There would have been some small advantage to the way they work in the original Pathfinder paradigm, but since the introduction of the Swap action a kasatha isn't really doing anything that a character with two arms couldn't do.
There would have been some small advantage to the way they work in the original Pathfinder paradigm, but since the introduction of the Swap action a kasatha isn't really doing anything that a character with two arms couldn't do.
If you have a different thing in each hand, there's action compression since you're effectively getting two swap actions for one, but that's rather marginal.
Not useless but more of a marginal economy gain if you are switching between stuff a lot or between things that needs weapons and stuff that needs hand free. I think they are also play testing how strong they want this to be as due to a lot of the handed options it could be very very strong if they want it to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's basically double draw of consumables (as long as the two things are preloaded in your off hands ahead of time). Swap to a new pair of hands as one action holding a pair consumables, drink them both. You save one action on net doing this. It's good for a heal/buff round, or a spellcaster who wants to swap to some backup spell gems in his off hands. You can get the Double Draw (5th) feat to reload during combat.
The 9th level All Hands on Deck ancestry feat also allows you (and Skittermanders) to access your backup hands without the action cost once per day. That's a quickdraw (of one or two things prepped ahead of time).
My feeling is there's plenty of good one handed pieces of equipment that you want to drink, cast, or throw, so if you go heavy into that it saves some actions. It's not good for wielding and swapping between two or more weapons.
Let's look at the exact wording for skittermander:
"You have six arms, which allows you to wield and hold up to six hands' worth of weapons and equipment. At any time, one pair of hands is designated as your active hands. You can change this designation from one pair of hands to another by taking the Switch Active Hands action, which is a single action. You can only perform actions with your active hands. For more information on playing characters with more than two hands, see page 172"
Page 172:
"Characters that have more than two hands, like kasathas, can hold more items and weapons than typically expected. Performing actions with multiple pairs of arms concurrently is a challenge and can't be done without intensive training. You must designate a pair of hands as your active hands. You can change this designation from one pair of hands to another by taking the Switch Hands action. Some feats may adjust your skill with multiple hands. You can only attack with weapons wielded in your active hands."
It doesn't seem like anything stops you from have 4x Wands of Shardstorm rolling.
As a caster, I would definitely use these extra hands for wands, staves, and scrolls. Potions would definitely be a good thing to have on anybody.
I'd like it if leaving two hands open counted as having two hands free for the purpose of Climb, but since the language is the same for one hand fighting styles I think it'd need to change for that.
I think it's pretty compelling as an ancestry feature right now, but might vary a bit depending on GM strictness.
That's an interesting point. Spellcasters can be a lot more consumable driven, and the action compression could work there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is a good balance point for an ancestry distinction.
It doesn't overwhelm the action economy so much that it becomes a must-pick.
But it also isn't completely irrelevant.
In comparison, I'll mention Sacred Nagaji. They get an unarmed attack similar to several other ancestry's heritage or feat unarmed attack options. And they get a decent bonus to being grappled, tripped, or restrained. But not having legs should have more effect than that on the game mechanics even if it is a small one that isn't of much balance impact. Playing one doesn't really feel like you are playing a character with a snake tail instead of legs unless you are making up your own game mechanics impact for it.
Having 4 or 6 arms in Starfinder2e at least initially feels like it is more of a noticeable difference to play. Even if the balance considerations of action economy compared to the Swap action are not very big.
There are some ways that it's beneficial but for me the big problem is that it feels less like you have extra arms and more like you can just swap extra items that you preprepared, not to mention how little sense it makes for a species that has multiple arms naturally from birth to only be able to use two at time, that would make sense for someone who had extra arms grafted onto them but not someone who was born with them as a natural trait of their species.
I have no issue with a multi-armed species that has one torso and one head only being able to bring to bear two arms at once in any given instant, switching between them as necessary. Bodily mechanics, vision, and cognition are limiting how well multiple limbs can be utilized.
By the way, do we think grabbing someone, then switching hands to another set to make strikes would end a grab? I would hazard no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, do we think grabbing someone, then switching hands to another set to make strikes would end a grab? I would hazard no.
I don't think it would end the grab. The grab would still last for the normal duration - until the end of your next turn, until you move, or until they escape.
