Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
moosher12 wrote: DMurnett wrote: 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.
I remember in one of the playtest boards for Field Test 3, a main concern voiced by a dev was they didn't want a skittermander using 3 rocket launchers in one turn. Your solution would right away do away with that, while still giving multi-armed characters a heightened sense of versatility. I think the idea of allowing you to select two hands to be primary hands for free at the beginning of your turn sounds very reasonable. I like this idea, even if it turns out to be a level 5 ancestry feat.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
What would the Forum's reaction be to a compromise similar to the "vestigial arms" ability that some 1e species, like trox, had?
Vestigial Arms: A trox’s four vestigial arms can be used to hold, draw, or put away items of negligible bulk, but not to make attacks, wield weapons, or use items.
It might need a bit more polishing to clearly state what can/can't be done, but I think there's potential there. Being able to use the arms for "light duty" without having to spend an action to power on those arms feels better than what we have now, while still disallowing a lot of the more egregious issues in-thread (chiefly, it wouldn't allow those other hands to attack / wield items or weapons) while also solving the "it feels bad that a >2-armed species can't use >2 arms at once" verisimilitude issue.
------
Aside: a thing I'm noticing, is that the Forums seem to have more "PF2e enjoyers approaching this as a PF2 side-grade," whereas Discord (or at least the servers I'm on) is more "SF1 enjoyers approaching this as an edition change." In other words: Forum people, in general, seem very quick to accept the PF2 status quo.
Which, I mean, makes total sense when you stop and think about it. Still, it's helping me frame my interactions with the community.
Kishmo wrote: What would the Forum's reaction be to a compromise similar to the "vestigial arms" ability that some 1e species, like trox, had?
Vestigial Arms: A trox’s four vestigial arms can be used to hold, draw, or put away items of negligible bulk, but not to make attacks, wield weapons, or use items.
It might need a bit more polishing to clearly state what can/can't be done, but I think there's potential there. Being able to use the arms for "light duty" without having to spend an action to power on those arms feels better than what we have now, while still disallowing a lot of the more egregious issues in-thread (chiefly, it wouldn't allow those other hands to attack / wield items or weapons) while also solving the "it feels bad that a >2-armed species can't use >2 arms at once" verisimilitude issue.
------
Aside: a thing I'm noticing, is that the Forums seem to have more "PF2e enjoyers approaching this as a PF2 side-grade," whereas Discord (or at least the servers I'm on) is more "SF1 enjoyers approaching this as an edition change." In other words: Forum people, in general, seem very quick to accept the PF2 status quo.
Which, I mean, makes total sense when you stop and think about it. Still, it's helping me frame my interactions with the community.
I like if that + the once per turn free action choose pair is what multi armed character gets
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Kishmo wrote: Aside: a thing I'm noticing, is that the Forums seem to have more "PF2e enjoyers approaching this as a PF2 side-grade," whereas Discord (or at least the servers I'm on) is more "SF1 enjoyers approaching this as an edition change." In other words: Forum people, in general, seem very quick to accept the PF2 status quo. This is, right now, my biggest headache with the edition change. While I'm all for using the PF2 ruleset for Starfinder, it feels like the devs and most people on this forum are treating SF2 as Player Core 3 rather than Starfinder Second Edition.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I mean, even from the Pathfinder side, the current draft of multi arms just feels like it lacks juice.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The meta for Starfinder is Ranged combat, not melee... the argument that Multiarms grant you the 'benefit' of swapping weapons without provoking ignores that AoO's are not as ubiquitous as they were in SF1e...
The 3-action economy and Multiple Attack Penalty already stop the 'more weapons = more attacks' issue that people seem to keep jumping on...
The only other issue I have seen, and that I personally agree is an issue, is fixed by Ungainly/Heavy weapons having a built-in limit of 1 at a time, that can be baked into the Traits/Rules for such weapons/items...
