If you're looking for "how combining classes and ancestries is supposed to work" there's a thread over on the Pathfinder side of things titled Kineticist: Particularly interesting / worthwhile ancestries. Note that many people consider the Kineticist to be a particularly well-done piece of PF2 design.
The level of that conversation is stuff like "Dwarves get a feat that make them immune to flanking when standing next to stone walls- you can make stone walls" or "The Changeling Mistchild feat makes you better at being concealed, this class has many ways to become concealed."
That's about the level we should be at when it comes to 2 arms vs. Many Arms for "someone who wants to fight with weapons". Like "you are holding 4 pistols, each of which does a different kind of damage (which is useful), so it's easy to swap between pairs" or "you can easily switch hit by holding a ranged weapon and a melee weapon" are the sorts of levels we should be operating at here.
Yeah, just from experience from the PF2 playtest arguments along the lines of "well, I'll no longer be able to do this thing I did in the previous edition" go nowhere, since there are likely all sorts of other new things that you can do now that you couldn't do before to balance those out.
The goal is not, and will never be "reproduce all characters and concepts from a previous edition" and specifically when it comes down to it thematics matter much more here than mechanics.
SF2 will have grenade launchers with 6 round magazines. You don't need to balance grenades the same way you would as if they are a glass vial of volatile liquids that only a small handful of people know how to make and use effectively.
The claim that "basic technologies that are literally nothing right now in 2023 should maybe be a consideration of the mechanics" is trying to reproduce all characters and concepts from a previous edition is a bit hyperbolic. And bending over backwards to make things like bayonets, phones, and duck tape not be available or be high level is
The different meta considerations sort of fall flat when we have the lead developer in this thread saying: "we don't want say, a soldier, to be able to wield 3 [missile launchers] when playing a skittermander."
Which is a problem with missile launchers and not skittermanders. If firing 3 missiles is the most efficient means of doing damage, players are going to find a way to exploit that.
Some ancestries have darkvision, which when always on is about the equivalent of a 4th-rank spell. The problem is that you are still reasoning in 1e terms, where the balance and mechanics are fundamentally different, while actively refusing to engage with 2e and the way it works.
And in Starfinder flashlights are thing. I can buy a thermal imaging camera for my iphone for $200.00. Trying to force seeing in the dark as something equivalent to a 4th rank spell is refusing to engage with Starfinder as either a system or a setting. And it is completely ignoring the design choice of flight being a lower level ability in SF.
"It's not the extra arms, it's the entire rest of the game that is the problem" is a non-answer. All this says in the end is that being able to use four arms at the same time is fundamentally very strong in 2e, which brings us back to the same question, which you've conspicuously failed to answer
I did answer the question, you conspicuously failed to read it. And "Thing 1 isn't broken, thing 2 is broken" is 100% an answer. Go back and read any of the posts where I discuss other mechanical options.
There seems to be this really confusing double think where the meta of Starfinder is allowed to change things but somehow we also have to 100% replicate how everything is mechanically handled in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing 'well it works in real life, or at least it could in the distant future. So therefore it should work in game mechanics the way I want too.' is also a non-argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "Missile Launchers are fun and cool and people want them" is a better design priority than "make sure the Skittermander can use enough of them at once otherwise my creative vision is betrayed."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is a problem with missile launchers and not skittermanders. If firing 3 missiles is the most efficient means of doing damage, players are going to find a way to exploit that.
If it is a simple Strike action to fire them then Quick Draw would allow it.
Strike with launcher.
Quick Draw next launcher and fire.
Quick Draw next launcher and fire.
——
Since Quick Draw is a compound action rather than a free action to draw and then a normal action to Strike, this means it can not be combined with something like Power Attack or other special actions.
If they don’t want this to work, they either need to put some limits in Quick Draw or they need to make it a different action to fire a missile launcher. If they make it an action with the Flourish trait, they never need to worry about someone firing off more than one a turn.
There are other ways of balancing things than making it cost an action to switch hands. Those other ways might work better.
And in Starfinder flashlights are thing. I can buy a thermal imaging camera for my iphone for $200.00.
Torches are also a thing in Pathfinder, as are Goggles of Night. I'm sure you will appreciate, however, the difference between holding an item and making yourself highly visible, or using one of the limited invested items you can have, and just being able to do the thing without any of these tradeoffs.
Trying to force seeing in the dark as something equivalent to a 4th rank spell is refusing to engage with Starfinder as either a system or a setting.
Just so we're clear, here's Darkvision, the 2e spell. It's a 2nd-rank spell, and being able to have it always-on is, I would say, a couple of ranks higher. You are demonstrating a continued refusal to engage with the system being discussed, and accusing others of doing the same here is a blatant case of projection.
I did answer the question, you conspicuously failed to read it.
I do believe I read it in full; your only answer was to find excuses to blame a system you visibly know nothing about to avoid making any sort of concession that multi-armed characters would need some sort of limitation or tradeoff at level 1. As now multiple people have pointed out, that is not a valid answer, and for all your accusations that others are discussing the matter in bad faith, that too is coming off as projection.
And "Thing 1 isn't broken, thing 2 is broken" is 100% an answer. Go back and read any of the posts where I discuss other mechanical options.
When "thing 2" is "literally the entire system", what you have is, once again, a non-answer. Your "other mechanical options" have nothing to do with 2e or how it works, and you are only making this discussion an uphill battle for you by continuing to not educate yourself on its mechanics or design.
There seems to be this really confusing double think where the meta of Starfinder is allowed to change things but somehow we also have to 100% replicate how everything is mechanically handled in PF2.
The very fact that we are discussing ancestries with more than two hands is proof positive that we are doing things differently from Pathfinder. Behind this accusation is yet more projection: what you visibly want is to 100% replicate Starfinder 1e into 2e, which defeats the entire purpose of having a new edition in the first place. You can either accept that some things will change in the jump, and work to help make those changes as true to Starfinder while working coherently in a 2e framework, or you can keep digging your heels into the ground and refuse to accept any meaningful change. Again, up to you, and sticking to 1e is also a valid option if this is really such a dealbreaker.
Arguing 'well it works in real life, or at least it could in the distant future. So therefore it should work in game mechanics the way I want too.' is also a non-argument.
