I don't have anything to add to this, except I thought that the choice between higher damage/higher AC vs lower damage/lower AC was a meaningful one that brought some flavor to what was otherwise a "What's best in slot that I have proficiency in?" decision in SF1.
I think we can be very, very sure that this is one of the things that won't be changing. Compatibility with the PF2 engine just doesn't leave the space for it.
But the thematic expression can also just shift to other mechanics than just split ACs. Special effects depending on your specific armour (like PF2 handles precious material bonuses, just as baseline), traits, resistance from armour specialisation and so on. It doesn't have to be the exact same as the admittedly rather bland PF2 system.
|
There's been some talk about this in other threads. All Pathfinder weapons are getting the archaic trait. In effect, that will be like all Starfinder armor having high KAC against it. Also, armor can have damage reduction or resistances that work similarly to having a higher EAC but with more flexibility to have more specialized armor. Having a resistance to all to energy weapons would be the same as EAC. It will look different in the stat block but should work about the same as EAC/KAC, with the possibility for more options. Once we get used to this change, I think it could be a big win for Starfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think adjusting AC up or down based on the type of weapon you're facing is going to work in this system. Simply because -1 AC is "5% greater chance of getting critted".
I think a better way to represent "this armor is more effective energy weapons" or whatever is with resistance.
But also in keeping with PF2 I don't think "which specific armor you wear" is going to have as much effect as "what mods you put on your armor" (parallel to "what runes you have on your armor.") Most armor in PF2 is just about "do you have enough Dex/Str to max our your AC". Though Pathfinder Armor doesn't do a lot with traits (unlike weapons) so this is a place where SF2 can do more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having recently started playing Starfinder, I don't see the appeal of the split AC's. It just seems like an excuse to keep a system that's not fun to engage in, that being the equivalent of touch AC and the BAB differences that brings. For example some classes starting with a lower bab because it's assumed they'll be using more energy-based weapons or spells, thus demanding they be compensated by having a lower-AC threshold to beat. It's just feels like putting the cart in front of the horse where this system is being designed to just empower a class, instead of just making that class good at hitting stuff in the first place.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'd say enemies having a variety of Weakness/Resistance is a lot more engaging and rewarding than having an AC difference of 1 or 2.
Plus less mental load.
All Pathfinder weapons are getting the archaic trait. In effect, that will be like all Starfinder armor having high KAC against it.
Just a quick update, the resistance 10 on archaic equipment has been changed to an optional rule.
I'd say SF 2e doesn't need it anymore than PF2e does with it's cantrips or kineticist blasts does.
|
|
All Pathfinder weapons are getting the archaic trait. In effect, that will be like all Starfinder armor having high KAC against it.Just a quick update, the resistance 10 on archaic equipment has been changed to an optional rule.
I missed that change. I assume that was on the rule that all Starfinder armor got resistance 10 on archaic equipment? If so that might leave room for some armor to still have that resistance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I missed that change. I assume that was on the rule that all Starfinder armor got resistance 10 on archaic equipment? If so that might leave room for some armor to still have that resistance.All Pathfinder weapons are getting the archaic trait. In effect, that will be like all Starfinder armor having high KAC against it.Just a quick update, the resistance 10 on archaic equipment has been changed to an optional rule.
Correct. You can find a full list over in the field test forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Rysky said, having two AC values, each within 1 or 2 points of each other, is not worth the mental load of figuring out which one targets which one and which one is affected by buff/condition X etc. etc.
Maybe I'm not understanding exactly, but I don't think Weakness/Resistance is the right answer.
If I'm wearing, say, A bantha hide vest that has weakness to lasers, I'm suddenly taking more damage than if I wasn't wearing anything at all?
I think I'd like different AC types. Armor Class has always been kind of vague, but at the same time D&D has also always defended energy attacks with saving throws, so you could argue that AC's vagueness never included lightning guns or ray beams to start with.
And I'm not convinced it's a lot of effort to track or reference two different ACs. To be honest, I don't even think it'd be a lot of effort to add it back in at our home game if it's not included. It's minimal effort tactical flavor.
|
|
Maybe I'm not understanding exactly, but I don't think Weakness/Resistance is the right answer.
If I'm wearing, say, A bantha hide vest that has weakness to lasers, I'm suddenly taking more damage than if I wasn't wearing anything at all?
I think I'd like different AC types. Armor Class has always been kind of vague, but at the same time D&D has also always defended energy attacks with saving throws, so you could argue that AC's vagueness never included lightning guns or ray beams to start with.
And I'm not convinced it's a lot of effort to track or reference two different ACs. To be honest, I don't even think it'd be a lot of effort to add it back in at our home game if it's not included. It's minimal effort tactical flavor.
It's not a matter of EAC/KEC being easy to track. It's just not compatible with Pathfinder 2e. To keep the split AC feel, some armor could have a resistance to energy weapons either generally or against specific types of weapons. Bantha hide with a higher KEC, and lower EAC is the same as it having a weakness to energy weapons.
If I'm wearing, say, A bantha hide vest that has weakness to lasers, I'm suddenly taking more damage than if I wasn't wearing anything at all?
Why would they put Weaknesses on Armor? This was for critters. Armors CAN have Resistances though.
Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Personal Hat*
As someone who ran _a lot_ of Starfinder back in the day, I found the EAC/KAC split was something that felt like it was in the background of the game itself. Most PCs I would play with, would be using an EAC-targeting weapon because it was generally more efficient. If I saw someone targeting KAC, it was likely a flavorful choice or someone who made some monstrous KAC-targeting combat maneuver machine. Otherwise, it was generally just safe to assume that EAC was the common element.
