PROPOSAL - Critical range enhancing fusions


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Xenocrat wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
You made an assertion about the impact of this on characters that stick around. I find it unsupported. That is my point. I acknowledge it may have minimal rather than negligible salience in a minority of circumstances.
And, once again, your point is about frequency, which is irrelevant to my point.

My point is that your concern is amusingly trivial even when it happens; given that this trivial inconvenience won’t even occur very often it’s even less worth worrying about.

But of course different people worry about different things. Smarter, richer, and braver people worry about less in life than the poorer, dumber, and skittish. If this sort of thing is a problem for your games and your kind of players then I believe you.

You seem to be assuming that (a) that there would be an adjustment to later rewards based on returning to Wealth By Level, which isn't true at all tables, and far more significantly, (b) that the WBL adjustment would result in getting back whatever was lost, which just isn't how WBL works at all.


I understand that you don’t understand it to work that way.


Xenocrat wrote:
I understand that you don’t understand it to work that way.

And I understand that you don't seem to get that "Wealth By Level" doesn't mean "credits".


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I understand that you don’t understand it to work that way.
And I understand that you don't seem to get that "Wealth By Level" doesn't mean "credits".

I definitely understand your desire to retreat into these irrelevant nonsequitors.


Xenocrat wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I understand that you don’t understand it to work that way.
And I understand that you don't seem to get that "Wealth By Level" doesn't mean "credits".
I definitely understand your desire to retreat into these irrelevant nonsequitors.

The fact that losing a limb that has a valuable augmentation in it, and may not get it back easily if your Wealth By Level is coming in the form of items more than in the form of credits, is fairly relevant.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I understand that you don’t understand it to work that way.
And I understand that you don't seem to get that "Wealth By Level" doesn't mean "credits".
I definitely understand your desire to retreat into these irrelevant nonsequitors.
The fact that losing a limb that has a valuable augmentation in it, and may not get it back easily if your Wealth By Level is coming in the form of items more than in the form of credits, is fairly relevant.

"Fairly"? Now apply values and probabilities to all of these conditionals, multiply them out, and find out how relevant it really is. I did the work for you upthread, you just need to add in values and probabilities for possessing certain augmentations (reduced by 50% for augmentations that are only one hand/arm, of course) and the odds that your GM is someone who both won't fix your WBL and you still want to play with.

I feel like this can be a really valuable educational experience for you, and you might even be able to aggressively plug numbers in that bring the expected cost of an attack by a severe wound crit weapon from 0.9 credits all the way up to 10 or even 20. Scary, it appears, to some. But it takes all kinds, just like some people find it worth their time to pick up pennies off the street, others apparently find it terrifying that they might have to spend a bit of money and time to recover from an unlikely event.


And there you go with the irrelevancies again.

I'm not talking about frequency, and never was. EV isn't the subject at hand. Why are you trying to apply it like it's the only analytical tool in the world?


Nerdy Canuck wrote:

And there you go with the irrelevancies again.

I'm not talking about frequency, and never was. EV isn't the subject at hand. Why are you trying to apply it like it's the only analytical tool in the world?

You've been talking about your feelings - SEVERE WOUND BAD, SCARY! I've been talking about how your feelings have nothing to do with reality. You've applied no analytical tools at all.

I accept that you feel deep panic at the very small risk of a crit effect that can usually be mitigated at low cost. Lots of people feel irrational panics. Some can be talked out of it with reason and logic, some need anti-anxiety medication, others just cope the best they can and endure the irrational fear.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to help you. I'm sure I was able to help anyone who read this thread and initially thought your fears might be valid, but now see that that just objectively isn't so. I'll just have to take solace in that good deed and hope that you're more amenable to my corrections of your mistakes in other threads.

I wish you well and hope your gaming group is able to calm you down if you face a severe wound crit weapon or any other phobia triggers you may have.


I... Look, I don't mean to be rude here, but you don't have the slightest clue about game design, do you?


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
I... Look, I don't mean to be rude here, but you don't have the slightest clue about game design, do you?

I'm very happy that you've found this coping strategy.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I understand that you don’t understand it to work that way.
And I understand that you don't seem to get that "Wealth By Level" doesn't mean "credits".
I definitely understand your desire to retreat into these irrelevant nonsequitors.
The fact that losing a limb that has a valuable augmentation in it, and may not get it back easily if your Wealth By Level is coming in the form of items more than in the form of credits, is fairly relevant.

Point of order: it should make zero difference, because either those items are useful ( and thus are replacing other things which you'd be spending credits on, freeing up said credits ), or they are not. And if they are not, they should only be counted as 10% towards wealth ( ie, you'd better be getting ten times as many of them ).