Not for a sci-fi game and for things as stupidily insignificant as duct tape, flashlights, and phones. Is Starfinder 2 an actual game? Do we have Pathfinder 2 and Starfinder 2? Or, do we have Pathfinder 2 and a starfinder campaign setting book.
Oh should we not have guns or laser rifles then? They really change things up. Basically the only reason flight was changed. Why not just not have guns and leave flight as is? After all 'Real life' is a "non-argument". Any anecdotes about an image or idea of guns is a "non-argument" because the same is true about anything I'm presenting.
Also, if 'Real Life' isn't an argument, then just let two-armed humans wield 3 missile launchers. We can start breaking things down if that's the route you want to go.
If they don’t want this to work, they either need to put some limits in Quick Draw or they need to make it a different action to fire a missile launcher. If they make it an action with the Flourish trait, they never need to worry about someone firing off more than one a turn.
This is more along the lines of what I'm thinking. You have to spend a 'readying' action to use strike with a missile launcher or similar weapons. Or you have to spend an action to recover after firing such a weapon. I brought up such weapons applying stacking conditions in one of the posts.
There are a number of ways to mechanically go about it. However, the idea is that the limiting factor is having to spend an action in the weapon's actual use. The limiting factor is not in the fact that an action needs to be spend to reload the weapon. Because if you avoid the reload you avoid the tax.
If the weapon itself has the tax, there is less of an issue with having 4 arms. There are other ways to hold more items than multiple arms, and there are typically multiple ways to get extra or free reloads. "Fixing arms" does nothing to resolve the problem with those examples, or provides undo constraint in limiting those items.
Let's take grenades again, and the problem with someone to balance starting combat with 4 grenades in their hands. Well if a grenade uses the same action economy as a bow and arrow, and it's damaged is balanced as such, there is literally no issue with starting the fight with 4 in your hands.
Torches are also a thing in Pathfinder, as are Goggles of Night. I'm sure you will appreciate, however, the difference between holding an item and making yourself highly visible, or using one of the limited invested items you can have, and just being able to do the thing without any of these tradeoffs.
And the mechanics should have SF2 treating seeing in the dark as the same level effect as PF2 because? Having such abilities be more accessible in SF2 is different from flight being more accessible how?
You liking what you like doesn't mean you are engaging and you not liking what I'm bringing up doesn't mean I'm not engaging.
When "thing 2" is "literally the entire system", what you have is, once again, a non-answer. Your "other mechanical options" have nothing to do with 2e or how it works, and you are only making this discussion an uphill battle for you by continuing to not educate yourself on its mechanics or design.
Okay so "one class of item" is literally the entire system. Okay buddy, whatever b@!$+!*# makes you feel better.
I do believe I read it in full; your only answer was to find excuses to blame a system you visibly know nothing about to avoid making any sort of concession that multi-armed characters would need some sort of limitation or tradeoff at level 1. As now multiple people have pointed out, that is not a valid answer, and for all your accusations that others are discussing the matter in bad faith, that too is coming off as projection.
Yeah keep talking about bad faith and projection.
The very fact that we are discussing ancestries with more than two hands is proof positive that we are doing things differently from Pathfinder.
So what is the exact problem with things being done differently? Because you are the one insisting things be done like PF2. Give me a valid answer because you've yet to provide one.
And the mechanics should have SF2 treating seeing in the dark as the same level effect as PF2 because?
Because both games operate under the same framework, and unless luminosity and detection work in radically different ways in Starfinder from Pathfinder, there is no reason why darkvision should be trivial in one system and not the other.
Having such abilities be more accessible in SF2 is different from flight being more accessible how?
Because there is a very good reason to allow flight at level in SF2e and not PF2e, namely everyone having ranged attacks in Starfinder but not in Pathfinder. For darkvision, or multiple hands for that matter, there is no such special reason, the latter of which was confirmed by a Paizo designer.
You liking what you like doesn't mean you are engaging and you not liking what I'm bringing up doesn't mean I'm not engaging.
But that's not what's going on here, is it? This isn't about what I like or dislike, this is about you deciding to value your feelings more than facts, and deliberately ignoring the differences in balance and mechanics between 1e and 2e that are preventing you from having your cake and eating it too. It's not like Pathfinder got special treatment in this respect either; look at how much change happened between its own 1st Edition and 2e.
Okay so "one class of item" is literally the entire system. Okay buddy, whatever b$@&~**! makes you feel better.
You trying to minimize the action economy down to "one class of item" is the real BS here. There are many more weapons, and even mechanics beyond weapons, that are contingent upon hand economy, as the comment I'd previously linked demonstrates (curiously, you've refused to engage with any of that either). Again, you would be embarrassing yourself a lot less in this online tantrum you're having if you at least did the bare minimum effort of reading up on the system you're arguing about.
Yeah keep talking about bad faith and projection.
Yes, I absolutely can, and I'm not the only one either. At this point you are being near-unanimously ridiculed for your poor argumentation, and your refusal to engage with the topic of discussion in good faith. The fact that you are insisting upon a line of argumentation that was directly contradicted by Starfinder's creative director at Paizo on this very same thread says everything. Do you really believe what you are doing here will get you what you want?
So what is the exact problem with things being done differently? Because you are the one insisting things be done like PF2. Give me a valid answer because you've yet to provide one yet.
Because there is a meaningful difference between doing things differently and breaking the balance of a system that holds balance as one of its core design values. Beyond just Pathfinder, the system PF2e is built on runs on a framework for gameplay and general balance that differs fundamentally from 1e, and needs to be respected, even if there is still plenty of room for innovation. Paizo is not going to wildly imbalance a system they've carefully developed for years now to satisfy the capricious desires of a lone internet warrior who thinks they can get what they want through immature and inflammatory behavior. What I am trying to point out to you is that it is in your interest to actually engage with this new system and its values, and work to discuss potential alternatives to active hands as a limiter to multi-handed ancestries: you may not get everything you want, but you'll at least get to give constructive feedback that could potentially lead to something closer to what you'd want. Right now, you're not doing that, you're just making pointless, angry noise on this forum. The most constructive thing that can be gleaned from reading your comments is that you are not someone whose feedback would, at this stage at least, lead to the development of a better SF2e.