I think you would need to switch back to those hands to maintain the grab though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like that extra hands as a baseline are fairly cheap to add to an ancestry's power budget -- you get to hold more stuff and do other niche things, without instantly descending into a meta where everyone goes for skittermanders and kasathas, slaps a shield onto one hand, then dual-wields injection weapons or the like. I did, however, expect a little more support from higher-level ancestry feats: my expectation was that multi-armed ancestries would have a feat chain that, eventually, would let them have more active hands, just like how Pathfinder ancestries go down a feat chain of 2 to 3 feats to unlock full flight. Instead, we got a single 9th-level ancestry feat that lets you use an extra pair of hands once per day, for one turn. Perhaps I'm underestimating the impact of that feat, but it feels like the controls on that mechanic are a little tight in a playtest that really does not seem to be exercising that same restraint with many other gameplay elements.
I don't think it is a good idea to play with houserules for playtest reporting.
You can certainly experiment with the rules as you see fit. But doing so may make it harder to avoid unconscious bias when reporting. If you report that ancestries having multiple sets of arms are incredibly powerful and dominated the meta , then it can end up skewing the reported impressions of the option.
One advantage I saw people mention was swapping from one pair of arms to another does not require a manipulate action so some advantage there to just being able to swap to stuff you already have out in various hands.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The inherent fallacy of the action compression is that you already have the items drawn and ready. If you're playing normally, you're not going to be walking around everywhere with a serum and a grenade in your off hands, or multiple weapons already drawn and waiting all of the time.
This is a fine assumption in a dungeon-style setting, where you're expecting combat around every corner, but it falls apart on, say, Absalom Station. Or most any social setting where it would be inappropriate to be holding weapons. In a situation where you're not expecting combat, your character is theoretically not holding anything in any of their hands, at which point you're spending at least a whole turn setting up your off hands so that you'll be able to switch to them at some point.
I guess I just don't see any meaningful advantage to having multiple arms to where they have to nerf it by adding an action tax to using said multiple arms. Between action costs, MAP, and the monetary cost of making sure you have enough viable options for each hand, the whole "active hands" and the single action cost to switch between them seems... excessive and punishing to me.
I wouldn't call a design tradeoff a fallacy.
Yes, if you are not holding any items, then having multiple arms does you no additional benefit to draw all of the items that you use.
But you also aren't worse than other characters with only two arms either.
No, switching active hands has the same action cost as Swapping items in many cases.
You still aren't worse than other characters with only two arms.
This is a matter of expectation management. People who don't like this are the people who are expecting having multiple sets of hands to be a major mechanics advantage over only having two hands. It isn't meant to be. That is also why multi-armed ancestries are not overpowered in general or nerf'ed to compensate for the multiple arms. That is a design tradeoff.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I repeat, it also prevents things like Hair trigger/reactive strike/punatitive strike from triggering, because it doesn't have the manipulate trait.
Yes, but again, only if you set up for it. Only if you have something in your hands to swap to already.
I wouldn't call a design tradeoff a fallacy.
The fallacy is the assumption that you *always* have something ready to swap to.
But you also aren't worse than other characters with only two arms either.
But that's kind of the problem? Barathu's flight is always on, always accessible, and always an advantage. You get a flight speed that can't be taken away from you easily, and while other ancestries can gain flight, be it through feats or items, barathu have the advantage of not having to invest that cost. Same goes for lashunta telepathy, and android construct bonuses.
In 1e, multiple arms used to be like this as well. Anyone could get augments to get more arms, but species with multiple arms didn't have to pay that cost and inherently had the advantage that multiple arms give - being able to hold multiple weapons and items and use them freely. That doesn't exist here. For some reason, you can't graft on new limbs, so multiple arms is an unfair advantage and now has only marginal benefit, and only if you set it up always.
I think you're underestimating the lengths people will go to to optimize. There are definitely people that will walk around with a bunch of grenades, spell chips or whatever scrolls are that I can't remember, poisons, etc, and abuse the crap out of the existing action compression, let alone anything better.
Of course there will be people who do that. But again, how much of an advantage is that really? If I'm holding four weapons, I still can only use three of them. I still have to account for MAP. I still have to draw a replacement consumable if I use a potion I've been carrying around for 2 hours. It's not that big of an advantage, but it is fun and thematic. The way multiple arms are set up now, however, means there's *only* fun and an advantage for the people willing to walk around optimizing as much as they can. The casual player who doesn't optimize their economy isn't going to get any use out of multiple arms, other than as set dressing.
As the thread title says, they're kind of worthless.
Some folks: They're worthless.
Me: Dang, I might have to play a Skittermander or Kasatha caster just for the arms.
|
The inherent fallacy of the action compression is that you already have the items drawn and ready. If you're playing normally, you're not going to be walking around everywhere with a serum and a grenade in your off hands, or multiple weapons already drawn and waiting all of the time.