Okay, I'm just going to try explaining a piece of the relevant design thinking here one more time before I write you off completely:

Can you understand that when a negative event happens to a player, how rare that event is doesn't matter to them in the slightest? That, because it happened to them, the only thing that matters is how significant/severe it is, and how long term?

There's a very important rule in game design that if something isn't real in the player's head, it basically doesn't exist - because the thing being designed is actually the experience they're having in their head. You can throw all the numbers around you want, but once it actually happens at a table none of that analysis matters. It is not enough to look at statistical breakdowns and decide they look okay; you absolutely have to look at how bad it can get, how far it swings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How about we take a step back and calm down here?

Making ad hominem attacks as arguments to prove points doesn't do anything here.


Metaphysician wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I understand that you don’t understand it to work that way.
And I understand that you don't seem to get that "Wealth By Level" doesn't mean "credits".
I definitely understand your desire to retreat into these irrelevant nonsequitors.
The fact that losing a limb that has a valuable augmentation in it, and may not get it back easily if your Wealth By Level is coming in the form of items more than in the form of credits, is fairly relevant.
Point of order: it should make zero difference, because either those items are useful ( and thus are replacing other things which you'd be spending credits on, freeing up said credits ), or they are not. And if they are not, they should only be counted as 10% towards wealth ( ie, you'd better be getting ten times as many of them ).

But as everyone who has spent any significant amount of time on a character build knows, not all items are actually equal. Not even all useful items are equal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now, Nerdy Canuck, to address your concern for players and the severe wound effect and its ability to chop off body parts.

It is a short term problem, but should not be a long term problem.

The GA is supposed to guarantee players maintain (approximately) wealth by level.

So, if a players loses a hand and uses a regeneration table to regrow that hand, the GM is supposed to replenish the cost of that regeneration table. And since it did nothing but restore them back to "ground 0" it means it should have no long term impact to their wealth. There are people and GMs who disagree with this line of reasoning, but frankly they're flat out wrong in my opinion and don't understand the point of wealth by level (which is to say that you "have this much value of stuff").

Nerdy Canuck wrote:
But as everyone who has spent any significant amount of time on a character build knows, not all items are actually equal. Not even all useful items are equal.

True, but no system is perfect. WBL can only get so far towards "balance". Unlike Pthfinder, Starfinder doesn't have them many items that are "must haves". You have very limited items that provide numeric bonuses to stats. Items tend to be more situationally useful.


Claxon wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
But as everyone who has spent any significant amount of time on a character build knows, not all items are actually equal. Not even all useful items are equal.
True, but no system is perfect. WBL can only get so far towards "balance". Unlike Pthfinder, Starfinder doesn't have them many items that are "must haves". You have very limited items that provide numeric bonuses to stats. Items tend to be more situationally useful.

Sure, but I think we both know that players can get pretty attached to situationally useful items.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
But as everyone who has spent any significant amount of time on a character build knows, not all items are actually equal. Not even all useful items are equal.
True, but no system is perfect. WBL can only get so far towards "balance". Unlike Pthfinder, Starfinder doesn't have them many items that are "must haves". You have very limited items that provide numeric bonuses to stats. Items tend to be more situationally useful.
Sure, but I think we both know that players can get pretty attached to situationally useful items.

Sure, but that becomes a player choice.

Wealth By Level is a great, but not perfect tool. If you choose to use a weapon 5 levels behind your character level it wont be surprising when your damage doesn't keep up with others. Tools can only do so much before stepping on player agency. If the player wants to keep a situational and expensive item, they have to look at how that affects their ability to do other things.

Beyond weapons, armor, and certain armor fusions, and personal upgrades I don't think there is too much that is "required" in Starfinder.


Claxon wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
But as everyone who has spent any significant amount of time on a character build knows, not all items are actually equal. Not even all useful items are equal.
True, but no system is perfect. WBL can only get so far towards "balance". Unlike Pthfinder, Starfinder doesn't have them many items that are "must haves". You have very limited items that provide numeric bonuses to stats. Items tend to be more situationally useful.
Sure, but I think we both know that players can get pretty attached to situationally useful items.

Sure, but that becomes a player choice.

Wealth By Level is a great, but not perfect tool. If you choose to use a weapon 5 levels behind your character level it wont be surprising when your damage doesn't keep up with others. Tools can only do so much before stepping on player agency. If the player wants to keep a situational and expensive item, they have to look at how that affects their ability to do other things.

Beyond weapons, armor, and certain armor fusions, and personal upgrades I don't think there is too much that is "required" in Starfinder.

Right, but it's easy to see a scenario where a player is making a lot of use of something like a Polyhand, Speed Suspension, Recoil Stabilizer, or X-Legs, and losing that has a major impact on how they experience the game.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Right, but it's easy to see a scenario where a player is making a lot of use of something like a Polyhand, Speed Suspension, Recoil Stabilizer, or X-Legs, and losing that has a major impact on how they experience the game.