Because both games operate under the same framework, and unless luminosity and detection work in radically different ways in Starfinder from Pathfinder, there is no reason why darkvision should be trivial in one system and not the other
Why wouldn't Starfinder operate under the assumption that light is easier to have and detect? It is with technology. Presumably even more so with magic technology.
Because there is a very good reason to allow flight at level in SF2e and not PF2e, namely everyone having ranged attacks in Starfinder but not in Pathfinder. For darkvision, or multiple hands for that matter, there is no such special reason, the latter of which was confirmed by a Paizo designer.
And that very good reason is technology. The exact same reason to allow more light and darkvision. Honestly even extra hands, since I've listed numerous examples that replicate the benefits.
But that's not what's going on here, is it? This isn't about what I like or dislike, this is about you deciding to value your feelings more than facts, and deliberately ignoring the differences in balance and mechanics between 1e and 2e that are preventing you from having your cake and eating it too. It's not like Pathfinder got special treatment in this respect either; look at how much change happened between its own 1st Edition and 2e.
But that is whats going on here. And you making a bunch of claims as to my knowledge and my motivations is just you lying.
Because there is a meaningful difference between doing things differently and breaking the balance of a system that holds balance as one of its core design values. Beyond just Pathfinder, the system PF2e is built on runs on a framework for gameplay and general balance that differs fundamentally from 1e, and needs to be respected, even if there is still plenty of room for innovation. Paizo is not going to wildly imbalance a system they've carefully developed for years now to satisfy the capricious desires of a lone internet warrior who thinks they can get what they want through immature and inflammatory behavior. What I am trying to point out to you is that it is in your interest to actually engage with this new system and its values, and work to discuss potential alternatives to active hands as a limiter to multi-handed ancestries: you may not get everything you want, but you'll at least get to give constructive feedback that could potentially lead to something closer to what you'd want. Right now, you're not doing that, you're just making pointless, angry noise on this forum. The most constructive thing that can be gleaned from reading your comments is that you are not someone whose feedback would, at this stage at least, lead to the development of a better SF2e.
I'm actively engaging in dialogue and you've done nothing but make baseless claims and insults. Have gone out of your way to ignore context and conflate different topics. You're the one out here instigating things with a burner account.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why wouldn't Starfinder operate under the assumption that light is easier to have and detect? It is with technology. Presumably even more so with magic technology.
And that very good reason is technology. The exact same reason to allow more light and darkvision. Honestly even extra hands, since I've listed numerous examples that replicate the benefits.
Why would it? "Lol technology" is about as valid an answer to any problem as "lol magic". One of the key differences between 1e and 2e is that magic can't be used to handwave every possible limitation, and I see no reason why technology wouldn't also be balanced under that same assumption.
But that is whats going on here. And you making a bunch of claims as to my knowledge and my motivations is just you lying.
The claims are proven correct by your own behavior, including your latest comment. It is you who are being blatantly dishonest in your argumentation, and projecting your poor conduct upon others.
I'm actively engaging in dialogue and you've done nothing but make baseless claims and insults. Have gone out of your way to ignore context and conflate different topics. You're the one out here instigating things with a burner account.
Calling the designers "cowards" and talking past anyone who's tried to give you a reality check is not "actively engaging in dialogue". Again, I'm not even the only one reprimanding you for your bad attitude. You can pretend that you're right and everyone else, including Paizo's own staff, is wrong, but all you're doing is demonstrating that you're not worth listening to. Do you really believe shouting at everyone who disagrees with you will get the designers to change course and turn SF2e into a carbon copy of 1e?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing 'well it works in real life, or at least it could in the distant future. So therefore it should work in game mechanics the way I want too.' is also a non-argument.Not for a sci-fi game and for things as stupidily insignificant as duct tape, flashlights, and phones. Is Starfinder 2 an actual game? Do we have Pathfinder 2 and Starfinder 2? Or, do we have Pathfinder 2 and a starfinder campaign setting book.
You probably won't like the answer.
Because what we are going to get is likely going to be closer to what you are calling a Starfinder Campaign setting book for Pathfinder2e than it is going to be a Starfinder1e adaptation that makes a few minor tweaks to things to make it somehow be compatible with PF2.
Starfinder2e is going to run on the Pathfinder2e core game engine. That was announced. That is already decided.
It is going to have the flavor, lore, and theme of Starfinder. There are going to be some minor tweaks to PF2 assumptions like what level flight becomes available.
But Starfinder2e is mechanically going to be a lot closer to Pathfinder2e than Starfinder1e.
Why would it? "Lol technology" is about as valid an answer to any problem as "lol magic". One of the key differences between 1e and 2e is that magic can't be used to handwave every possible limitation, and I see no reason why technology wouldn't also be balanced under that same assumption.
Well good thing I'm not opting for "lol technology" to solve any problem. Again with the lies. I'm do confess that I'm opting for technology to solve the problems its solved. Flight is available at level 1 is fine, but darkvision available at level 1 is some sort of nonsense. And as far as I can tell, it's only nonsense because you say so. Even though the Starfinder Meta has them as a lower level effect. The exact same meta that has flight as a lower level effect.
The claims are proven correct by your own behavior, including your latest comment. It is you who are being blatantly dishonest in your argumentation, and projecting your poor conduct upon others.
You just saying something doesn't make it so. It just makes it more lies.
Calling the designers "cowards" and talking past anyone who's tried to give you a reality check is not "actively engaging in dialogue".
Hahahaha well for your sake I sure hope you are a troll. Yeah I was actually calling the designers cowards if they didn't let us build Six Shooter the tiny killer puppet. Otherwise this is some sort of sad. Even if you don't know what Puppet Master is, it was a 6 armed cowboy with six 6 shooters.
You probably won't like the answer.
Because what we are going to get is likely going to be closer to what you are calling a Starfinder Campaign setting book for Pathfinder2e than it is going to be a Starfinder1e adaptation that makes a few minor tweaks to things to make it somehow be compatible with PF2.
Starfinder2e is going to run on the Pathfinder2e core game engine. That was announced. That is already decided.
