Character Operations Manual expectations


General Discussion

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Metaphysician wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:
Ixal wrote:
The cynic in me mostly expects a big power creep with the new classes and that they together with shields break the math for monster attack bonus.
My thought on shields is more along the lines of the developers expecting PCs to use cover more than they generally do, so it's more of filling in that gap in AC.
While I agree that there are probably far too many players refusing to use cover, I think the better solution is to keep killing off PCs until they learn their lesson. Eventually, they will learn that the solution to all problems is not "stand in the open, do full attack".

Shields strike me more as a replacement for Cover for the melee-inclined, who can't exactly position for cover while in the middle of a cluster of enemies melee'ing it up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have any expectations beyond what's been confirmed for the book.

But what I would like to see is some character modifications, whether as biotech augmentations or class features for the Biohacker(preferably the former but either way) that are just disgusting.

I mean, body horror type stuff in the vein of what the Alchemist could do to themselves via discoveries in PF 1e.

Acquisitives

SuperBidi wrote:
Doctor Zorkfeld wrote:
Honestly, when the Solarian has a different flanking buddy, I have very little that I need to do other than Get 'Em!/Clever Feint. So I find it's actually pretty likely to happen. If he does need a flanking buddy I can move and sometimes remain flanking in subsequent rounds to dispense the huge bonuses. Since I almost never do direct damage, most enemies find themselves more likely to attack someone else.

In fact, you convinced me to give it a try. When my Envoy hit level 4, I was quite disappointed. So, I haven't played him for some time. But I want to try your build. I'm also thinking in taking Heavy Armor Proficiency and go in front line right from the start. So, enemies come to me and give the Coordinated Shot advantage to my range buddies, and I can just go Get'Em + Clever Feint and get to this +5 bonus (when I'll be level 6).

Thanks for your help ;)

Awesome! I'd love to know how it works out. I took Heavy Armor Proficiency at level 1, so you have the right idea. Once you do get the ability to attack along with your buffs/debuffs (which can be as early as level 4), pick up an Unwieldy melee weapon, since making a full attack really isn't in the cards for this build; you might as well take the biggest stick you can find.


Doctor Zorkfeld wrote:
Awesome! I'd love to know how it works out. I took Heavy Armor Proficiency at level 1, so you have the right idea. Once you do get the ability to attack along with your buffs/debuffs (which can be as early as level 4), pick up an Unwieldy melee weapon, since making a full attack really isn't in the cards for this build; you might as well take the biggest stick you can find.

I don't have the strength for Heavy Armor. Need to wait for level 5. Also, I just took Clever Feint.

No Unwieldy weapon, because you don't do attacks of opportunity with them, and I want to be disruptive. Also, they don't have reach (at least the Basic Melee Weapons ones) and I want to give Coordinated Shot to a lot of my allies. I'll go for Lances.
I'll play him a few times in the coming weeks. I'll tell you here (there are no personal messages on this forum...).

Acquisitives

SuperBidi wrote:

I don't have the strength for Heavy Armor. Need to wait for level 5. Also, I just took Clever Feint.

No Unwieldy weapon, because you don't do attacks of opportunity with them, and I want to be disruptive. Also, they don't have reach (at least the Basic Melee Weapons ones) and I want to give Coordinated Shot to a lot of my allies. I'll go for Lances.
I'll play him a few times in the coming weeks. I'll tell you here (there are no personal messages on this forum...).

I don't think any of the basic weapons have Reach, so to get that you'll need to take Advanced Melee Weapon Proficiency to use lances (my Soldier's plasma lance is an advanced weapon, at least). The spears can be thrown but don't have Reach.

Also, being a Witchwyrd, I don't have to choose between an unwieldy weapon and being able to make attacks of opportunity... I have four arms!


There is a basic weapon Lance with Reach. My Android just have 2 arms, so it's just this one.

I quite like the disruptive concept: having my Envoy in the middle of things, putting his extremely big threatened area over everyone. I should go for Powered Armor at level 9 to get the extra reach and go even further away in this concept.

Scarab Sages Starfinder Design Lead

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lightning Raven wrote:
The Ragi wrote:
When did this topic turn into the envoy bash-and-defend arena?
That was my fault. Sorry. Just couldn't miss the opportunity to express my opinion in the official forums in a post that probably will attract a little bit of attention from Paizo staff, even if they're not active here.

I'm not active here?

...

I FEEL active here. :)


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
The Ragi wrote:
When did this topic turn into the envoy bash-and-defend arena?
That was my fault. Sorry. Just couldn't miss the opportunity to express my opinion in the official forums in a post that probably will attract a little bit of attention from Paizo staff, even if they're not active here.

I'm not active here?

...

I FEEL active here. :)

Well, now I feel like I have to ask. Are they getting new toys in the Character operations manual? And are those new toys higher level combat applicable options?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:
]Well, now I feel like I have to ask. Are they getting new toys in the Character operations manual? And are those new toys higher level combat applicable options?

Might as well second the request. Is the Envoy class getting new options for high level applications, besides combat?


Soon, the Envoy class will be the undisputed master of chef-related technologies at high levels. Can't wait for the book, guys!

Scarab Sages Starfinder Design Lead

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Being active doesn't mean I'm in a good place to answer specific questions about content from a book that hasn't even shipped to the printer yet.