Sure, I agree that if my character lost their speed suspension because their legs got chopped off it would be inconvenient. For the short term.

However, my group would proceed in the following way:
The character, assuming they lived, wouldn't be able to walk until they got some sort of treatment. Worst case scenario when you get back to a spaceship your group goes to Absalom station and gets medical treatment. This works really well if your group are Starfinders, and you can cover the cost of the "treatment" (regeneration?) as a benefit of being a Starfinder. They're "insured for occupational hazards like this". Afterwards, it's up to the GM to determine exactly how to reimburse the character for the lost item (whatever it is).

But ultimately the expectation for my group is that it should have no long term impact on the characters wealth or ability.

For our group we have a lot more fun and get into the role play by being able to ignore the potential of "1 character is too wealthy and that causes problems" and also "1 character is too poor and that causes problems".


Claxon wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Right, but it's easy to see a scenario where a player is making a lot of use of something like a Polyhand, Speed Suspension, Recoil Stabilizer, or X-Legs, and losing that has a major impact on how they experience the game.

Sure, I agree that if my character lost their speed suspension because their legs got chopped off it would be inconvenient. For the short term.

However, my group would proceed in the following way:
The character, assuming they lived, wouldn't be able to walk until they got some sort of treatment. Worst case scenario when you get back to a spaceship your group goes to Absalom station and gets medical treatment. This works really well if your group are Starfinders, and you can cover the cost of the "treatment" (regeneration?) as a benefit of being a Starfinder. They're "insured for occupational hazards like this". Afterwards, it's up to the GM to determine exactly how to reimburse the character for the lost item (whatever it is).

But ultimately the expectation for my group is that it should have no long term impact on the characters wealth or ability.

For our group we have a lot more fun and get into the role play by being able to ignore the potential of "1 character is too wealthy and that causes problems" and also "1 character is too poor and that causes problems".

That's a good way to run it - but it's not how design should assume the game is run, in no small part because running a game like that is actually far more resilient to problems than other styles.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe that is the assumption they design the game on. That's literally how Wealth By Level is supposed to work as a concept.

It's just that there is a lot of diversity in how people think its supposed to work and how they execute the concept of WBL.

In short, my opinion is that a lot of people screw up how they're supposed to run the game (both Starfinder, Pathfinder, and D&D by extension) with respect to player wealth.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.


Claxon wrote:

I believe that is the assumption they design the game on. That's literally how Wealth By Level is supposed to work as a concept.

It's just that there is a lot of diversity in how people think its supposed to work and how they execute the concept of WBL.

In short, my opinion is that a lot of people screw up how they're supposed to run the game (both Starfinder, Pathfinder, and D&D by extension) with respect to player wealth.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

I doubt that - you barely even need wealth guidelines for the table you're describing at all.


Claxon wrote:

I believe that is the assumption they design the game on. That's literally how Wealth By Level is supposed to work as a concept.

It's not. I've never seen or heard of a group doing it that way besides yours, no game has ever hinted at doing loot that way, and no paizo source does loot that way: thats why they list loot.

For a game like pathfinder where you upgrade your loot all the time the difference between magic mart, murdermart, and WBL replacement is minimal.

For starfinder where you have to toss your old gear and buy new from scratch the difference is enormous.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Claxon wrote:

I believe that is the assumption they design the game on. That's literally how Wealth By Level is supposed to work as a concept.

It's just that there is a lot of diversity in how people think its supposed to work and how they execute the concept of WBL.

In short, my opinion is that a lot of people screw up how they're supposed to run the game (both Starfinder, Pathfinder, and D&D by extension) with respect to player wealth.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

I doubt that - you barely even need wealth guidelines for the table you're describing at all.

That's not true at all. You need the WBL guidelines, it's just that its basically all you need. You need a number so that your GM knows how much wealth to target for the players. The are responsible for making sure that players stay close to that target. How exactly they achieve that is up to the GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Claxon wrote:

I believe that is the assumption they design the game on. That's literally how Wealth By Level is supposed to work as a concept.

It's not. I've never seen or heard of a group doing it that way besides yours, no game has ever hinted at doing loot that way, and no paizo source does loot that way: thats why they list loot.

For a game like pathfinder where you upgrade your loot all the time the difference between magic mart, murdermart, and WBL replacement is minimal.

For starfinder where you have to toss your old gear and buy new from scratch the difference is enormous.

Really? Well I'll go with my own experience which says I know lots of groups that do it that way, and they hint at doing it. And that the reason Paizo lists loot is for backwards compatibility!

See, I can make arguments with no backing our support beyond my word too.