It is going to have the flavor, lore, and theme of Starfinder. There are going to be some minor tweaks to PF2 assumptions like what level flight becomes available.
But Starfinder2e is mechanically going to be a lot closer to Pathfinder2e than Starfinder1e.
Most of the things I'm suggesting are minor tweaks like flight. Already handled in the SF1 system and easily ported over. I already expect the majority of the rules to be the same or similar. Light and darkness are not the same level of effect in PF2 as in SF2 because technology basically makes them insignificant. In SF you can get darkvision with a lv 1 armor mod. And it's a level 3 cybernetic modification. I very much expect SF2 to have similar items at a similar level and price. And yet *gestures vaguely at the nonsense* here we are at suggesting it wouldn't be the same thing as in PF2. At suggesting that SF2 grenades wouldn't work exactly like PF2 grenades, like how SF2 guns don't work like PF2 guns or have the same assumptions.
I feel like I've been literally shouting that the problem is the explosives and every keeps coming back to the hands. There are other things that interact with the 3 missiles that cause a similar problem as the 4 hands. Not the least of which is players duck taping a bunch of explosives together!
If starting combat with 4 grenades in your hand is an issue, then 3 players using all of their money to put as much explosives as possible on a suicide drone is going to be a problem.
Most of the things I'm suggesting are minor tweaks like flight. Already handled in the SF1 system and easily ported over. I already expect the majority of the rules to be the same or similar.
*shakes head in exasperation*
I recommend that you go and play about 15 hours of Pathfinder2e then. Grab A Fistful of Flowers and A Few Flowers More or maybe The Enmity Cycle or Malevolence or something. Grab a few friends or just roll up a bunch of your own characters and play through it all by yourself.
You will quickly see just how different the core rules are.
Well good thing I'm not opting for "lol technology" to solve any problem. Again with the lies.
I'm do confess that I'm opting for technology to solve the problems its solved.
Why did you even bother to contradict my claim if you're going to confirm it in the next sentence? Is is plain that you are using technology as an excuse to handwave balance concerns.
Flight is available at level 1 is fine, but darkvision available at level 1 is some sort of nonsense. And as far as I can tell, it's only nonsense because you say so. Even though the Starfinder Meta has them as a lower level effect. The exact same meta that has flight as a lower level effect.
Given that I have in fact pointed out how darkvision is available to Pathfinder 2e ancestries as early as level 1, I'm going to call BS on this. My point so far has been that even though darkvision is allowed on ancestries at level 1 despite its strength, four arms or more is even more powerful than that, and thus needs curbing. Again, simply looking up even one PF2e ancestry and how it's balanced could've shown this, and I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously when it's obvious you do not know the first thing about 2e, and appear actively disinterested in educating yourself.
You just saying something doesn't make it so. It just makes it more lies.
I agree, which is probably why you should work on listening to others and trying to make your case honestly, instead of misrepresenting others, ignoring contrary evidence, and outright making stuff up.
Hahahaha well for your sake I sure hope you are a troll. Yeah I was actually calling the designers cowards if they didn't let us build Six Shooter the tiny killer puppet. Otherwise this is some sort of sad. Even if you don't know what Puppet Master is, it was a 6 armed cowboy with six 6 shooters.
I really could not care less. Your attitude is inexcusable, and insulting Paizo staff and others for not wanting to bend their game out of shape isn't going to make the developers accommodate your pet OP build. That you don't see the wrong in what you've been doing gives even less reason to take you seriously.
I feel like I've been literally shouting that the problem is the explosives and every keeps coming back to the hands.
If you perhaps spent a little less time shouting, and a little more time brushing up on 2e, you would see that hand economy is a thing that covers many more things besides explosives (in fact, at-will AoE weapons are another Starfinder innovation that doesn't exist in Pathfinder). That you consider your capricious demands "minor tweaks" and cite Starfinder 1e as your sole reference further demonstrates your ignorance of the system being discussed. Newsflash: darkvision in PF1e was also trivial, because it was similarly incredibly easy to obtain through magic. Darkvision didn't get made non-trivial in PF2e because of low technology, it got made non-trivial because 2e makes a general point of not trivializing mechanics. As others have pointed out, details that seem too small to matter in 1e, whether PF or SF, do matter in 2e, and it's that attention to detail that opens up a lot of interesting gameplay. Player characters don't get as ridiculously overpowered as quickly, but there's still plenty of room for rich character expression, more so even than in 1e arguably given how almost any build is viable. This can even include multi-armed characters who can use all of their limbs at the same time... provided you commit enough of your build towards that. In the end, you can still have what you want, you're just mad that you can't get all of that power for free. That's just not how 2e works.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, this isn't to say that items shouldn't provide darkvision, rather, those items should probably be higher-level, as they already are in 2e.
People at Paizo have stated several times that the meta between Starfinder and Pathfinder does not have to match. Flying at the first level was one example given. As long as Starfinder tech works with the PF2e core rules, what level you can access something in Starfinder is irrelevant to its level in Pathfinder.
Starfinder and Pathfinder are going to be compatible, not identical. Both games still have to stand on their own.
People at Paizo have stated several times that the meta between Starfinder and Pathfinder does not have to match. Flying at the first level was one example given. As long as Starfinder tech works with the PF2e core rules, what level you can access something in Starfinder is irrelevant to its level in Pathfinder.
Starfinder and Pathfinder are going to be compatible, not identical. Both games still have to stand on their own.
As the field test shows, items are being balanced along the same basic level framework, tech or no tech. As already pointed out, flying at level 1 is also allowed in Starfinder not for the sake of being different, but because Starfinder's combat features enough ranged attacks for flight to never cause problems. I certainly agree that the metagames need not be identical, but the points of difference still need justification. "This is a different game" is not justification enough, because giving everyone free darkvision while keeping the exact same underlying gameplay of vision and stealth is going to imbalance things.
Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
"This is a different game" is not justification enough, because giving everyone free darkvision while keeping the exact same underlying gameplay of vision and stealth is going to imbalance things.
It's these sorts of things that we're looking at in the play experience. Darkvision isn't something that everyone gets in our game, though they may spend resources to get access to it (hello tech visors!).
