| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These four fixes of mine make the game work a LOT better for me.
1) NPCs saving throw bonuses are way too high. I lower them across the board by default, before changing them if necessary: -1 to the highest saves and -2 to the lowest one. Also, I change the "Expert" array into having high Reflex saves, and low Will and Fort. This makes it so that PCs abilities, items, grenades and spells can actually go through once in a while, instead of frustrating them to the point of wanting to quit.
2) Combat maneuvers go against KAC + 4. With related adjustments: KAC + 10 to achive "pinned". The DC to Escape grapple is KAC + 8, and KAC + 10 against pinned. For monsters, the Grab capacity works with KAC + 2. This makes maneuvers actually fun and usable for normal characters, instead of being barely achievable only to the most specialized ones. Of course enemies also become more dangerous, and that's very good!
3) Grenades should should go boom, not poof. The ones that deal damage get a bonus to damage = to half their item level (just to base damage, not crit effects). Also, after the latest errata I don't have to apply the "half the price" fix anymore. Thanks for listeing, Paizo!
4) To self-stabilize you need 1/3 of your max RPs (instead of 1/4), minimum 1 and with no maximum cap. Then, when you do "Staying in the fight" you are then Staggered for 1 round. Also, every time you go down after the first, in one combat, you need 1 more RP in order to do "Staying in the fight".
Players amass a lot of RPs levelling up, and can get to the point that they are almost impossible to kill. That's no fun.
Rule number 1 saved me and my friends from shelving the game due to frustration. Defeating the bad guys is not nearly as important as pulling off the cool abilities that you created your character for, regardless of whether you actually win the fight!
I use several more fixes but they are all minor compared to these.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1- Yes
2- No, effective as written
3- No, but, with class features effective as written.
4- I do die at -CON, no RP to stabilize, use PF1 rules. Which has worked pretty well so far, even with running APs at -1 level below expected. HP damage is treated as the threat that it actually is.
5- Skill checks are low enough that my current batch of players can reasonably expect to pass without the specialization of the previous batch. Possibly related to number 4 there.
4- I do die at -CON, no RP to stabilize, use PF1 rules. Which has worked pretty well so far, even with running APs at -1 level below expected. HP damage is treated as the threat that it actually is.
Interesting, however I like the trade off that there is between survivability (keeping your RPs) and going all out (spending RPs to do cool stuff).
One question, though, if you die at -CON wouldn't that scale pretty bad as soon as you go up some levels? For example a 8th level character with 16 CON (probably higher than average) going down could die from just a single shot from a combatant NPCs of the same level, right? If that's intended, then ok.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4- I do die at -CON, no RP to stabilize, use PF1 rules. Which has worked pretty well so far, even with running APs at -1 level below expected. HP damage is treated as the threat that it actually is.
Interesting, however I like the trade off that there is between survivability (keeping your RPs) and going all out (spending RPs to do cool stuff).
One question, though, if you die at -CON wouldn't that scale pretty bad as soon as you go up some levels? For example a 8th level character with 16 CON (probably higher than average) going down could die from just a single shot from a combatant NPCs of the same level, right? If that's intended, then ok.
Yes, the deadliness of being out of stamina is intended. Raise dead is cheap in starfinder after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts:
1) Yep. Especially visible at higher level where monster saves creep up faster than save DCs. I think your -1 and -2 sound really perfect.
2) As some one who has played dedicated grapplers and disarmers, the existing DCs are fine. Pinned and disarm are both encounter-enders for a certain subset of encounters, so setting those DCs too low will render an already effective strategy more effective.
3) I've just let specialization apply to grenades in my own games. It hasn't caused any problems yet.
4) I'm more inclined to decouple RP from stabilizing honestly. Constantly having to leave RP half-full in case a scary encounter comes up means less abilities that require you to spend RP. There's a feel-bad interaction there. Garretmander's solution seems pretty good to me.
-------
One houserule I champion wholeheartedly that I've discussed in other threads is dialing down operative trick attack damage by one die size and then allowing operative weapons and small arms to get full level for specialization. Really opens up these weapon types for more classes. Mathematically operative average damage for trick attacking ends up more or less unchanged, but other classes can use small arms without feeling like they've made a wrong choice.
Has the added benefit of unifying enemy damage logic (which follows essentially full level even on ranged attacks) and PC damage logic. Reduces the feel bad when enemies deal weirdly more damage with their weapons than you do once you loot them.
My thoughts:
One houserule I champion wholeheartedly that I've discussed in other threads is dialing down operative trick attack damage by one die size and then allowing operative weapons and small arms to get full level for specialization. Really opens up these weapon types for more classes. Mathematically operative average damage for trick attacking ends up more or less unchanged, but other classes can use small arms without feeling like they've made a wrong choice.
Has the added benefit of unifying enemy damage logic (which follows essentially full level even on ranged attacks) and PC damage logic. Reduces the feel bad when enemies deal weirdly more damage with their weapons than you do once you loot them.
Very interesting, I will try it out at the next opportunity!
Also interesting your grenade fix, but do you give them half spec damage, or full? (I am all for grenades really destroying stuff. If I see that players rely too much on them I will just roleplay the reprecussions of their destruction on the enviroment, e.g. broken/destroyed loot, legal reprecussions etc.)
Regarding my combat maneuver fix, yes, it makes them much more effective for experienced and specialized players, but that's exactly what I want. I want for a PC that has the ICM feat and appropriate weapon to pull maneuvers off easily, effectively and reliably. Just like you would expect from a specialist. In my experience (outside of organized play) they won't ruin gameplay. The encounter setup, and other strategic factors are responsible for avoiding that they result in one-shot encounter-ending tactics too often. At the same time, it allows for lightning fast cinematic action (like stealth take-downs), when that's needed and avoid a slog of a boring encounter that would end up in an easy win anyway, but just take 3 times the time.
I went with full-level specialization on grenades! Even with full spec, my players have mostly preferred to use their normal combat strategies rather than rely on them. Though we do get an occasional grenade thrown when they're up against many enemies.
You're probably right that half-level specialization is good enough from a balance standpoint. Checking the math, half-level puts grenades roughly on par with explode-based heavy weapons. But I decided to give grenade an extra kick to make up for the bias people have against spending consumables. If your own group is more than happy to use grenades already and you don't need the extra incentive, half-level is probably fine.
I think NPC saves aren't much of a problem with intimidate/demoralize not being mind affecting and post Armory/COM having so many other ways to debuff saves. Intimidate, cruel weapon fusion, biohacker, malediction fusion, etc., you can drive them down 4-8 points with a well built team without much difficulty.
I think NPC saves aren't much of a problem with intimidate/demoralize not being mind affecting and post Armory/COM having so many other ways to debuff saves. Intimidate, cruel weapon fusion, biohacker, malediction fusion, etc., you can drive them down 4-8 points with a well built team without much difficulty.
This applies to other situations as well, you are correct in saying that later published material that supplements the Core Rulebook tends to already "fix" areas where the system is weak. However, I don't like that very much.
In my personal opinion, every core aspect of the game should be fun and satisfying (as much as possible, nothing is "perfect") from the Core Rulebook perspective ALONE. So, personally, I prefer adjusting the rules so that the new addtions from COM and the rest are not needed in order to make a specific class, or a gameplay style viable. That's why I like to radically modify the combat maneuver DCs, among the other things, ignoring what exists outside of the Core Rulebook. Then, if later additions to the game turn out to make things too good or too easy, I would much rather limit or even eliminate those in a case by case approach!That being said, I understand that it makes good business sense for Paizo to expand the game that way. It would be ridiculous for them to keep refining the game's system over and over, instead of publishing expansions.