Loot list don't disrupt the concept of WBL. It's a way to ground the progression of WBL into the story line of the game. My group just resets at every level up that's true. But if your GM runs a game where they give out loot from every enemy and then finds that the characters are 20% behind WBL because they sell all that loot (because they don't like it) then the GM needs to do something to bring them back up to the target.

That's literally my whole point about WBL. Its a target for how much you should have. If you have less the GM should give you more. If you have too much the GM should give you less. How they implement that in the story is up to them, but that doesn't change what the targets are.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, consumable items would literally never be used if it meant each one sets you further and further back from your expected WBL.

Same goes for recouping lost items/limbs.

GM: "Oohh, I'm sorry, since you spent too much on consumables you're now permanently behind in wealth. All the math surrounding encounter design is going to go out the window from here on out, good luck and make sure you roll up a more miserly character just in case."


Claxon wrote:


And that the reason Paizo lists loot is for backwards compatibility!

This is completely disingenuous and you know it. It's not merely my word.

___finder society doesn't do it that way
Thats not the way it's listed out in the core rulebook

pathfinder: . Since the primary income for a PC derives from treasure and loot gained from adventuring, it's important to moderate the wealth and hoards you place in your adventures. To aid in placing treasure, the amount of treasure and magic items the PCs receive for their adventures is tied to the Challenge Rating of the encounters they face—the higher an encounter's CR, the more treasure it can award.

From adventuring and loot. NOT automatic level ups.

Starfiner: Wealth Per Encounter
Table 11–4: Wealth Gains per Encounter lists the amount of treasure each encounter should award based on its CR. When looking at this number, it’s important to understand that it represents wealth from many different sources: hard currency, looted items, and earned or story-based wealth. Relying too much on any one category can skew the game’s power balance. Additionally, most encounters are part of an overarching adventure, in which case it’s useful to look at wealth for the adventure as a whole. Don’t be afraid to have some encounters grant more wealth while others grant less, as long as it balances out by the end of the adventure.

Every time you've mentioned your groups loot system other people (everyone else?) in the conversation has said they weren't doing things that way

While you would need a wealth by level table, thats ALL you would need with your system. You wouldn't need treasure per encounter or have to worry about over or under treasure bathing your pcs.

I get that you like your loot system but claiming that it's standard is just counter factual.

Quote:
That's literally my whole point about WBL. Its a target for how much you should have. If you have less the GM should give you more. If you have too much the GM should give you less. How they implement that in the story is up to them, but that doesn't change what the targets are.

Its possible that the DM has handed out too much/too little treasure.

It's also possible that the PCs spent beyond their means on consumables (possible but unlikely in pathfinder) or upgraded their gear too often ( very possible in starfinder)

Quote:
Loot list don't disrupt the concept of WBL. It's a way to ground the progression of WBL into the story line of the game.


WatersLethe wrote:

Also, consumable items would literally never be used if it meant each one sets you further and further back from your expected WBL.

"

It doesn't. Because wealth and income aren't the same thing. Comparing expected income and expected wealth gives you a margin for things like reasonable consumable use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


This is completely disingenuous and you know it. It's not merely my word.

___finder society doesn't do it that way
Thats not the way it's listed out in the core rulebook

pathfinder: . Since the primary income for a PC derives from treasure and loot gained from adventuring, it's important to moderate the wealth and hoards you place in your adventures. To aid in placing treasure, the amount of treasure and magic items the PCs receive for their adventures is tied to the Challenge Rating of the encounters they face—the higher an encounter's CR, the more treasure it can award.

From adventuring and loot. NOT automatic level ups.

Starfiner: Wealth Per Encounter
Table 11–4: Wealth Gains per Encounter lists the amount of treasure each encounter should award based on its CR. When looking at this number, it’s important to understand that it represents wealth from many different sources: hard currency, looted items, and earned or story-based wealth. Relying too much on any one category can skew the game’s power balance. Additionally, most encounters are part of an overarching adventure, in which case it’s useful to look at wealth for the adventure as a whole. Don’t be afraid to have some encounters grant more wealth while others grant less, as long as it balances out by the end of the adventure.

Every time you've mentioned your groups loot system other people (everyone else?) in the conversation has said they weren't doing things that way

While you would need a wealth by level table, thats ALL you would need with your system. You wouldn't need treasure per encounter or have to worry about over or under treasure bathing your pcs.

I get that you like your loot system but claiming that it's standard is just counter factual.

Quote:
That's literally my whole point about WBL. Its a target for how much you should have. If you have less the GM should give you more. If you have too much the GM
...

I don't care one fig for what Starfinder or Pathfinder Society do. They have all sorts of special rules to make the game work for society play structure. To me those are special rules sets that I don't play. I know almost nothing about PFS or SFS.