We need to acknowledge certain elements of the game, like say the rigors of wilderness survival, might be trivialized in a setting that is more adjacent to technical innovations. We also can recognize that a lot of things can be trivialized in Pathfinder 2Es current rules with specific resource expenditure. This is part of the pre-public playtest phase that we're in, and it's something we are taking very seriously.
It's these sorts of things that we're looking at in the play experience. Darkvision isn't something that everyone gets in our game, though they may spend resources to get access to it (hello tech visors!).
We need to acknowledge certain elements of the game, like say the rigors of wilderness survival, might be trivialized in a setting that is more adjacent to technical innovations. We also can recognize that a lot of things can be trivialized in Pathfinder 2Es current rules with specific resource expenditure. This is part of the pre-public playtest phase that we're in, and it's something we are taking very seriously.
This is fantastic to hear! On that latter note: what kind of mechanics do you think would be more difficult to access in Starfinder than Pathfinder? A lot of the discussion here so far has been about how Starfinder's environment allows some restrictions to be lifted, and it'd be interesting to find out more about how a sci-fi world imposes other considerations and limitations instead to play with. I like how Pathfinder's constraints allow for some really fun gameplay and builds to emerge, and I imagine that same sort of design philosophy is being applied to Starfinder in 2e, with somewhat different constraints.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's 71 races in starfinder with darkvision - more than half of them. If you're in the other half, you can get it for a level 1 armor mod, or a level 3 cybernetic. Or put a flashlight on your armor.
So darkvision is more of the Flight level of balancing than the 4-arms balancing.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I still can't believe they let humans out of the lorespire complex without taking sufficient measures to mitigate their night blindness problem. You know what's dark? 99.99999 percent of space. You know what else is dark? the 99 percent of the planet that isn't surface. You know what ELSE is dark? the part of the planet that IS surface half the time. or half of the planet all of the time You know what sees in the dark? EVERYTHING except human and short human. Everything with big sharp pointy teeth. I swear humans must have evolved on the burning archipelago or something. Why are they even alive otherwise? "
"Oh a flashlight. Good idea. Lets let everything in a 5 mile radius know "help me, I'm mal adapted to my environment and delicious". What could go wrong...here, lie on the ground wriggle around and make sounds like a squeeky toy. Predators LOVE that. "
:)
|
Just noticed this in the field test document:
QUICK-SWAP [reaction] FEAT 1
SOLDIER
Trigger You are wielding a two-handed weapon and a creature
moves adjacent to you.
You stow your current weapon and draw another two-handed
weapon. If you have multiple sets of arms, you can instead choose
a set to become active.
dont think choosing to use a deferent set of arms should be a feat, an action sure but not a feat
dont think choosing to use a deferent set of arms should be a feat, an action sure but not a featJust noticed this in the field test document:
QUICK-SWAP [reaction] FEAT 1
SOLDIER
Trigger You are wielding a two-handed weapon and a creature
moves adjacent to you.
You stow your current weapon and draw another two-handed
weapon. If you have multiple sets of arms, you can instead choose
a set to become active.
I think you are mis-reading the feat.
The feat isn't so that you can use a second set of arms at all ever. That would be silly. No one is suggesting that.
The feat is so that you can switch active arms as a reaction triggered by an enemy moving adjacent to you. So that is an upgrade of having to use your first action of your turn to switch active arms because you want to use the melee weapons that those arms are holding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think of, instead of the cost of an additional action, a penalty of lets say -1 is applied for each shift to another pair of arms to represent some additional brain work?
So for example the Multiple Attack Penalty after switching to another pair of arms is increased by 1; raising a shield provides 1 less AC; -1 for skill checks...
There might be an ancestry feat at later levels to remove this penalty.
Please note, that I only have played SF1 but no PF2 yet, so I cannot tell if a -1 penalty makes sense, but since the soldier inflicts a -1 with their Suppressed condition, it looks like it has some weight to it.
(Also thank you Teridax for your detailed post, that helped me PF2 n00b a lot to understand the possible problems concerning action economy.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think of, instead of the cost of an additional action, a penalty of lets say -1 is applied for each shift to another pair of arms to represent some additional brain work?
So for example the Multiple Attack Penalty after switching to another pair of arms is increased by 1; raising a shield provides 1 less AC; -1 for skill checks...There might be an ancestry feat at later levels to remove this penalty.
Please note, that I only have played SF1 but no PF2 yet, so I cannot tell if a -1 penalty makes sense, but since the soldier inflicts a -1 with their Suppressed condition, it looks like it has some weight to it.
(Also thank you Teridax for your detailed post, that helped me PF2 n00b a lot to understand the possible problems concerning action economy.)
- More complicated. That's another thing to track and modifier to apply to all sorts of things in combat, and so it makes playing those characters annoying.
- Still doesn't work. What does "another" mean here? If it's "non-primary", then that means you still need a way to switch what's primary. If it's "a pair of arms other than what you used for your first action", then it allows switching for free between turns, which has most of the same issues.
What do you think of, instead of the cost of an additional action, a penalty of lets say -1 is applied for each shift to another pair of arms to represent some additional brain work?
So for example the Multiple Attack Penalty after switching to another pair of arms is increased by 1; raising a shield provides 1 less AC; -1 for skill checks...There might be an ancestry feat at later levels to remove this penalty.
Please note, that I only have played SF1 but no PF2 yet, so I cannot tell if a -1 penalty makes sense, but since the soldier inflicts a -1 with their Suppressed condition, it looks like it has some weight to it.
(Also thank you Teridax for your detailed post, that helped me PF2 n00b a lot to understand the possible problems concerning action economy.)
- More complicated. That's another thing to track and modifier to apply to all sorts of things in combat, and so it makes playing those characters annoying.
- Still doesn't work. What does "another" mean here? If it's "non-primary", then that means you still need a way to switch what's primary. If it's "a pair of arms other than what you used for your first action", then it allows switching for free between turns, which has most of the same issues.
I'm especially worried about "more complicated" part. Multiarmed characters will already require more memorization as you are probably holding more things, especially if you are using consumables. Then the current system requires you to track which pair of arms is your "active" one. The stacking penalty would create a third layer of tracking.