Torradin341 wrote: Kishmo wrote: Aside: a thing I'm noticing, is that the Forums seem to have more "PF2e enjoyers approaching this as a PF2 side-grade," whereas Discord (or at least the servers I'm on) is more "SF1 enjoyers approaching this as an edition change." In other words: Forum people, in general, seem very quick to accept the PF2 status quo. This is, right now, my biggest headache with the edition change. While I'm all for using the PF2 ruleset for Starfinder, it feels like the devs and most people on this forum are treating SF2 as Player Core 3 rather than Starfinder Second Edition. I'm admittedly biased here as I'm a PF2 fangirl and I haven't played SF1 in any capacity because the 1e ruleset scares me, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Paizo has been very upfront that this new edition is meant to be compatible with PF2, and indeed, options from both games are expected to be played side-by-side. The goal is for SF2 to simultaneously be its own functional system and a super-sized expansion to PF2. This idea is what drew me to the game to begin with. With some discretion I can use a shared library of sources, so my existing collection of Pathfinder stuff is ready to deploy in the for-now barebones system, and I can likewise take any cool new toys from Starfinder and use them in my existing games.
And for that purpose, SF2 needs to inherit a lot of its predecessor's sensibilities, like basic math, economy (please fix ammo pricing guys), and at least certain core pillars of balance. I think a reasonable one is the amount of actionable limbs you have. The underlying system is balanced around you having precisely two. I do agree that in this case Paizo could have, should have, and hopefully will do far more to make multiple limbs feel like a real benefit and fun ancestry trait instead of... A niche set of corner-case perks. Telepathy too, as it is it's a meme. But some compromises have to be made somewhere, so no, Kasathas and Skittermanders can't be running around with double the guns blazing. It's unrealistic to expect Paizo to balance around that, even if the underlying system wasn't as allergic to it as it is.
Tempest_Knight wrote: The meta for Starfinder is Ranged combat, not melee... the argument that Multiarms grant you the 'benefit' of swapping weapons without provoking ignores that AoO's are not as ubiquitous as they were in SF1e...
The 3-action economy and Multiple Attack Penalty already stop the 'more weapons = more attacks' issue that people seem to keep jumping on...
The only other issue I have seen, and that I personally agree is an issue, is fixed by Ungainly/Heavy weapons having a built-in limit of 1 at a time, that can be baked into the Traits/Rules for such weapons/items...
So this would mostly work if Starfinder was standalone, the only issue is when you begin to bring Pathfinder into the equation. Basically put, a guideline would have to be written on which Pathfinder weapons would also gain this trait as well, which is what makes it troublesome with the systems being shared.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Tempest_Knight wrote: The only other issue I have seen, and that I personally agree is an issue, is fixed by Ungainly/Heavy weapons having a built-in limit of 1 at a time, that can be baked into the Traits/Rules for such weapons/items... Agreed. I've been saying it since last October, but shouldn't Flourish / Unwieldy / Whatever Other Space-Trait handle most of the problems, that stem from "what if a Skittermander did it three times?"
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So, today is game day and we're winding up for my Kingmaker game, and I just told my Pathfinder 2E players about how the new Multi-Arm rules work, and boy are they rioting.
moosher12 wrote: So, today is game day and we're winding up for my Kingmaker game, and I just told my Pathfinder 2E players about how the new Multi-Arm rules work, and boy are they rioting. So have them make accounts and come here and explain their reasoning for their rioting.
Currently in my mind these people are hypothetical, not actually existent. They likely do exist, but I have no evidence of that. And they should be able to speak for themselves.
And if the reasoning is that they want a power bump that they can use in the Kingmaker game by somehow getting multiple arms on their character, then while that is a valid reason to riot that they aren't getting what they want, it isn't a valid reason for the game developers to change the game rules to give them what they want instead of giving me what I want - which is multi-armed characters that don't break the game balance.
Finoan wrote: moosher12 wrote: So, today is game day and we're winding up for my Kingmaker game, and I just told my Pathfinder 2E players about how the new Multi-Arm rules work, and boy are they rioting. So have them make accounts and come here and explain their reasoning for their rioting.