I agree that Wealth By Level it's not tied to "automatic level ups". I didn't say it was. I said it's tied to level, which is obviously is by the chart. And if you follow the XP guidelines for encounters and the treasure per encounter guidelines then you should end up level up and achieving that amount of wealth listed in the wealth by level chart. If the 3 don't agree with one another, then one of them is simply wrong. I can't say I've actually ever attempt do all the math on them.

Also I've never been talking about using my groups wealth reset system! I've only been talking about using WEALTH BY LEVEL. Yes my group resets at level up. But you don't have to do a wealth reset at level up to maintain wealth by level. But leveling up is a convenient time for a GM to check how much wealth everyone has and then shortly after leveling to do something to correct wealth levels. That's exactly how its supposed to work and all I've been saying?

At what point was I ever advocating for the way my group runs things to be the standard? It's a very easy way to run things, because the GM doesn't have to come up with contrived reasons to give you a bunch of money if you're off wealth by level, or to tell you that you get no loot from creatures (because they wouldn't have any or its destroyed or whatever) for a while because you're over wealth.

I think you've been misunderstanding the point I'm making which is:
Use wealth by level, try to maintain it as close as is reasonable while fitting with how your group is willing to run "wealth acquisition".

I did give one anecdote about how my group would handle reimbursing a character that lost their legs and the augment in the legs slots, but it was just to give an example of how you can narratively correct a characters WBL to stay on target.


WBL is a good benchmark, but you shouldn't look at it for income.

For example: the wealth gains per encounter for 6 x CR 11 encounters, 2 x CR 12 encounters and 1 x CR 13 encounter (slightly more than the 34,000 xp you need to go from level 10 to level 11) split four ways total up to 67,000 Cr. Nearly twice the difference in WBL increase for level 10 and level 11 (34,000 Cr). Hell, it's 1000 Cr more than the expected WBL for level 10.

The fact that you are selling the gear you are replacing will of course knock that back down. Remember that when designing loot drops, gear that you know your PCs will sell instead of use is only worth 10% of it's cost in your loot budget.

Edit: I'm not saying you shouldn't occasionally look at your PCs total wealth and make sure they're nearby WBL, but it's not something you should be designing loot drops from.


@Claxon:
Not trying to argue or fight, just trying to understand how your game works.

So, if a character loses his legs, and buys some prosthetic legs, your GM will eventually reimburse them for that cost, essentially? Does the same thing happen if they buy the most expensive replacement they can find?

If a character, for whatever reason, decides to build a life size statue of themselves using only high capacity batteries, would this cost also be reimbursed?

Is there any point where, due to use/mis-use, bad luck, gambling, whatever, where characters in your game are not reimbursed for any losses whatsoever, provided that reimbursement keeps them in line w/WBL?


Just as an aside, I find it humorous that this is still ongoing.

But to he on topic, in a home game you can do whatever you want but if we're talking about something that should be implemented officially, then you hit a snag in Society play. Because anything that's legal for the players is fair game for writers. And for it to be on a chronicle sheet it needs to be found in the adventure. As xenocrat pointed out, the odds of losing a limb to a crit / severe crit is phenomenally low. If your character has the misfortune to win that lottery though, you're presented with a new problem. In a home campaign the GM can do as Claxon says: put items or whatever out there to help that character recover back to roughly where they should be wealthwise. In society play you have to pay fame or credits for a restoration, or get a prosthetic. If you had an augment in that limb, your GM may be kind and say since the augment was keyed to your limb you can save the augment do long as you retrieve the limb, but they could just as easily rule the augment is lost. And Starfinder society has no way to equittably reward a character who suffers that kind of loss. There will be no making up the credits wasted. If you introduce a fusion that can make those sorts of events happen more often, even if it's just 5-10%, it's going to cause more players in society to walk away from the table upset- or hobble away because they lost a leg.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pantshandshake wrote:

@Claxon:

Not trying to argue or fight, just trying to understand how your game works.

So, if a character loses his legs, and buys some prosthetic legs, your GM will eventually reimburse them for that cost, essentially? Does the same thing happen if they buy the most expensive replacement they can find?

If a character, for whatever reason, decides to build a life size statue of themselves using only high capacity batteries, would this cost also be reimbursed?

Is there any point where, due to use/mis-use, bad luck, gambling, whatever, where characters in your game are not reimbursed for any losses whatsoever, provided that reimbursement keeps them in line w/WBL?

Let me respond to your questions while wearing my GM hat.

When I design encounters, I follow guidelines for creature stats that are based around the assumption that characters are at approximately the WBL guidelines. If any character is significantly over or under those guidelines, it can mean they are hit too easily, or can't hit my bosses, or don't have as many capabilities as their peers, and in general won't have as much fun.

It behooves me to make sure everyone is roughly on par with one another and with the WBL chart, for their enjoyment and for my encounter design sanity.

