks for free equal to your operative level. One of these skills can explicitly be used for Trick Attack.
So there is no optimization in increasing these, we can even graph the modifier to DC relationship based on having a +0 ability modifier and using one of the Non-Ghost specializations:
So I did:
Without Optimization(At ALL) the highest you'd need to roll on the die is a 16(provided CR+3 creature), which is at level 1.
Then, if we decide to factor in the "Specialization skill Mastery" allowing you to take 10 from level 7 onwards, we get this
With the same colour code, but the blue and purple lines after the red line basically equate to what you'd need to get from a source not included in this calculation. E.g. Your ability modifier.
Of these, the highest value is actually 4 (for CR+3 at level 7), which is the most optimizing you'd need to do, ever.So if you can't get that +4, you just need to roll for a couple more levels and then you should be fine.
Does this help the discussion? The ability to visualise it.