Currently in my mind these people are hypothetical, not actually existent. They likely do exist, but I have no evidence of that. And they should be able to speak for themselves.
And if the reasoning is that they want a power bump that they can use in the Kingmaker game by somehow getting multiple arms on their character, then while that is a valid reason to riot that they aren't getting what they want, it isn't a valid reason for the game developers to change the game rules to give them what they want instead of giving me what I want - which is multi-armed characters that don't break the game balance. My players are coming.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
moosher12 wrote: Finoan wrote: moosher12 wrote: So, today is game day and we're winding up for my Kingmaker game, and I just told my Pathfinder 2E players about how the new Multi-Arm rules work, and boy are they rioting. So have them make accounts and come here and explain their reasoning for their rioting.
Currently in my mind these people are hypothetical, not actually existent. They likely do exist, but I have no evidence of that. And they should be able to speak for themselves.
And if the reasoning is that they want a power bump that they can use in the Kingmaker game by somehow getting multiple arms on their character, then while that is a valid reason to riot that they aren't getting what they want, it isn't a valid reason for the game developers to change the game rules to give them what they want instead of giving me what I want - which is multi-armed characters that don't break the game balance. My players are coming. Hi. Already have an account. I've been here a while, but I mostly just like to lurk and not get into pointless arguments with pedants. I just skim the forums for answers to questions I have about rules, or to see what generally larger groups of people agree to be a fun or enjoyable interpretation of a rule or GM ruling.
This. Mechanic. Is. FCKED.
The ENTIRE purpose of four-armed characters was to enable the MULTI-WEAPON FIGHTING feat tree from Pathfinder 1e. To incorporate the mechanic of multi-armed characters and omit, nay, HAMSTRING the entire purpose of the ability originally leaves me wondering why you bothered to include it at all.
The entire DRAW of Kasatha was their unique dual-wielding archer build. I'm pretty damn sure that don't work using these rules.
It offers literally no mechanical advantage over having two arms, except maybe holding a useless object you have to waste an action to then activate your arm to use.
I WOULD RATHER HAVE TWO ARMS! At least then I won't forget I'm holding an item by the time I can finally waste an action to get around to using it.
What is the balance here? What is the fear that this is going to break, and if that fear is so great that you cannot find a way to make the mechanic actually work in a meaningful way with some drawback... don't... include it.
I don't want a powerful character. I want a character that has the appropriate manual dexterity for a creature with its number of limbs.
-
Okay. Now that I've gotten that all out of my system...
I honestly... don't think it's that BAD. I just think it's pointless. There's no reason or interest here for me anymore. It defeats the entire purpose of its own being, and it makes me sad.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
moosher12 wrote: Finoan wrote: moosher12 wrote: So, today is game day and we're winding up for my Kingmaker game, and I just told my Pathfinder 2E players about how the new Multi-Arm rules work, and boy are they rioting. So have them make accounts and come here and explain their reasoning for their rioting.
Currently in my mind these people are hypothetical, not actually existent. They likely do exist, but I have no evidence of that. And they should be able to speak for themselves.
And if the reasoning is that they want a power bump that they can use in the Kingmaker game by somehow getting multiple arms on their character, then while that is a valid reason to riot that they aren't getting what they want, it isn't a valid reason for the game developers to change the game rules to give them what they want instead of giving me what I want - which is multi-armed characters that don't break the game balance. My friends are coming. Alright, I already have an account; I've been here a long, long while. I've complained about many idiotic, pedantic, moronic, and stupid things that your set of folks love to do.
So, go sound yourself with a pineapple, I don't even want to use the Four-Armed rule. I like my character with two.
The operational purpose of Four-Armed was to enable Multi-Weapon fighting. Gutting it is pointless, if you're so worried about balance why bother having characters with four arms? Just have everyone have two, don't put a badly worded, badly implemented rule- Oh, sorry, as for my reasoning? It's that the action economy for it is pointless. An action to switch arms? What, is the Kasatha you're playing deficient mentally? Do they not understand how their bodies work?