How that's done isn't typically giving them a blank check to recoup their losses, it's done by extending a level for a session to give them the opportunity to earn some more dosh. Or adding an extra secret room they might stumble upon. Or straight up telling the party that they're strapped for cash and should probably do a profitable mission or side quest. I have even offered a loan (albeit in Pathfinder) where the party got put up to the correct WBL, then the loan was forgiven when they defeated a big bad with their extra capabilities.

Society play has some weird rules, that I don't have any truck with.


The only way I see dealing with this is twofold.

A. Does not work with weapons that have the wound or sever wound crit ability. Vorpal is the pathfinder equivalent, was a +5 bonus on the weapon, and only worked on a twenty. Wound and severe wound should be the same way, except we don't have crit confirm rolls so instead the enemy gets to make a save.

B. Make the crit range enhancing fusions not legal for society play.


@Pantshandshake

If a character looses their gear, they will (eventually) be "reimbursed" up to appropriate wealth for a character of that level.

The reimbursement could come in many ways. My group just does a wealth reset at level up. In the case of a character that lost everything though, we would probably have them conveniently find some items that are fit for their character (for example a melee focused character with heavy armor would find a level appropriate advanced melee weapon and heavy armor, though probably not exactly what they had before). At level up (at the latest) they would be able to "reset" their wealth and purchase the gear they had before or purchase new items of the appropriate level.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "buy the most expensive replacement they can find". If the "most expensive legs" means jewel encrusted prosthetic legs which have no mechanical benefit, then yes they'd get the "value" returned, because the item is purely fluff. If they buy a prosthetic that performs better than natural legs, that value is counted against their wealth by level, just as all their combat/encounter relevant items are.

Which gets to your second question. Items which don't affect a players capability and are simply "fluff" don't factor into wealth by level. If they build a statue out of batteries (which become non-functional as part of the process) then they don't count as value against wealth by level. If they buy 300 batteries which function regularly, those would count against WBL.

I'm not sure I understand your last question fully. "Gambling" would be a fluff activity. You can't gain additional wealth that would put you (significantly) over WBL. By the same token you can't lose any significant amount of WBL due to gambling. Bad luck (lets say a destroyed weapon) would persist probably for that session. You don't instantly get reimbursed. Typically we reimburse at level up. So if you weapon is destroyed you'd have to make due with what you found, at the very least until the "current mission" was over or you can otherwise access a market (like Absalom Station).

So yes, for short period you can go without. But we don't let it persist for longer than a level. And usually you find loot as part of adventuring that can mitigate the problem in the short term.


And to address why we started doing wealth by level reset, it was just a streamlined way to run things.

We used to do what WatersLethe suggested, running side adventures, making up special "profit focused" adventures. The GM allowing us to find special treasure troves. But it was all contrived ways to get people back to WBL.

We recognized that our goals were to:
1) Minimize not Adventure Path related stuff (we exclusively play APs, we don't have time for GMs to get creative anymore).
2) Keep everyone roughly equal
3) Have fun

So to stay on task and keep everyone having fun we decided that the easiest thing to do was reset wealth at level up. We don't track loot anymore, unless someone wants to keep an item that we find, and then its their responsibility. Nobody has to do math or keep track of what items we accumulated or how we transport it. It was all a bunch of stuff that dragged us away from the main goal of running the AP and having fun. Transitioning to this sort of system in combination with leveling up on a plot basis instead of tracking XP are the best things my group has ever done.


WatersLethe wrote:

Also, consumable items would literally never be used if it meant each one sets you further and further back from your expected WBL.

Same goes for recouping lost items/limbs.

GM: "Oohh, I'm sorry, since you spent too much on consumables you're now permanently behind in wealth. All the math surrounding encounter design is going to go out the window from here on out, good luck and make sure you roll up a more miserly character just in case."

Just for point of note, this is literally exactly why my group almost never uses consumables except the occasional healing item in emergencies. Because our GMs don't tend to adjust things like this, they tend to run things by the book. Even when published materials sometimes fall well under WBL. Some GMs hesitate to even change Pathfinder item drops to the slightly-less-common things the party is specced into instead of five hundred longswords or greatswords.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:


Just for point of note, this is literally exactly why my group almost never uses consumables except the occasional healing item in emergencies. Because our GMs don't tend to adjust things like this, they tend to run things by the book. Even when published materials sometimes fall well under WBL. Some GMs hesitate to even change Pathfinder item drops to the slightly-less-common things the party is specced into instead of five hundred longswords or greatswords.

That was one thing I liked about the PFP adventure. More than once I saw treasure tables where it basically said " the loot is three items of these item levels that you think are appropriate to your party." It's a great use of the item level system, giving your party custom loot without it being too strong. Since starfinder has item levels as well, I think it would be a great practice for the APs. Doesn't have to be every treasure section, just every once in a while. Puts more agency on the GM other than reading a script, personalizes the AP to your unique party make up, and makes the experience more unique.


