Over the weekend I ran an adventure I wrote for playtest characters and I want to post my thoughts and results.
First to set the scene the adventure was a parody of StarWars and set in Jibbo da' House's palace. This scenario was more designed around testing combat mechanics at high level and not skill progression.
Party:
Vanguard 15
Biohacker 14/Soldier 1
Witchwarper 15
Witchwarper 15
All characters were made with 500,001 credits except one Witchwarper whom only had 500,000 because they whined about the extra credit. Needless to say said Witchwarper was the only one to die...see what 1 credit does for you?
All encounters were built for encounter level based on rules presented in the Starfinder Core Rulebook, based on monster building rules from Alien Archive 1 & Alien Archive 2.
There were 3 encounters in the adventure EL 15, EL 17, and EL 18. Individual creatures also progressed through the encounters.
Encounter 1 (EL 15):
6 EL10 Orc Soldiers. So this was the entryway guards to Gibbo's palace. They were all slightly better at melee, but still respectable at range too. The special defense these had were spell resistance. Since they were underpowered the spell resistance was supposed to help them from being destroyed outright.
Encounter results:
One Witchwarper got into hitpoints mainly because I was able to get the jump on the PCs in initiative and get to the Witchwarper before the Vanguard could step up and defend. Once the Vanguard got control this combat was trivial.
The triviality of this combat, probably came from encounter design more than anything overpowering on the PCs side. The problem with D&D 3rd edition, no edition wars just a problem that has never been rectified in all the later derivations of 3rd edition, is that monsters of a lower EL than the PCs are not usually dangerous. This was the case here, I needed a 19 - 20 to hit the Vanguard and even then if the Vanguard leveled its shield towards the monster a crit was only a normal hit. I was needing 15 and above for the other PCs. This fight was designed as a bellwether for the other two encounters to tell me if I needed to make adjustments to the other ones.
Thoughts:
Two things stood out for me.
First, shield really need to be looked at for their effects to AC. To me it seems that AC has been balanced for armor without shields, but with shields it seems it makes it really difficult to hit people. While it may be balanced for a Vanguard...what happens when a soldier gets a hold of one?
Second, Unwilling Guardian. Ok, it is a 5th level spell, but no saves after the initial one? It is not really a Witchwarper problem since the spell is from the core rulebook. Since the creature has to be lower EL it is probably balanced.
Encounter 2 (EL 17):
Jibbo Da'House Yoski Envoy EL14
Buba McFett Human Operative EL14
4 EL 10 Orc Soldiers EL14
Non combatant:
Slave Boy EL17 Blue Dragon (human form)
This encounter was originally written with the throne pit trap to the Rancor whom at EL 14 added would have made this EL18. The Rancor would not have changed much in this room, so I decided to remove the trap and add it to the final encounter. The Slave Boy/Dragon is the person in charge, but everyone thinks (including Jibbo) that Jibbo is in charge.
Encounter Results:
No one suspected the slave boy or had a true seeing type of ability to see the dragon as it was, so in general the dragon was ignored. I also had the PCs roll sense motive checks against the dragon's bluff, which they all failed miserably. Who am I to tell them differently when they thought they were sense motiving against Jibbo?
Bubba got locked down by a Witchwarper's Consuming Narrative power. Without Jibbo's heavy hitter most of Jibbo's powers were moot. The dragon made a mysticism check to figure out what was going on and tried to get the orcs to hit Buba, but the other Witchwarper kept locking down the orc the dragon told to do it, lucky guesses. So by the time Buba was unlocked Jibbo was down, 2 of the 4 orcs were down. Stupid Orc crit Buba when he hit him. The rest was cleanup, since the small room size allowed the Vanguard to pretty much lock up Buba who had only about a 30% chance to hit him without Jibbo's help.
Thoughts:
Consuming Narrative with can break a combat quickly. Especially with the encounter level problems that come from above. Yes it locks up one of the PCs with concentration to maintain it, but with no saves the Witchwarper can freely hold say the boss, while the other PCs clean up the trash. With basically unlimited uses (I know only effected 1 time per 24 hours), this ability can trivialize whole adventures. I think a save needs to be introduced or a limit on uses per day.
Encounter 3 (EL 18):
Slave Boy/Blue Dragon EL 17
Rancor EL 14
Non Combatant:
Hands Duo the person they were in to rescue.
Combat Results:
The nature of the enemies caused the PCs to think the Rancor was the bigger of the two threats, even though the dragon got a good breath weapon in the surprise round. They had taken the slave boy with them and he shifted forms while the PCs were distracted by the Rancor. This let the dragon to get next to a Witchwarper and multiattack multiple times and tear them apart. Since the dragon did start in melee range of the party. After the PCs killed the Rancor, the dragon was the only enemy in the adventure that was giving them trouble. They won, losing a Witchwarper and Hands. The dragon could have left, if it were an ongoing campaign it would have and been a menace for the future.