It's like flying with you people, flying doesn't change anything- just shoot the flyer with arrows or spells.
I'd rather you not include multiple limbs at all if you're that scared to let them use their bodies properly. Like flying.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
moosher12 wrote: Finoan wrote: moosher12 wrote: So, today is game day and we're winding up for my Kingmaker game, and I just told my Pathfinder 2E players about how the new Multi-Arm rules work, and boy are they rioting. So have them make accounts and come here and explain their reasoning for their rioting.
Currently in my mind these people are hypothetical, not actually existent. They likely do exist, but I have no evidence of that. And they should be able to speak for themselves.
And if the reasoning is that they want a power bump that they can use in the Kingmaker game by somehow getting multiple arms on their character, then while that is a valid reason to riot that they aren't getting what they want, it isn't a valid reason for the game developers to change the game rules to give them what they want instead of giving me what I want - which is multi-armed characters that don't break the game balance. My players are coming. So, I am not an overly experienced pathfinder or starfinder player. I have run a bit of both and played a bit of both. BUT this change in rule feels like it doesnt make sense even in-universe. If a species has multiple limbs, then surely they know how all of those limbs work at once? A spider can use all 8 legs at once, and humans can use arms and legs at the same time, right? A strix can fly and shoot at the same time despite having four upper body limbs. If you have four arms, and have had all four your whole life, then you'd know how they work.
A drawback is fine, but a drawback that makes half their limbs useless doesn't feel fun at all. It would make me reconsider even playing a character with extra limbs in favour of one who doesn't have the gimped feature. I'd instead look at playing a race with a feature that isnt heavily restricted, as I feel like I'd forget that I have the extra arms.
Why not just make it a free action? Or give the limbs a restriction in the exact actions/gear they can use? D&D thri-keen have extra arms, and they have something exactly like this:
"Secondary Arms. You have two slightly smaller secondary arms below your primary pair of arms. The secondary arms can manipulate an object, open or close a door or container, pick up or set down a Tiny object, or wield a weapon that has the light property."
Why not have this as a basis instead of being overly restrictive?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It just makes no sense to me that you would do this, when the action economy already ensures that you're not really able to abuse having multiple arms.
Even if you have four arms... you only have three actions.
So what? What does that hurt? If I had two arms, I could still make three attacks in a round. Is the fear that a player with four arms is going to carry two extra weapons that make them overly specified for the combat? Is the fear they'll wield three and a shield?
Again. So what? That makes it a cool and unique ancestry ability that gives you a very marginal advantage, just like all the other cool and unique ancestry abilities. Hell, wield four shields! Wield three revolvers and use your fourth to reload! Wield two shields and two spears and become a one-alien turtle formation.
Let. People. Have. Fun.
Or what is even the point?
ApocalypseJack wrote: It just makes no sense to me that you would do this, when the action economy already ensures that you're not really able to abuse having multiple arms.
Even if you have four arms... you only have three actions.
So what? What does that hurt? If I had two arms, I could still make three attacks in a round. Is the fear that a player with four arms is going to carry two extra weapons that make them overly specified for the combat? Is the fear they'll wield three and a shield?
Again. So what? That makes it a cool and unique ancestry ability that gives you a very marginal advantage, just like all the other cool and unique ancestry abilities. Hell, wield four shields! Wield three revolvers and use your third to reload! Wield two shields and two spears and become a one-alien turtle formation.
Let. People. Have. Fun.
Or what is even the point?
THE ROMAN EMPIRE LIVES ON!
That Dang Paladin wrote: ApocalypseJack wrote: It just makes no sense to me that you would do this, when the action economy already ensures that you're not really able to abuse having multiple arms.
Even if you have four arms... you only have three actions.
So what? What does that hurt? If I had two arms, I could still make three attacks in a round. Is the fear that a player with four arms is going to carry two extra weapons that make them overly specified for the combat? Is the fear they'll wield three and a shield?