This is a fine assumption in a dungeon-style setting, where you're expecting combat around every corner, but it falls apart on, say, Absalom Station. Or most any social setting where it would be inappropriate to be holding weapons. In a situation where you're not expecting combat, your character is theoretically not holding anything in any of their hands, at which point you're spending at least a whole turn setting up your off hands so that you'll be able to switch to them at some point.
I guess I just don't see any meaningful advantage to having multiple arms to where they have to nerf it by adding an action tax to using said multiple arms. Between action costs, MAP, and the monetary cost of making sure you have enough viable options for each hand, the whole "active hands" and the single action cost to switch between them seems... excessive and punishing to me.
So your argument is .. . .it won't be usable all the time? Like . . . fair, but that's the same with anything? If Iseph finds himself captured and without his guns, all of his gun abilities are useless?
So sure, yeah, just walking around absolom station it's not going to be to useful. But if you are going into a 'dungeon' (abandoned outpost/enemy starship/crime ridden gangland) then you will likely prepare by grabbing all your gear and getting ready to go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps there wasn’t room for this playtest, but I feel it could’ve been worth trying out a feat chain for more use out of extra hands — for instance, a 13th-level feat that lets you use All Hands on Deck once per hour and extends its benefits to the end of your next turn, and a 17th-level feat building on that which gives you the benefits permanently. Not something to homebrew into this playtest when more important data needs to be collected, but perhaps something to try out in a future iteration.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument is .. . .it won't be usable all the time? Like . . . fair, but that's the same with anything? If Iseph finds himself captured and without his guns, all of his gun abilities are useless?
The difference is the base assumption of usefulness. In order for Iseph's abilities to be useless, you have to take their guns away. The GM has to engineer a situation for Iseph to be unable to use their abilities, but the base assumption is that their abilities will be accessible and usable normally.
With multiple arms, the base assumption seems to be the opposite. It's useful in corner case situations, and you have to be actively prepared for those situations. About the only advantage we've been able to agree on is that you can swap your active hands to a pair that has an item you want to use without provoking a reaction. This assumes that you have the item you need already drawn, and that you are in a situation that would otherwise provoke a reaction (melee vs someone with reactive strike/punitive strike, or in range of someone with hair trigger). This is extremely corner case, as most enemies (in PF2, at least) don't have a reaction to punish you for that in the first place.
Further, the biggest problem I have with this (which fair, I've yet to articulate) is that the design philosophy of "we have to nerf multiple arms because it's action economy is too great if we don't" directly impairs anything fun we could get if they were looking at what we could do with multiple arms instead. Instead of feats that would let us attack with multiple weapons at reduced penalties, or draw multiple items at reduced action cost, or bonuses to combat maneuvers, we instead get a feat that graciously allows us to once per day use our hands without tax. And All-Six, the only other feat available for multiple arms, and only for skittermanders, *requires* you to have all hands empty except for your active pair - which blatantly and directly subverts the advantage of being able to swap to other weapons/items without provoking a reaction.
What I wish for is that instead of the design saying "well within these strict limitations there's still this marginal advantage", it instead said "look at these cool things you can do". That was one of the best things about SF1e - species got to do really cool things, like fly, or have multiple limbs, or be a squid in a robot aquarium, or not rely on breathing, or be large. The ancestry abilities feel much more reserved in this playtest.
|
|
So your argument is .. . .it won't be usable all the time? Like . . . fair, but that's the same with anything? If Iseph finds himself captured and without his guns, all of his gun abilities are useless?Further, the biggest problem I have with this (which fair, I've yet to articulate) is that the design philosophy of "we have to nerf multiple arms because it's action economy is too great if we don't" directly impairs anything fun we could get if they were looking at what we could do with multiple arms instead. Instead of feats that would let us attack with multiple weapons at reduced penalties, or draw multiple items at reduced action cost, or bonuses to combat maneuvers, we instead get a feat that graciously allows us to once per day use our hands without tax. And All-Six, the only other feat available for multiple arms, and only for skittermanders, *requires* you to have all hands empty except for your active pair - which blatantly and directly subverts the advantage...
*snip*
I mean, I get it, but at that time, it goes from ‘marginal advantage’ to ‘Too good not to take.” And that leads to really toxic players and fan bases. I’ve seen such no-brainer, auto pick, choices ruin games before they even start. Players who say things like “What, you chose a rogue that isn’t a thief or ruffian? You’re wrong you idiot, shut up and do it again.”
But more than that, if something is so good it is an auto-pick, then there is no choice at all. Might as well just make it ‘Skitterfinder’ if the Skittermander are so good no one would play anything else.