Shinigami02 wrote:
Even when published materials sometimes fall well under WBL.

I think except for hells rebels every adventure path I've seen has left my characters horribly under WBL: kingmaker, dead suns, pirates, .. I think kingmaker was the worst. My character at 7th level had starting wealth and his spellbook which had increased in value from him scribing into it...


@Claxon: Well, your answers were what I was looking for, whether it made sense or not. Thanks for that. Basically, the two sides of the conversation made it clear that your game is outside of the norm for most people, and I wanted to know why. You know, via a conversation that didn’t involve someone calling your game stupid, or you resorting to giving a fig about something.

Your methods sound much easier for tracking things, both GM and PC side. I’d imagine that comes with its own kind of relief and fun. But it also seems pretty far from the average Starfinder table, which is probably why most people have a problem with it.

Personally, I know it wouldn’t work at my table. Not enough consequences, mainly. Like, I can hear the actual voice of our Solarian saying “Wait, you removed all my limbs, made me buy new ones, and then gave me the money I spent buying new limbs back? Then why the hell did we do any of that for a zero-sum ending?”

But also, we play a sandboxy homebrew where our expected WBL is about 50-70% higher than the book suggests, but we can’t buy anything better than PC level +1. It keeps the power creep in line, while also giving us an excuse to buy really cool stuff with minimal mechanical impacts. Stuff you wouldn’t normally get because you want to save up for your next weapon, is now basically an impulse purchase.


Claxon wrote:
And if you follow the XP guidelines for encounters and the treasure per encounter guidelines then you should end up level up and achieving that amount of wealth listed in the wealth by level chart. If the 3 don't agree with one another, then one of them is simply wrong.
Quote:
At what point was I ever advocating for the way my group runs things to be the standard?

When you keep forgetting that expenses are a part of the equation for the way most people play the game.

income per level-spending per level= wealth per level

If you spend more than you should on things you don't keep then even if the DM is providing adaquate income the character will not have an appropriate amount of wealth . In pathfinder that would be because they went gonzo on consumables.

In starfinder that could be consumables OR continually buying the next level of weapons.

For pathfinder your system works well as long as it's working: as long as no ones abusing it and running around with printer reams full of heal scrolls you're good.

For starfinder it's a huge change though. Starfinder income and wealth levels do NOT assume you are buying armor and weapons every level (but that is something you should do under your wealth reset) I'm not saying that the system is good or bad I'm saying that its vastly different than what most people are dealing with and it changes things a lot.


Pantshandshake wrote:

@Claxon: Well, your answers were what I was looking for, whether it made sense or not. Thanks for that. Basically, the two sides of the conversation made it clear that your game is outside of the norm for most people, and I wanted to know why. You know, via a conversation that didn’t involve someone calling your game stupid, or you resorting to giving a fig about something.

Your methods sound much easier for tracking things, both GM and PC side. I’d imagine that comes with its own kind of relief and fun. But it also seems pretty far from the average Starfinder table, which is probably why most people have a problem with it.

Personally, I know it wouldn’t work at my table. Not enough consequences, mainly. Like, I can hear the actual voice of our Solarian saying “Wait, you removed all my limbs, made me buy new ones, and then gave me the money I spent buying new limbs back? Then why the hell did we do any of that for a zero-sum ending?”

But also, we play a sandboxy homebrew where our expected WBL is about 50-70% higher than the book suggests, but we can’t buy anything better than PC level +1. It keeps the power creep in line, while also giving us an excuse to buy really cool stuff with minimal mechanical impacts. Stuff you wouldn’t normally get because you want to save up for your next weapon, is now basically an impulse purchase.

In the end my group isn't doing anything special without "resets" it just cuts out paperwork. From my viewpoint, if you inflict a long term wealth penalty on a player character for having to replace something they lost then you're just forcing them to play below WBL, which is against the rules in my opinion.

As for the zero-sum ending, yes that's the goal. It's just in the interim it will be non-zero which means short term, but not long term, penalties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

For starfinder it's a huge change though. Starfinder income and wealth levels do NOT assume you are buying armor and weapons every level (but that is something you should do under your wealth reset) I'm not saying that the system is good or bad I'm saying that its vastly different than what most people are dealing with and it changes things a lot.

I would argue this is simply people running the game incorrectly.

If I sell my level 7 weapon because I'm now level 8, I only have 10% of the credits (and thus only 10% of the WBL value of that gun) fromt he sell, then GM should find some way (whatever fits with your groups narrative style) to bridge the gap between the characters current wealth and what they should have.

I guess that's the important point I'm making. You should be getting enough "loot" in the process of adventuring that when you sell your items (both the ones you use and the ones you only intend to sell) you should make up the difference. If you're not then you're not at wealth by level. To me its that simple.