Again. So what? That makes it a cool and unique ancestry ability that gives you a very marginal advantage, just like all the other cool and unique ancestry abilities. Hell, wield four shields! Wield three revolvers and use your third to reload! Wield two shields and two spears and become a one-alien turtle formation.
Let. People. Have. Fun.
Or what is even the point?
THE ROMAN EMPIRE LIVES ON! How often do you think about the roman empire?
Me, shedding a single tear.
Sounds like you guys are part of the reason this is the way it is now.
"What does that hurt?"
Well, firing three missiles at the start of every combat I think was a dev concern. Dual wielding 2h weapons breaks the game math expectations, as does using a 2h and a shield. All covered further up.
This is a verisimilitude sacrifice for game balance now that Paizo doesn't have to deal with the conventions of D&D 3e.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kishmo wrote: Tempest_Knight wrote: The only other issue I have seen, and that I personally agree is an issue, is fixed by Ungainly/Heavy weapons having a built-in limit of 1 at a time, that can be baked into the Traits/Rules for such weapons/items... Agreed. I've been saying it since last October, but shouldn't Flourish / Unwieldy / Whatever Other Space-Trait handle most of the problems, that stem from "what if a Skittermander did it three times?" This would also be my preferred solution. We already had Unweildy in 1e which limited you to 1 attack per turn with a given weapon, I see no reason not to port it to 2e.
I feel like everyone arguing for more powerful extra arms is getting put on the equivalent of a trpg FBI list.
(Sits down at new SFS table, GM sends significant glance to other players. )
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
"You scum are the reason it has to be this way" isn't a terribly constructive way to approach criticism. The complaint that started this thread wasn't even mine, I have no interest in playing a Kasatha. I made it on behalf of a player at my table who was very excited about playing a character with four pistols before seeing how it (doesn't) work.
Arutema wrote: Kishmo wrote: Tempest_Knight wrote: The only other issue I have seen, and that I personally agree is an issue, is fixed by Ungainly/Heavy weapons having a built-in limit of 1 at a time, that can be baked into the Traits/Rules for such weapons/items... Agreed. I've been saying it since last October, but shouldn't Flourish / Unwieldy / Whatever Other Space-Trait handle most of the problems, that stem from "what if a Skittermander did it three times?" This would also be my preferred solution. We already had Unweildy in 1e which limited you to 1 attack per turn with a given weapon, I see no reason not to port it to 2e. By that logic Guntermench any mechanic that could possibly be made OP by a player should be nerfed into the sun. Theres always gonna be players who go out of their way to break the game. GMs can always turn around and tell a player no, and most players I have played with tend to self police or run things through the GM before they do it. On top of that, anything a player can do can be done by the gm too.
And immediately going to "You people are the reason for this rule" when I have made no mention of what I have done in my games is really reductive. Its not an actual argument.
Arachnofiend wrote: "You scum are the reason it has to be this way" isn't a terribly constructive way to approach criticism. The complaint that started this thread wasn't even mine, I have no interest in playing a Kasatha. I made it on behalf of a player at my table who was very excited about playing a character with four pistols before seeing how it (doesn't) work. Maybe not, but when the criticism amounts to "but now you can't do X that is expressly the reason things are this way now" it seems pretty appropriate.
I think the arms are fine as is, and I guess for me, the draw for Kasatha is that they are just a cool race with interesting lore and cultural traditions, and they are fun to roleplay. I don't really pick any Ancestry for mechanics, so /shrug
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guntermench wrote: Arachnofiend wrote: "You scum are the reason it has to be this way" isn't a terribly constructive way to approach criticism. The complaint that started this thread wasn't even mine, I have no interest in playing a Kasatha. I made it on behalf of a player at my table who was very excited about playing a character with four pistols before seeing how it (doesn't) work. Maybe not, but when the criticism amounts to "but now you can't do X that is expressly the reason things are this way now" it seems pretty appropriate. If you can't multi weapon fight with multiple arms then the mechanics have failed to satisfy the fiction. Like every four armed character in scifi is using four pistols or four swords. It probably needs to be an archetype (iirc MWF was a feat chain in 1e so thatd be functionally the same balance) but it needs to be supported somehow.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
I feel the rules are fine as they are right now, but agree there should be feats/archetype of some variety to facilitate using multi-armed characters further.