Taking the ‘dogs off the leash’ has consequences. That being said, in your own home game, play it however you like.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But would it really be too good not to take? Again, I'm having a hard time seeing how it would be so OP if it didn't have the swap hands penalty. And if that was directed at having feat chains that made it more useful, the assumption would be that other ancestries also have feat chains to make their special thing more useful.
But would it really be too good not to take? Again, I'm having a hard time seeing how it would be so OP if it didn't have the swap hands penalty.
I'm suspecting that you are a Starfinder player, not a PF2 player.
From this thread:
* Having way too many Wands of Shardstorm active.
* Grappling someone and hitting them with a 2-handed weapon for multiple rounds.
* Carrying enough consumables to use consumables without a draw item cost for the entire battle since combat generally only lasts about 4 rounds.
From the previous thread linked to above:
* Wielding both a 2-handed weapon (melee or ranged) and a full standard shield.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But would it really be too good not to take? Again, I'm having a hard time seeing how it would be so OP if it didn't have the swap hands penalty.I'm suspecting that you are a Starfinder player, not a PF2 player.
From this thread:
* Having way too many Wands of Shardstorm active.
* Grappling someone and hitting them with a 2-handed weapon for multiple rounds.
* Carrying enough consumables to use consumables without a draw item cost for the entire battle since combat generally only lasts about 4 rounds.From the previous thread linked to above:
* Wielding both a 2-handed weapon (melee or ranged) and a full standard shield.
Additionally, off the top of my head:
*Thaumaturge with all implements active & a weapon in hand.*A bunch of feats require a free hand (like the New Dirty Trick in Player Core 2) while still using a 2 handed weapon.
*Having a staff, a rifle, and two free hands for the Slashing Gust Spell
* Having a Staff of Healing, a good weapon, and a sheild out for shield blocking and still healing.
*Holding a Unweildy weapon (can't use more than 1/round, can't use reactions with it) for your first, main hit, then using a slightly less good, non unweildy weapon (like the cryopike) for subsequent/reactive hits.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*examples of game breaking exploits*
Yeah, alright, fair. But. The question is still, why would you take a multi-armed ancestry? What about multi-arms is a reason to have multi-arms (besides the corner-case Reactive Strike dodge)? Right now, I struggle to come up with a reason to be excited about that. If I picked a skittermander for a character, having six arms would be an irrelevant detail to that choice (unless I planned on taking Allsix at level 17). It gets me functionally nothing right now.
All hands active is broken, an action to switch which arms I can use is mostly useless. So what's a solution? What if it was a free action to swap active hands. That mitigates many of the problems y'all have raised, but still allows function of multiple sets of limbs without unduly taxing the players who want to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woops completely forgot about this thread after posting it
I wonder if "free action at the start of your turn" would be sufficient to balance out the baseline and still let it feel impactful. Being forced to commit to which set of hands you use prevents you from shooting a 2hander and raising a shield, which is the main exploit you'd reasonably be worried about.
That being said, I think the baseline of what should be allowed with this is also pretty far away from the cap. A lot of people are gonna see that you can play a character with four arms in this system, get really excited about being General Grievous, then get disappointed that there's no meaningful benefit to doing that. I suspect the right answer there would be a multi-weapon fighting archetype, similar to how natural weapons were made a more appealing fighting style through the clawdancer archetype in pathfinder.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think multiple arms need some sort of buff. It's underwhelming and critically it doesn't fulfill the fantasy, which should be the point of a roleplaying game. They for sure shouldn't just all work always, we're 2e players, there's some baseline of balance we should aspire to, but full action tax is a lot. I do think getting to designate your active pair at the start of your turn would be a good start. I think this should just be an innate rule of multi-limb, I don't think it needs to be more restrictive. Still, if that's overpowered, a free action with a trigger could work so there's a potential opportunity cost of not being able to do it alongside other start of turn reactions.
Making it a once-per-turn free action could also maybe work (but definitely not alongside the other buff, that would be too much), that way you can make a tactical mid-turn change for a cool play but you can't just wave around whatever you want. Maybe doing this (or even the other one) could be a general feat that multi-armed characters can take. Oh and for sure make multi-limb augments. If that happens (which it should) maybe innately multi-armed creatures start with the better limb-switch general feat so there's a real actual point to picking a Kasatha. I'd love to have literally any reason to play a Kasatha.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with other centrists and would just like a little more feat support. Getting the cool all hands thing at least once a combat is the goal post I'm looking for. Once/turn free action to swap hands would be cool but would require a lot of stipulations