It might not be an issue all the time or for all players, but long combats, longer spaces between your character actively doing anything, and most importantly the time between sessions will cause you to lose track of something sooner or later.
RLhoshi, you are absolutely correct that even a -1 penalty would have weight. But sorry, I have to agree with QuidEst, that sounds pretty annoying to have to deal with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I see, yes, I was indeed proposing to only apply modifiers when switching pairs of arms between actions during the same turn, so the modifier would have reset after your turn is finished. Thus I thought there was no tracking issue - granted, applying a penalty to your shield AC would indeed mean you have to remember something, also, delaying an action...
So, yeah, my intention for allowing to switch for free between turns was to keep the coolness of being a multi-armed character, while still giving it a bit of an edge when switching during a single turn (apart from spending additional actions), to keep it from being overpowered. Basically, your primary pair of arms would then be determined by the one you used first during your turn. But still, if that doesn't solve the issue, it's not a solution.
And I fully agree that tracking in between turns is not feasible at all and I'm all in for reducing complexity!
Thanks both of you for your insights! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of reducing complexity, I could do without the second layer as well. I can feel it in my bones that someone at my table will always lose track if they play something more complicated that "shoot gun". Including me if I am playing like 4 of these dudes at the same time as the GM.
What about you can choose your active pair of arms on a "per round" basis, i.e. for free at the start of your turn and that's what you have for the round? No switching hands during your turn, but it also doesn't cost an action and doesn't require tracking between rounds. That's the baseline, with feats that can improve upon it.
If we want it slightly more complicated but less restrictive, we can also start with your inactive hands always being able to perform simple actions that don't require a check, such as opening an unlocked door. Or possibly even stuff like Grab an Edge.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm slowly muddling my way through learning the Paizo Three Action System rules. This feels so obvious that I must be missing something, but: what about the existing mechanisms, of Open or Flourish actions, in PF2?
If the big consideration that we're balancing against here is "it's way too OP if the Rocketmander can wield & fire three rocket launchers at once" then wouldn't it be pretty easy to slap the Open trait onto the Rocket Launcher? Or, migrate SF1's Unwieldy weapon property into an SF2 trait, such that a Strike with an Unwieldy weapon takes two actions, rather than the usual one, and/or cannot be used with Reactions.
I still feel like multi-armed species should have some benefit to having multiple arms out of the gate, and having to choose between which 'hands' are active or not just Feels Bad™. Like others have said above, that level of management and tracking is too much. The more I think on it, the more I believe the best way to make this work is not to apply complicated systems to hand management or hand economy, but to instead apply the balancing to the weapons, actions, and items you do with those hands. In short: having multiple hands should give you more options of what you can do, but you should still be limited in the number of actions you can take. More hands = more options to choose from, but at the end of the day, you've still only got three actions. If any given action / item / whatever is so powerful that doing it three times would be game-breaking, the 'balance' should be applied to that action / item / whatever, rather than to the skittermander with six hands.
(Before people come in with "what about this feat chain" or "this archetype lets you..." or whatever else: remember that SF2 isn't trying to be balanced with regards to every existing option in PF2. If there's some gunslinger feat chain that lets you shoot every pistol you're holding as 1 action or whatever, that's great and all, but that shouldn't impact how a shobhad works.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm slowly muddling my way through learning the Paizo Three Action System rules. This feels so obvious that I must be missing something, but: what about the existing mechanisms, of Open or Flourish actions, in PF2?
If the big consideration that we're balancing against here is "it's way too OP if the Rocketmander can wield & fire three rocket launchers at once" then wouldn't it be pretty easy to slap the Open trait onto the Rocket Launcher? Or, migrate SF1's Unwieldy weapon property into an SF2 trait, such that a Strike with an Unwieldy weapon takes two actions, rather than the usual one, and/or cannot be used with Reactions.
I still feel like multi-armed species should have some benefit to having multiple arms out of the gate, and having to choose between which 'hands' are active or not just Feels Bad™. Like others have said above, that level of management and tracking is too much. The more I think on it, the more I believe the best way to make this work is not to apply complicated systems to hand management or hand economy, but to instead apply the balancing to the weapons, actions, and items you do with those hands. In short: having multiple hands should give you more options of what you can do, but you should still be limited in the number of actions you can take. More hands = more options to choose from, but at the end of the day, you've still only got three actions. If any given action / item / whatever is so powerful that doing it three times would be game-breaking, the 'balance' should be applied to that action / item / whatever, rather than to the skittermander with six hands.
(Before people come in with "what about this feat chain" or "this archetype lets you..." or whatever else: remember that SF2 isn't trying to be balanced with regards to every existing option in PF2. If there's some gunslinger feat chain...
The Open trait is getting canned in the PF2e remaster, but you're right that the Flourish trait, at first glance at least, could be perfect for preventing multi-handed abuse. The issue in my opinion is one of scalability: when you concentrate the problem of extra hands to the mechanics and traits governing extra hands, you have to build in some limitations, which doesn't look that fun, but you end up with a subsystem that does what it's supposed to, and doesn't do what it's not, right out of the box, and maps cleanly onto everything you've made, everything you're making, and pretty much everything you will make, assuming you do it right.
By contrast, stuff like applying the Flourish trait to certain actions for the express purpose of preventing multi-hand abuse would be externalizing that problem: instead of covering multi-hand abuse in the multi-hand mechanics, you'd have to go across every mechanic in 2e that could possibly incur abuse with more than 2 hands (and there's a lot), and rewrite those mechanics to include a certain trait or some other wording to avoid abuse. It also means that every time you create a new mechanic, you would have to bear this entirely separate mechanic of multi-handed characters, consider whether the two would work too well together, and adjust your mechanic accordingly each time. That's a lot of extra work to arrive at the same result, and also means that the more mechanics you add to the game that warrant this same consideration, the more you'd have to load every other mechanic in the game with controls. If you want to save work, you could just state that some feats and other options would simply be incompatible with multiple hands, or leave it up to the GM to adjudicate, but that carries the tradeoff of reducing options overall or putting more pressure on the GM to make the game work. Because of this, I'd say that the most viable way forward would probably be to bake appropriate limitations directly into multi-handedness, and build out from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is... the multi-hand thing doesn't fix the rocket launcher issue. Like, Quick Draw is a level 2 feat in PF2, for three different classes. There are six archetypes that offer it by level 4. SF2 is not PF2, but if anything, it seems like it might be more appropriate here than there.