From a design perspective, there was a constant check necessary on whether something targeted EAC/KAC, and even if we had supporting text about what referencing just AC meant, it always led to someone questioning "what did they really mean".
I suspect there's potential for more optional rules for folks who want a bit more realism in the vein of "laser pistol should be better than crossbow", because Gamemastery Guide type books are great for that. However, in the main game, it is my personal experience that most modern TTRPG players are more interested in an experience that gets them into the game faster and with less technical hurdles.
Making everything use 1 AC type will help smooth out a lot of design and help them facilitate the proficiency system. No more characters starting at 0-bab because EAC exists. Everyone can start at their Ability Modifier + 3(level 1 + 2 from trained), and actually have a decent time trying to hit things while accessing basic functions of the systems and no more weird artifacts like half the classes being unable to move and draw a weapon cause their bab is 0.
And yes, BAB and EAC/KAC are related, EAC being lower is a means for lower BAB characters to hit enemies using their spells or energy weapons. It's not nearly as important or even that much worldbuilding as any creature that has an absurdly high KAC but low EAC, or one thats got a low KAC but crazy high EAC, can be replicated with having a weakness to physical damage or weakness to energy based damage and a resistance to the other.
"Light rail gun. Is that the a EAC rail gun that shoots light, a rail gun that doesn't weigh much, or the vesk one that fires small train cars at people?
"..Uhm.. depends on the item level.
I mostly play online and it's fairly easy. The weapon has an armor class listed in the attack. The monster has two AC's under the "whisper the dm the stuff they should know" button.
But the porcupines in the aspen to fun ratio on this one is pretty high. It has to be the stat that gets double checked at least twice per fight.
Maybe I'm not understanding exactly, but I don't think Weakness/Resistance is the right answer.
If I'm wearing, say, A bantha hide vest that has weakness to lasers, I'm suddenly taking more damage than if I wasn't wearing anything at all?
The thing to note is that in the PF2 ruleset the PCs and the Monsters aren't using the same rules anymore (as a result the monster building process is so much easier). So "weakness to lasers" would be a thing a monster would have, analogous to how a fantasy troll is harmed by fire and acid.
For PCs, you can just do the "this armor is more effective against bullets" by things like the Armor Specialization effect of that type of armor, which would grant you resistance to certain attacks. PCs rarely have anything that gives you weakness.
For PCs, you can just do the "this armor is more effective against bullets" by things like the Armor Specialization effect of that type of armor, which would grant you resistance to certain attacks. PCs rarely have anything that gives you weakness.
Isn't that something only for fighters and only for level like, 10+ ?
If something like that technically exists but you don't really interact with it, it really doesn't exist for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that something only for fighters and only for level like, 10+ ?
Not necessarily, there's an earth kineticist impulse that gives it to you at level 1.
But I think the assumptions of the two games being different should assume "people are generally familiar with and wearing with armor" just because "I'm going to stand in the back and wear robes" is a worse idea when people have guns. So you could give armor specialization to darn near everybody if you wanted, since "what armor you're not wearing" can be dictated by proficiency settings (i.e. you don't give the operative proficiency in power armor.)
I think generally compared to PF2 the armors for SF2 should do more with traits. When you compare how many traits weapons get with how many traits armors get there is a big space to explore here.
Isn't that something only for fighters and only for level like, 10+ ?Not necessarily, there's an earth kineticist impulse that gives it to you at level 1.
Not really changing the overall issue....
If the armor is good against slashing, it has to be good against slashing when Bob puts it on. If the 8th dwarf Tanky puts on the same armor and its now good against slashing, but wasn't when bob Wears it, that's a special ability of Tanky's, not the armor. Opening the list to one other person doesn't change that. Lots of things can share the same special ability.
I think the other thing you could do is, since "Tech" and "Magic" are going to follow parallel tracks in terms of numerical bonus, you could do interesting things with the tech version of "Armor Property Runes" for the purposes of "This armor is extra fireproof" and stuff like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure some might be dead-set against this, but I think there could be room for armors and weapons having certain traits that interact that could cause adjustments to the base AC depending on a specific source.
You could invent a reflective padded armor suit. It gives you 5 flame resistance vs laser weapons (or just make it resist fire 5 for simplicity) However, it states it is less effective against piercing and slashing damage, in the effect of being a circumstance penalty) to AC against such sources.
You have a single target AC, but you know that the source of the attach/damage can potentially trigger an adjustment to the chance to hit, or damage.
Yes, tuning the AC up or down by 1 increases damage not only 5% in certain respects based on damage, but also an extra amount based on its impact to critical hits. But in the end I think the idea of allowing attack types to affect the target DC could be useful and could give armors and weapons more flavor. Give a flak vest a +1 AC vs attacks doing Concussive damage. Actually, there is sort of already a precedent with this with respect to shocking grasp getting a +1 circumstance bonus to hit against someone wearing metal armor.
I loved how in StarFinder, the different critical effects of weapons were NOT limited to only higher skilled combatants. It gave the weapons additional flavor from the start. It would be nice if critical effects traits could move forward. Other weapon traits could be like deadly and fatal, which have an effect on a critical, but don't require critical specializations to trigger (even if critical specializations might level-up these abilities) Again, I think the goal should be to help build flavorful Lore and Mechanical impact for a wide variety of both weapons and armor.
The thing to note is that in the PF2 ruleset the PCs and the Monsters aren't using the same rules anymore
Fortunately, PF2's asymmetrical enemy building process is something that was yoinked from Starfinder in the first place.
So that is at least one less debate that we won't get from SF1 players that we were constantly getting griped at from PF1 players.