Arachnofiend wrote: Guntermench wrote: Arachnofiend wrote: "You scum are the reason it has to be this way" isn't a terribly constructive way to approach criticism. The complaint that started this thread wasn't even mine, I have no interest in playing a Kasatha. I made it on behalf of a player at my table who was very excited about playing a character with four pistols before seeing how it (doesn't) work. Maybe not, but when the criticism amounts to "but now you can't do X that is expressly the reason things are this way now" it seems pretty appropriate. If you can't multi weapon fight with multiple arms then the mechanics have failed to satisfy the fiction. Like every four armed character in scifi is using four pistols or four swords. It probably needs to be an archetype (iirc MWF was a feat chain in 1e so thatd be functionally the same balance) but it needs to be supported somehow. And if you can it's either just better than anything else or extra work for the designers because now they have to deal with "okay, so how is this going to interact with someone having 4, 6 or 12 arms?" every time they make a new feat, feature or weapon.
Currently, you can do it occasionally with the right feat. That's probably as close as it should get. This isn't the first.time and it won't be the last time that certain play styles are incompatible with the systems Paizo put in place because they can very easily be made not fun for anyone else. Summoning, for example.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I hope the designers have more imagination than you do. You're so scared of the ghost of first edition that you can't imagine a world in which "I want to play General Grievous!" isn't met with a swift kick in the balls.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Arachnofiend wrote: I hope the designers have more imagination than you do. You're so scared of the ghost of first edition that you can't imagine a world in which "I want to play General Grievous!" isn't met with a swift kick in the balls. I would also add that a lot of us who are calling it undertuned are not asking for it to become overtuned. We just want it to be tuned.
I am in agreement as a GM that full use of arms is a bit much. For example, I think spending an action to switch hands is reasonable. But, I think spending an action to switch hands from one turn to another is not. I think a good balance point is letting a multi armed character pick their two hands at the beginning of their turn, and if they want to switch hands in the middle of a turn, it's an action. That way, you can set up an item assortment that can be used one turn later. But you cannot pop off with 3 rocket launchers in one turn, at most, two.
Basically, a small increase to action economy efficiency, a bit more than base, but less than if it was unlimited.
Players want a game that has juice, and is tuned. Undertuned feels bad, overtuned feels bad. We don't want it to be overpowered either. We just want it to feel like we get something that's not so marginal it feels like a trap choice, for example, look at the Barathu's ability to grow extra arms, an ability that's so weak there is no real reward for getting it versus other feats.
Also, the game went great. My Kingmaker players met Elga Verniax. Got along well with that grumpy old witch.
Arachnofiend wrote: I hope the designers have more imagination than you do. You're so scared of the ghost of first edition that you can't imagine a world in which "I want to play General Grievous!" isn't met with a swift kick in the balls. I know you peruse the PF2e forums and are fully aware that there are in fact still people that will abuse the ever loving s&@~ out of more hands.
moosher12 wrote: Arachnofiend wrote: above I would also add that a lot of us who are calling it undertuned are not asking for it to become overtuned. We just want it to be tuned.
I am in agreement as a GM that full use of arms is a bit much. For example, I think spending an action to switch hands is reasonable. But, I think spending an action to switch hands from one turn to another is not. I think a good balance point is letting a multi armed character pick their two hands at the beginning of their turn, and if they want to switch hands in the middle of a turn, it's an action. That way, you can set up an item assortment that can be used one turn later. But you cannot pop off with 3 rocket launchers in one turn, at most, two.