Thoughts:
It took an EL + 2 creature to give them trouble. If the dragon didn't have immunity to mind affecting (not standard given to prevent charm/suggestion to fit the Jabba the Hutt's immunity) this combat would have gone very different, as the dead Witchwarper tried to Consuming Narrative it too. A more balanced party, one with some healing, would have been fine in the final combat. Spells that require a on the other hand may need a save boost the dragon saved against the Witchwarpers spells on its weakest save 50% of the time, which the dice gods did not let me miss for the entire combat.
Overall Thoughts:
A couple of things stood out to me:
1. As mentioned earlier I think shields need to be looked since it raises ACs to the point that EL level creatures will have a high miss percentage. The EL17 dragon needed a 12 to hit the Vanguard on a single attack, 16 on a multi attack. If the Vanguard raised shield it went to 15 and 19.
2. Spells and powers that are no saves or save or long effect need to be looked at in general. At level 15 if I were running a home game, I would be left with encounters that took powers away from PCs since things like Consuming Narrative are either you are immune to it or you are not. It feels like I am a benevolent GM and I am allowing you to use your power this time. It is no fun if an NPC does it to a PC and it can trivialize an encounter the opposite direction. I am harping on Consuming Narrative but that is not the only one that does that sort of thing.
3. Spells need higher save DCs at higher levels. When the monsters get saves they are looking at upwards of 80%-85% on the strong save and 50% on the low one. I'd like to see those percentages knocked down 10%-15%.
Congratulations on getting to the end of this wall of text.
--Chris
I'm thinking shields should do nothing without taking the move action to ready them. Unless they've fixed it already, it should also be a cover bonus to AC and not a separate bonus.
I'm also thinking that tactical shields shouldn't be a thing, or that there should be a drawback to wielding one. Not everyone is going to want to carry a riot shield, everyone will want a spare hand for a tactical shield.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking shields should do nothing without taking the move action to ready them. Unless they've fixed it already, it should also be a cover bonus to AC and not a separate bonus.
I'm also thinking that tactical shields shouldn't be a thing, or that there should be a drawback to wielding one. Not everyone is going to want to carry a riot shield, everyone will want a spare hand for a tactical shield.
Yes, Starfinder clearly suffers right now from PCs being too hard to hit, having too much WBL to go around, and extra arms being too useful. Tactical shields would just exacerbate all these severe problems.
|
When I read this, the outcome isn't that different from what I would expect with a non-SCOM party. A party with existing classes should also be unimpressed with APL-5 enemies, no matter how many there are. A pair of APL-1 enemies should cost them some resources to handle. An APL+2 enemy should be able to really bite them. An APL+3 enemy should have them wondering if they're all headed for a TPK. (APL+3 in Starfinder is heftier than in Pathfinder, the scales are a bit different.)
I think shields are a very fine line to tread. Even a +1 or +2 makes a difference in Starfinder. On the other hand, spending a move action every round to align a shield costs you a lot. It locks you out of trick attacks (good), out of full attacks (...), and out of movement. The last thing is bad, it leads back to the kind of stationary fight that 3.5/PF1 gets a lot of flak for.
I've seen a couple of vanguards in action, they can spend quite a few abilities and actions to stack up AC beyond the amount you normally get in Starfinder. At the cost of fighting defensively and standing still. I'm not a fan of that. I've also played a L8 vanguard twice and felt that with my huge stamina pool and quite decent AC, I could afford to live a bit more dangerously than that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking shields should do nothing without taking the move action to ready them. Unless they've fixed it already, it should also be a cover bonus to AC and not a separate bonus.
Shield AC doesn't stack with cover bonuses, so they're effectively the same type of bonus. See the upper right box on page 17 of the playtest.
I'm also thinking that tactical shields shouldn't be a thing, or that there should be a drawback to wielding one. Not everyone is going to want to carry a riot shield, everyone will want a spare hand for a tactical shield.
Currently, if you're a ranged striker, and actual cover is within a move action's distance a way, you're generally better off moving to cover than raising your shield.
At level 3, as a ranged striker with the option to use a 1-handed small arm or a 2-handed long arm, you could either grab a tactical shield and small arm (say 1d6+1 damage) and get +1 AC with a move action, or grab a long arm (1d8+3 damage) and use your move action to move to cover in many situations. The drawback of the shield and small arm in that case is doing only 60% of the damage of the longarm.
So while some characters will want shields, typically either full casters that don't use a weapon or non-operative melee characters who don't have an option to get to cover, I'd argue many other don't get much benefit and are better off wielding 2-handed ranged weapons.
There is one difference between shield bonuses being cover and shield bonuses not stacking with cover, in that there are ways to reduce cover penalties that have no effect on shields (sharpshooter fighting style, scopes.)