So if you have "fire rocket launcher" as a single non-flourish action, then anyone who has access to quick draw can walk around with three of them in their pack, and fire them off in a single round with the quick draw -> release loop. Hosing down skittermander hands access doesn't really fix the issue.
Now, in PF2, hands economy is a meaningful part of action economy, and it's certainly a thing. Having free access to a two-hander and a shield and a free hand would be a pretty big deal. For SF2 though... does it have to be? Like...
- Make quick draw readily available.
- Bake "take my two-handed weapon back in both hands" in as part of quick draw
- possibly at level 4-6 or so, include a utility magic item holster/scabbard that you can bond to your one-handed weapon of choice that will automatically return it to its rightful place at your belt if you ever let go of the weapon while wearing said holster/scabbard.
- deprioritize shields. This is pretty thematic anyway. Fantasy heroes run around with shields all the time. Sci-fi heroes not nearly so much.
Suddenly, your hands economy isn't nearly such a big deal. You can give someone access to four hands, or six, without major limitations (at the cost of, say, a feat and a bit of their ancestry budget), and it doesn't really break things because basically everyone has most of that stuff already.
I think some stuff can be solved with a combination of the existing form of the Unwieldy trait from FT1 and Bulk, at least as far as weapons are concerned. Most heavy weapons should be heavy (and/or awkward to carry), so even a pretty strong Skittermander shouldn't be able to carry 6 of the things, much less wield them at the same time.
Maybe also limit the number of times you can use Unwieldy weapons per turn, rather than each weapon having an individual lockout? Relevant classes/archetypes could modify that as desired, so the double-rpg fun times aren't completely gone ^^
In addition to what Teridax said, Flourish is also far too useful in its current function. In PF2, it is a heavy restriction that in turn allows for the creation of very impactful abilities, which otherwise couldn't exist or would be a much higher level. For example Hunted Shot or Flurry of Blows allow you to attack twice for 1 action. They couldn't exist unrestricted and if you replaced that with a "Once per round" frequency restriction, you could potentially use several such powerful abilities during the same turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to what Teridax said, Flourish is also far too useful in its current function. In PF2, it is a heavy restriction that in turn allows for the creation of very impactful abilities, which otherwise couldn't exist or would be a much higher level. For example Hunted Shot or Flurry of Blows allow you to attack twice for 1 action. They couldn't exist unrestricted and if you replaced that with a "Once per round" frequency restriction, you could potentially use several such powerful abilities during the same turn.
I agree with your interpretation of the intent... but I also feel like that's basically what Paizo is saying about the rocket launcher. It is one of those extra-special things that you should only be able to do once per round, and should naturally conflict with other extra-special things.
Now, I don't think that's the ideal response. Instead, I think that they should just straight-up make the rocket launcher a two-action, or even three-action attack. It's powerful. It's area effect. It fits the profile... and If anything, I feel like the experience of firing a rocket launcher would be improved by having that extra action cost to underline the idea that no, really, this is a big deal. If it means that you can only fire your rocket launcher every other turn, because it takes your full turn and you need to reload, and you can only fire it when you've set things up properly? Well, yeah. It's a rocket launcher.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is... the multi-hand thing doesn't fix the rocket launcher issue. Like, Quick Draw is a level 2 feat in PF2, for three different classes. There are six archetypes that offer it by level 4. SF2 is not PF2, but if anything, it seems like it might be more appropriate here than there.
This to me pretty strongly suggests we should keep the Area Fire action as a two-action activity separate from the Strike action. As written, Quick Draw specifically says that you Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with it. Area weapons like the stellar cannon cannot shoot with regular Strikes, only with the separate Area Fire action, so you wouldn’t be able to bypass their action cost with Quick Draw, no matter how many hands you have.
I also feel we’re collectively misidentifying the problem, and so due to a wrong idea of what 2e is about. The point of 2e isn’t to say “no, your skittermander can’t spam three rocket launchers at once”, much less to deprive anyone of a playstyle that could potentially be a lot of fun. Rather, 2e is about saying “yes, you can do this thing that you want, provided you commit a portion of your build proportionate to the thing’s power”.
I can bet you that the final SF2e product will let us build that rocket-spamming skittermander, except you’d likely have to commit a few feats to get there. You’d likely also be able to pick a non-skittermander and do equally awesome, if very different things, for the same build investment. You will almost certainly not need to pick a skittermander to get the most out of the soldier class, who will be laying down lots of area fire, and so the end product is likely to be balanced so that your rocket skittermander won’t be dealing three times as much damage as the alternative.
This is very different to 1e, which promises a lot of broken fun right off the bat, but with its own tradeoffs: the difference between a character who is and isn’t optimized there is very large, which means that even though you technically can go for a large variety of playstyles, only some of those playstyles end up being worth picking without the risk of getting left behind. SF2e is likely to be balanced a bit differently from PF2e, but still runs off the same core framework, and is likely to not revert to 1e’s design philosophy.
Thing is, I don't think that "skittermander firing off 3 rocket launchers in a single round" really is a character concept that people want in and of itself. If you make it somehow rules-optimal, they'll go for it, and then start to cling to it, but if you show them a skittermander in a vacuum, I don't think that very many people would immediately think "oh, hey - he could wield three rocket launchers!" You're much more likely to see people wanting to play marilith-style flurry of blades tricks or go in there with six machine pistols and really fill the air with lead.
I really do think that "rocket launcher" is the sort of thing that gets better and better as you make it more ponderous. More time, more setup, for a much more satisfying boom when it goes off. You have to bow to practicality to a degree - if it takes so long to fire that the fight's half-over or the enemy is already among you, then that's just a feelsbad moment, but as long as that isn't happening...
Like, ideally, to me, the humanscale rocket launcher and the mecha rocket launcher would fire the same rockets, with basically the same stats, and you'd balance it on the humanscale side by requiring multiple actions and reload times and heavy bulk costs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still feel like multi-armed species should have some benefit to having multiple arms out of the gate, (...)