My guess is it's result of people following wealth by encounter guidelines, or only using loot dropped in AP written fights, which if it's all sold instead of being kept results in being under WBL.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Even when published materials sometimes fall well under WBL.

I think except for hells rebels every adventure path I've seen has left my characters horribly under WBL: kingmaker, dead suns, pirates, .. I think kingmaker was the worst. My character at 7th level had starting wealth and his spellbook which had increased in value from him scribing into it...

And then when Dead Suns gives you money, they don't give you opportunity to spend it from pretty much book 4 onward.


Claxon wrote:

I would argue this is simply people running the game incorrectly.

So the vast majority of groups are running the game incorrectly

Organized play is running the game incorrectly and gets vastly different results and purchasing patterns than what you're setting out.

The way the game is laid out in the core rulebook is incorrect

The way the developers have said they want loot to work is wrong.

The way the APs are set up aren't doing it right.

But you're running it correctly, despite doing it differently from how the mechanics are listed in the book.

This seems unlikely.

Quote:
If I sell my level 7 weapon because I'm now level 8, I only have 10% of the credits (and thus only 10% of the WBL value of that gun) fromt he sell, then GM should find some way (whatever fits with your groups narrative style) to bridge the gap between the characters current wealth and what they should have.

OR you're not supposed to be upgrading all of your equipment every single level and that kind of spendthriftery is SUPPOSED to cause you problems for your lack of delayed gratification. So if you lose money making a miniscule upgrade to a weapon, that's on you.

That's how the game is set up by default. That's why no one understands your math.

Quote:

I guess that's the important point I'm making. You should be getting enough "loot" in the process of adventuring that when you sell your items (both the ones you use and the ones you only intend to sell) you should make up the difference. If you're not then you're not at wealth by level.

To me its that simple.

Starfinder is much more complicated than that. At a reasonable income you need to plan your purchases a bit in order to maintain a reasonable amount of wealth. Upgrades every 3-4 levels, not every level.

Again, if it works for your group then it works. But it's not the assumption the game or most players seem to use.


BigNorseWolf, regardless of how my group runs our wealth habits, do you agree with the statement that generally speaking, characters should have wealth by level? (With some reasonable level of deviation for narrative ability to convey that wealth to a character)

Because if you do I don't see how you could disagree with the assertion that I made that apparently started this whole diatribe, which was basically, "If your limb gets chopped off, the character should over some amount of time recoup the resources expended to regenerate the limb, get a prosthetic, etc so that they maintain wealth by level".

In my opinion doing otherwise just means your forcing the player to offset the penalty from something that may completely disable their character, to something that is less disabling but still puts them behind other players.

Somehow this spiraled into this very long winded and off topic discussion about how we all run wealth acquisition in this game.


Claxon wrote:
BigNorseWolf, regardless of how my group runs our wealth habits, do you agree with the statement that generally speaking, characters should have wealth by level? (With some reasonable level of deviation for narrative ability to convey that wealth to a character)

In starfinder it's almost as much the players responsibility to maintain WBL as the dms

Quote:
"If your limb gets chopped off, the character should over some amount of time recoup the resources expended to regenerate the limb, get a prosthetic, etc so that they maintain wealth by level".

If your limb gets hacked off your very first adventure you're down 100 credits. Which seems like a big deal. At fifth level being down 100 credits means absolutely nothing, it's a drop in the bucket.

I don't think the dm/fate hast to intervene there. The player can make up the difference by not upgrading their gun for a level or just live with a small difference, which shrinks to exponentially small amounts as you level without any intervention. Theoretically, income should be over WBL enough to allow for that sort of thing, and the party members that DIDN"T get limbs hacked off will be slightly above WBL. (MY abadaran spacebat has gotten a fair bit over WBL despite playing down just by wearing second skin till 9th level...)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
(MY abadaran spacebat has gotten a fair bit over WBL despite playing down just by wearing second skin till 9th level...)

Hoooooooooooow TF did you get away with level 1 armor for 8 levels? O.O


Well, it's less about the prosthetic and more about the augment that might be in the slot, that is presumably destroyed or lost, and thus that value lost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pogiforce wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
(MY abadaran spacebat has gotten a fair bit over WBL despite playing down just by wearing second skin till 9th level...)
Hoooooooooooow TF did you get away with level 1 armor for 8 levels? O.O

You assume you always get hit and don't get into melee range.

Running dead suns, I tend to add in a suit or two of level +1-2 armor on boss characters so my PCs have decent armor without tanking their money supply, then they can save their money up for augments.

They tend to just use the looted weapons from the enemies. I've thrown in a few longarms to keep that player up, but the rest are melee, blasters or an operative, so they don't need better weapons as much.

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / PROPOSAL - Critical range enhancing fusions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.