I don't see shields actually becoming ubiquitous, though. At least not the two sample types.
Yes I did not expect the APL -5 to threaten the party that much. This was an actual playtest of the classes and I needed to make sure two things. First, the numbers were the same for Starfinder as they have been for every other version of 3rd edition. Second, that there wasn't something fundamentally wrong with the classes that made the APL -5 creatures dangerous. In both cases the numbers worked out as they should, the PCs weren't threatened.
The PCs also weren't really threatened by the encounter where the enemies were APL -1. It was good tactics on their part at identifying the threat and neutralizing it. My only complaint about that was that there was no save/to hit roll for the power that did the neutralizing. Especially since the power did not cost resources.
The last encounter an APL +2 creature had a 55% miss chance, if it took only a single attack on its best attack roll. There is a discrepancy between the dragon presented in Alien Archive and what the build should look like according to the rules and using the template. So if I had not given it the additional +1 to hit that I could not find where it came from it would have been a 60% miss chance. Once the Vanguard raised it's shield that miss chance to 70% (75% if I hadn't added the +1). Yes the dragon has other powers but since everything is built off the same three templates, what if I had raised the Rancor to APL +2? It would have had 1 less attack bonus and needed 13/16 to hit.
So what to do about shields? I think possibly taking a cue from PF2 and introduce the DR/Dent system to them might be the balancing point. Another possibility is to make them act the same as cover and allow cover mitigating abilities to bypass the shield bonus.
--Chris
|
|
Yeah, vanguards going all out on AC does put them a bit over the curve, not really in a way I quite like. Making shield a "cover bonus" might help - it stops stacking, and there are some ways to reduce cover.
Alternatively, shields as supplemental damage reduction is an option. That needs to be done carefully though, because there are interactions with other sources of DR to consider. Enhanced Resistance in particular gives a LOT of DR. My experience in the level 5-8 band is that the DR actually helps balance the game compensating for enemies hitting more often than they miss. But I'm not sure enemy damage scaling can quite keep up with DR = BAB. Except if the enemies are varied in damage type (as they certainly can be in Starfinder). Anyway, if shields just give nonstacking DR, then they're not going to be useful.
And I do want shields to be useful - the game system needs an attractive alternative to longarms, and reward for having extra arms. Just attractive enough not to tip things over to the other side though.
My preference would be for raising shield to give a modest bonus: a bit of DR or even hardness (a shield can blunt energy attacks) that would stack with other sources you have. So it should not be a big bonus in itself, because you are counting on it being combined with other defenses. And please no dents - that's the kind of extra bookkeeping nobody really enjoys.
In addition to the benefits of shields being rather modest, I want it to be possible to raise a shield while taking a Guarded Step, Move or Withdraw action, so that combat doesn't become too static. But not trick attack, spring attack, run and so forth, because that's a bit too much.
I still lean to a somewhat easy solution: shields provide +AC, but only when used. . . and using them costs your swift action each round. So, no full attacks, no attacks of opportunity, and none of the little necessary support actions.
Swift action is separate from your reaction, so using a swift doesn't prevent using a reaction such as an attack of opportunity. Which also means using a full attack doesn't prevent taking an attack of opportunity.
I'll point out some classes provide no swift actions innately. I'd almost consider it a buff as it means you can move and shoot and raise your shield.
I still lean to a somewhat easy solution: shields provide +AC, but only when used. . . and using them costs your swift action each round. So, no full attacks, no attacks of opportunity, and none of the little necessary support actions.Swift action is separate from your reaction, so using a swift doesn't prevent using a reaction such as an attack of opportunity. Which also means using a full attack doesn't prevent taking an attack of opportunity.
I'll point out some classes provide no swift actions innately. I'd almost consider it a buff as it means you can move and shoot and raise your shield.
I don't want to put words in the guy's mouth, but I think he was considering swift action for the lower AC value, move action to align vs a target.
I see how it is, no mention at all of me using the studious BioHacker ability to apply 2 injections to give a -2 AC and acid vulnerability to the rancor and dragon :-P
The acid vulnerability paired with a Vanguard is a significant damage booster. And, I wish I had figured it out before we were 2/3 of the way through the 2nd fight.
In reality, aside from that trick, my character was basically supplemental damage (5d6+15) and minor debuffs that were usually penalizing AC so the Vanguard would hit more frequently.
why not let shields soak up some damage instead of adding to defenses?
Use a reaction, shield absorbs it's bonus in damage.
my group has been using shields that way for years in Pathfinder (a squinty eyed version of a Trailblazer rule for combat reactions)
why not let shields soak up some damage instead of adding to defenses?