Basically, a small increase to action economy efficiency, a bit more than base, but less than if it was unlimited.
Players want a game that has juice, and is tuned. Undertuned feels bad, overtuned feels bad. We don't want it to be overpowered either. We just want it to feel like we get something that's not so marginal it feels like a trap choice, for example, look at the Barathu's ability to grow extra arms, an ability that's so weak there is no real reward for getting it versus other feats.
Also, the game went great. My Kingmaker players met Elga Verniax. Got along well with that grumpy old witch. Well, you could instead get a level 5 feat to use the hands for Interact actions but be unable to hold things...
Really I wouldn't hold my breath. At least for now they seem to think (in my opinion rightfully) more hands is even better than flight is in PF.
Guntermench wrote: Well, you could instead get a level 5 feat to use the hands for Interact actions but be unable to hold things...
Really I wouldn't hold my breath. At least for now they seem to think (in my opinion rightfully) more hands is even better than flight is...
Playtesting exists for a reason, and it's ultimately up to them, but fortunately I don't have to hold my breath. That's where rule 0 shines best.
Also, some notes from a Kobold Press lecture on game design:
• Pay attention to what playtesters like, and get confused by.
• Especially pay attention to what playtesters hate and love.
• Have a document ask them how they felt.
• Consider their suggestions.
We're just voicing our opinions on it. We don't like it as it is. What I need to ask is. Do you love it as it is?
moosher12 wrote: Do you love it as it is? Yes. It makes them useful without overshadowing other options.
moosher12 wrote: Finoan wrote: moosher12 wrote: So, today is game day and we're winding up for my Kingmaker game, and I just told my Pathfinder 2E players about how the new Multi-Arm rules work, and boy are they rioting. So have them make accounts and come here and explain their reasoning for their rioting.
Currently in my mind these people are hypothetical, not actually existent. They likely do exist, but I have no evidence of that. And they should be able to speak for themselves.
And if the reasoning is that they want a power bump that they can use in the Kingmaker game by somehow getting multiple arms on their character, then while that is a valid reason to riot that they aren't getting what they want, it isn't a valid reason for the game developers to change the game rules to give them what they want instead of giving me what I want - which is multi-armed characters that don't break the game balance. My players are coming. WELL, WE'RE WAITING, WHAT SAY YOU SIR!? DO I NOT EXIST, AM I NOT A MAN WHO THINKS, BREATHES, AND EATS!?
WHAT SAY YOU!?
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Don’t missile launchers and grenade launchers take two actions to fire? So even if all of a Skittermander’s hands were used to hold 3 launchers you could only fire one per turn, though it would allow you to bypass the reload actions
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CookieLord wrote: Don’t missile launchers and grenade launchers take two actions to fire? So even if all of a Skittermander’s hands were used to hold 3 launchers you could only fire one per turn, though it would allow you to bypass the reload actions Very excellent find. Thank you.
Waitaminute. I was browsing the Soldier, and I noticed, Starfinder 2E has the Unwieldy trait too!
So, between heavy weapons only being usable once per turn, and the rocket launcher requiring two actions to even use...
moosher12 wrote: Waitaminute. I was browsing the Soldier, and I noticed, Starfinder 2E has the Unwieldy trait too!
So, between heavy weapons only being usable once per turn, and the rocket launcher requiring two actions to even use...
So.
What you're saying my friend and Game Maestro, is that everything these brain geniuses have said about the balance of having four arms that work is completely irrelevant and meaningless because it just doesn't work that way?
Huh. Who'd have thought the folks trying to browbeat everyone for daring to have opinions about the uselessness and fun-less quality of the four arms in this playtest could be so wrong? Who I say? Who?!
|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Y'all should cool off the rhetoric a little, otherwise this thread might get locked.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So I looked back more on how SF1 handled this. And then found out what ELSE this playtest took out.
In my 16 characters, I never played a many-armed race. But I did sometimes go for more handy options.