For one thing, any answer I give will lack context of what else is in the book. Second, we have a marketing department and they help us preview information in a way that is most likely to inform and build buzz when it'll generate the most excitement. That's (literally( not my department, and we have professionals who help with that for a reason.

Also, anything I say now might turn out not to be true by the time the book does ship. There are a lot of moving parts, a lot of playtests, a lot of reports -- things can change, and I don't want to give a snapshot that might not be accurate.

I try to read everything in the Starfinder forums. I reply when I can, both scheduling-wise and when I have useful info to share. I frequently look at things brought up on the boards. Sometimes investigation shows a change or addition is called for. Sometimes it shows that one isn't. Sometimes it speaks to a product we already have planned but haven't announced.

But I am around, I promise.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shinigami02 wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:
Ixal wrote:
The cynic in me mostly expects a big power creep with the new classes and that they together with shields break the math for monster attack bonus.
My thought on shields is more along the lines of the developers expecting PCs to use cover more than they generally do, so it's more of filling in that gap in AC.
While I agree that there are probably far too many players refusing to use cover, I think the better solution is to keep killing off PCs until they learn their lesson. Eventually, they will learn that the solution to all problems is not "stand in the open, do full attack".
Shields strike me more as a replacement for Cover for the melee-inclined, who can't exactly position for cover while in the middle of a cluster of enemies melee'ing it up.

Actually, they kind of can. The enemies themselves provide cover, so if you choose your target properly, you have both the "firing into melee" 'bonus', as well as partial cover vs most of the other enemies, so long as your target is standing.

If the enemies are both fragile enough that you kill them in one turn, but they are also numerous and powerful enough that you can't afford to have them all firing back at you? Then pick a different strategy, it means "charge into melee" is a bad idea given the opposition and the terrain.


Metaphysician wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:
Ixal wrote:
The cynic in me mostly expects a big power creep with the new classes and that they together with shields break the math for monster attack bonus.
My thought on shields is more along the lines of the developers expecting PCs to use cover more than they generally do, so it's more of filling in that gap in AC.
While I agree that there are probably far too many players refusing to use cover, I think the better solution is to keep killing off PCs until they learn their lesson. Eventually, they will learn that the solution to all problems is not "stand in the open, do full attack".
Shields strike me more as a replacement for Cover for the melee-inclined, who can't exactly position for cover while in the middle of a cluster of enemies melee'ing it up.

Actually, they kind of can. The enemies themselves provide cover, so if you choose your target properly, you have both the "firing into melee" 'bonus', as well as partial cover vs most of the other enemies, so long as your target is standing.

If the enemies are both fragile enough that you kill them in one turn, but they are also numerous and powerful enough that you can't afford to have them all firing back at you? Then pick a different strategy, it means "charge into melee" is a bad idea given the opposition and the terrain.

Yeah enemies provide cover against other enemies if you're not surrounded. They don't provide cover against the guy you're attacking though, which to me seems like why most of the bonus is only against a single enemy. Full-Attacking is rarely a good idea IMO, so it also gives you something to do with your move action if the enemy doesn't leave your reach.

Also, I'm 99% sure that the Firing Into A Melee penalty isn't a thing in Starfinder.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

There is absolutely no penalty for firing into melee. Not sure why you think full attacking isn't usually a good idea, though. It's usually a great idea, if you're comparing it to standard attacks it wins out anytime that your standard attack would hut on a die roll of 13 or less, though special attacks and move action abilities can change the matchup.


HammerJack wrote:
There is absolutely no penalty for firing into melee. Not sure why you think full attacking isn't usually a good idea, though. It's usually a great idea, if you're comparing it to standard attacks it wins out anytime that your standard attack would hut on a die roll of 13 or less, though special attacks and move action abilities can change the matchup.

I'm not generally sure I trust attack roll to be high enough to hit on a 13+. Also I have pretty bad luck which may make every penalty more extreme in my eyes ^.^;

Sovereign Court

Shinigami02 wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
There is absolutely no penalty for firing into melee. Not sure why you think full attacking isn't usually a good idea, though. It's usually a great idea, if you're comparing it to standard attacks it wins out anytime that your standard attack would hut on a die roll of 13 or less, though special attacks and move action abilities can change the matchup.
I'm not generally sure I trust attack roll to be high enough to hit on a 13+. Also I have pretty bad luck which may make every penalty more extreme in my eyes ^.^;

This is an interesting thing in Starfinder. Monster stats are not nearly as all over the place as they were in Pathfinder. If you're facing a monster that's not grossly higher CR than you, and you're a reasonably skilled warrior, then you probably need a lot less than a 13 on the d20 to hit.


HammerJack wrote:
There is absolutely no penalty for firing into melee.

Vesk tail cover penalty?


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

That's not a penalty for firing into melee. It's a penalty for firing into melee from the wrong direction.


HammerJack wrote:
That's not a penalty for firing into melee. It's a penalty for firing into melee from the wrong direction.

If firing from behind the vesk is the wrong direction to stand in combat i don't want to be in the right one :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This is why we have sharpshoot soldiers and scopes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also want an archetype that's based off the same idea as the Magical Child vigilante archetype because a Pact World equivalent of Sailor Moon would be equal parts hilarious and horrifying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:
I also want an archetype that's based off the same idea as the Magical Child vigilante archetype because a Pact World equivalent of Sailor Moon would be equal parts hilarious and horrifying.

Sailor Aucturn is here! Run away!

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Character Operations Manual expectations All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Starfinder General Discussion