Use a reaction, shield absorbs it's bonus in damage.
my group has been using shields that way for years in Pathfinder (a squinty eyed version of a Trailblazer rule for combat reactions)
Either shields would have to be a lot stronger than they are now (which would probably throw off the math too much) or no one would ever use it. Even if we just made the aligned value the default, the level 20 Riot Shield is a +5 bonus (basically designed to slot into the AC bonus of Cover, with a slight bonus for being the level 20 version of the more debilitating shield). A level 20 non-Combatant enemy with Energy damage is dealing 4d12+20 (average 46) damage. A Combatant doing Physical is dealing as much as 16d6+20 (average 76) damage. Heck, the first level 20 energy small-arm I've found (Umbral Shadow Pistol) is dealing 5d10+10 (average 37.5) damage. Heck, at the cost of a single feat any character by this point can have DR 15 or 20/- (or Resistance in any one energy type of 15 or 20). Spending a valuable resource (your Reaction) to block 5 damage at this level is pitiful... and things are even worse if we don't upgrade to aligned level and you're instead blocking only 2 damage.
Either shields would have to be a lot stronger than they are now (which would probably throw off the math too much) or no one would ever use it. Even if we just made the aligned value the default, the level 20 Riot Shield is a +5 bonus (basically designed to slot into the AC bonus of Cover, with a slight bonus for being the level 20 version of the more debilitating shield). A level 20 non-Combatant enemy with Energy damage is dealing 4d12+20 (average 46) damage. A Combatant doing Physical is dealing as much as 16d6+20 (average 76) damage. Heck, the first level 20 energy small-arm I've found (Umbral Shadow Pistol) is dealing 5d10+10 (average 37.5) damage. Heck, at the cost of a single feat any character by this point can have DR 15 or 20/- (or Resistance in any one energy type of 15 or 20). Spending a valuable resource (your Reaction) to block 5 damage at this level is pitiful... and things are even worse if we don't upgrade to aligned level and you're instead blocking only 2 damage.why not let shields soak up some damage instead of adding to defenses?
Use a reaction, shield absorbs it's bonus in damage.
my group has been using shields that way for years in Pathfinder (a squinty eyed version of a Trailblazer rule for combat reactions)
only played Starfinder for about 5 sessions, and have only started running my own game (all low level so far), but so far it doesn't look like Reactions are used all that much. AoO are about the only thing I see at first blush and those seem to be far more sporadic than in Pathfinder due to it being most ranged based combat. 1-5 damage soaking doesn't seem like a lot, but those add up, and can give a character 1 or 2 more shots they can take during a combat. And since its a resource many don't use, it's only a bonus (though I agree it could be a bit bigger; we use 1/2 BAB + Shield Bonus in our Pathfinder games)
|
|
only played Starfinder for about 5 sessions, and have only started running my own game (all low level so far), but so far it doesn't look like Reactions are used all that much. AoO are about the only thing I see at first blush and those seem to be far more sporadic than in Pathfinder due to it being most ranged based combat.
Melee combat is a strong option for PCs, if only to have someone between the ranged PCs and monsters that want to bite their face off. Also, for melee characters there's quite a few ways to be very mobile, so they can often quickly get in the face of ranged enemies. Who then have a choice: keep using their nice gun but get attacks of opportunity, or switch to a less powerful melee weapon?
It's not so much that you're constantly making attacks of opportunity, but the threat that you could make them which has an effect on the game. If you spend your reactions on a shield, then you lose that threat.
still seems to be less prevalent than in Pathfinder, which had the same choice, block or have a possible AoO. Made for some nice choices in combat (of course you could more easily get additional AoOs, especially at higher levels, so that blunted the negative of taking a block action)
"Needless to say said Witchwarper was the only one to die...see what 1 credit does for you?"
I laughed. Late to the discussion party but thanks for a clear and concise report on your experience.
I agree with the idea of shields not granting AC but a miss chance. Makes them a new type of defense, without skewing the numbers.
Or you could make the bonus on shields an "Armor" bonus as well, so they don't stack with/best armor, but you can have a shield wielding envoy with great dex and shield "armor AC", the drawback being no armor upgrades for shields, but they're very easy to port and monkey about in.
I'd say the strength of miss chance is actually that it's separate from AC. You might not have been spending enough money to keep up with the AC rat race, but a 50% miss chance is as good as the most expensive armor you could buy while faced with a book's end boss.
This is exactly why the gray technomancer in my group is a viable character. He has spells, a lot of stamina, and 5/day 20%miss chance. It doesn't matter that he has the worst armor of the group, 20% is what he needs to throw out spells or dragon gland uses. It's compounded with whatever miss chance he gets out of bad armor, 20%x20% is good enough for that character. mathematically a miss chance is compounded by AC.
Shields should maybe give AC if you use an action, big shields maybe even if you don't. Miss chances are a bit much, and I'd rather see things like situational cover, or additional resistances.