As the rules are now, a skittermander can go into combat with a few benefits.
- Minor benefit: Swapping weapons doesn't require dropping anything. No unattended items at risk, and it's easy to swap back.
- Moderate benefit: Free hands for reloading. Dual pistol style, gun-and-shield, etc. are more reliable when you always have a free hand to reload.
- Major benefit: A skittermander can go into combat with four consumables already in hand. In Pathfinder, you need a specific 0-bonus armor and four days of crafting time to go into combat with one scroll outside your two hands. Potions get much better when it doesn't cost you combat effectiveness to start with them in hand.
Hold up a minute, it seems I haven't been reading this section of FT1 properly. If I'm reading this right, you literally only cannot use weapons that aren't in your active pair of hands. And you possibly cannot use actions with multiple pairs of hands in general, which is more or less the same. That's all. Wow, that is amazingly strong. For some reason I just assumed you would have to switch hands every time you wanted to use your other hands.
That changes a lot.
Aside from what QuidEst mentioned, shields (if they exist in some form in SF2) aren't weapons. Neither are wands. Melee characters have free hands for combat maneuvers (stuff like Shove, Trip and Grab) and feats that require them (which is a major balance point in PF2). You can climb and have full use of your weapons. Not only most consumables, but also all kind of weird permanent held items are your oyster.
That took me long enough XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, no, it's actually pretty great. I was wondering why folks were acting like there wasn't any benefit... Some of those perks might not carry over to SF2 (why print new free-hand fighting styles?), but I definitely expect a lot of them to be relevant. A skittermander loaded down with tools for every situation would be in character - always ready to help!
I don't think you can climb and use weapons at the same time is implied. It says "Performing actions with multiple pairs of arms concurrently is a challenge and can’t be done without intensive training."
Climbing a ladder, using a wand, or performing combat maneuvers with your hands are all "performing actions" with your hands. You need to take the switch hands action if they're not in your active hands. They call out weapons I think only because that's where players are most likely to use them in ways that make these characters overpowered.
I think ultimately that last sentence will be reworded to "You can only perform actions with your active hands."
Climbing, Activating an item, Striking and Shoving are all separate actions. You wouldn't be using multiple pairs of hands for any individual action. Hence why I said this essentially only relates to weapons in any case. Though you could read it as the "arm requirements" of those multiple actions being taken together.
That said, there is also the problem that the first two sentences are written as flavour text, not rules text.
As for that being the intention? Who knows. The current version is pretty crazy, but "you can only use actions with your active hands" is possibly the most "meh" direction you can take things. That's like one step above PF2 tail feats and wouldn't really be worth it to a lot of characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't have any four handed animals in our world to point at to say what is or isn't possible/reasonable. We have lots of examples of animals that use two, four, six, eight, or 30 legs for locomotion. The locomotion thing is built in to a subsystem of their nervous system, so it can happen without conscious attention. Use of hand for other things requires attention. That's part of why I say four-arm characters ought to be able to use all their limbs for climbing, but it also applies to crawling or swimming.
The closest analogue, I would think, is primates with prehensile feet—specifically chimpanzees and organgutans or other higher-order primates. They do, quite effectively, manipulate and consciously engage with objects with their feet when they want to use them for things that require attention and not just locomotion. To your point though, and to the point of this system. But it definitely requires more concentration than normal to do both at once.
But if you give four-handed characters too many ways they can use four hands to advantage, you might as well delete all the two handed races because nobody will play them.
This is the part I disagree with. Plenty of people play non-four-handed characters now, for the various benefits of those species. If you imagine racial abilities and perks in terms of a budget (let's call it 10 points), and we think of a skill bonus as a 1 point perk, darkvision or something as a 1-2 point perk, and reach maybe a 2-3 point perk, I just think extra arms has to be budgeted SUBSTANTIALLY higher than it has been— 5, 6, 7 points of the budget. If the primary perk of playing a Kasatha is the extra arms, they probably shouldn't also have other particularly strong racials - and they don't. But then you have a Skittermander, who has fourextra arms (at apparently no extra budget compared to the Kasatha), an extra move action a day (useful in literally every build), a grapple combat maneuver bonus (a rare bonus to arguably the strongest combat maneuver), and low light vision. Kasatha, to go with their two extra arms, get mobility through deserts/hills/mountains, and a bonus to culture/acrobatics/athletics checks. I really don't think the issue is the balancing of extra arms—its the balancing of certain species that have extra arms. The price for having extra arms needs to be more significant.
There's no question that independently balancing the extra arms species, instead of limiting the extra arm capability broadly and universally, is more work. So is balancing rocket launchers individually, and other items that are subject to potential abuse by extra armed characters. It's the right way to do the job though, even though it's more work, because it leaves the diversity of the species in place, which was sort of the point of creating extra armed species in the first place.
It occurs to me that one thing they could do to make the racial budgets come out a bit easier is to have some ancestries straight-up eat their initial heritage and/or starting ancestry feat. If Skittermanders have to pay too much for their arms, but the idea of depriving them of some of their other benefits is simply unthinkable... there are other places you can tap for that stuff.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No species evolves multiple arms without being able to use them. If using multiple arms effectively throws off the game balance built around 2 armed species, instead of penalizing multi-armed species by making them balanced with 2 armed species, have them have a higher level for calculating APL for encounters to adjust for being better at multiple attacks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but pretty much anything is a better solution than messing with player level. That isn't a solution, that's creating a problem.
Sorry, but pretty much anything is a better solution than messing with player level. That isn't a solution, that's creating a problem.
Oh, I'm sure that we could come up with something that's worse.
Admittedly, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything.
3.x-style multiclassing and ancestral hit dice, maybe?
Sorry, but pretty much anything is a better solution than messing with player level. That isn't a solution, that's creating a problem.Oh, I'm sure that we could come up with something that's worse.
Admittedly, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything.
3.x-style multiclassing and ancestral hit dice, maybe?
No thanks, pf2 got away from 3.x multiclassing for the better and even pf1 didn't have racial hit die iirc. the only solution(other then the one they already have) imo would be to give ancestry abilities with the same level of power, which is probably hard enough to do as is.