One is a Raxilite. This is a tiny sized creature that comes with a doc-oc style implant on their back that can collectively hold one medium sized weapon for them. Their own hands are left free to handle tiny-sized things. Mine was a caster so they weren't really using their hands in combat, so wasn't an issue.
I have a nanocyte who used their nano swarm to create a natural weapon, and could fight with that while keeping their hands free. PF2 DOES THIS TOO with many ancestries. So we already effectively have 3rd hand fighters.
Here's something they removed: Bayonets. They had clamps where you could attach a melee weapon of light bulk to a rifle, effectively a light-bulk finesse weapon to a pistol, or up to a 1 bulk weapon on a heavy gun. Or instead you could mount a grenade launcher on the gun. I had a vesk that fit the model for the new Soldier class: They carried a heavy flame thrower, with an underbarrel grenade launcher, and wielded a sword with their tail. IT WAS FINE. I'm still picking just one to use per turn, with the tail sword for AoOs.
Something else not in yet: Power armor. Power armor came with a number of mounts on it to put your weapons on and fire them while your hands were free. This let me have a sword, a shield, and shoulder mounted guns. The purpose is versatility in threat range response. Different element guns or melee as needed.
The last one, though I never used it, was that around level 10 or 11 you could just add extra limbs through cybernetics. That's missing too.
The unwieldy system can cover most of the issues people propose here. Word it that using an unwieldy weapon taxes the user enough that even if they have more actions or weapons, they're still unable to do it again without more feats.
I don't have an answer to people saying that it opens up lots of wand use - the PF2 tables out here don't get much wand use. But it sounds really expensive for multiple one per day items.
thistledown wrote: So I looked back more on how SF1 handled this. And then found out what ELSE this playtest took out.
In my 16 characters, I never played a many-armed race. But I did sometimes go for more handy options.
One is a Raxilite. This is a tiny sized creature that comes with a doc-oc style implant on their back that can collectively hold one medium sized weapon for them. Their own hands are left free to handle tiny-sized things. Mine was a caster so they weren't really using their hands in combat, so wasn't an issue.
I have a nanocyte who used their nano swarm to create a natural weapon, and could fight with that while keeping their hands free. PF2 DOES THIS TOO with many ancestries. So we already effectively have 3rd hand fighters.
Here's something they removed: Bayonets. They had clamps where you could attach a melee weapon of light bulk to a rifle, effectively a light-bulk finesse weapon to a pistol, or up to a 1 bulk weapon on a heavy gun. Or instead you could mount a grenade launcher on the gun. I had a vesk that fit the model for the new Soldier class: They carried a heavy flame thrower, with an underbarrel grenade launcher, and wielded a sword with their tail. IT WAS FINE. I'm still picking just one to use per turn, with the tail sword for AoOs.
Something else not in yet: Power armor. Power armor came with a number of mounts on it to put your weapons on and fire them while your hands were free. This let me have a sword, a shield, and shoulder mounted guns. The purpose is versatility in threat range response. Different element guns or melee as needed.
The last one, though I never used it, was that around level 10 or 11 you could just add extra limbs through cybernetics. That's missing too.
The unwieldy system can cover most of the issues people propose here. Word it that using an unwieldy weapon taxes the user enough that even if they have more actions or weapons, they're still unable to do it again without more feats.
I don't have an answer to people saying that it...
Something like this? All I added was a final clause that says you cannot use more than one Unwieldy weapon per turn, to prevent stacking multiple unwieldy weapons.
Unwieldy: Weapons with this trait are large and awkward, can’t be fired without cooling down first, or are otherwise difficult to use with repeated attacks. You can’t use an unwieldy weapon more than once per round and can’t use it to Strike as part of a reaction, such as Reactive Strike, neither can you use more than one unwieldy weapon per turn.
Also bayonets do exist via Guns and Gears, though it is not quite in ORC yet. It is still semi-compatible: Link to Archives of Nethys: Bayonet
Only potential issue is that technically these weapons do not have the Firearm group, but they essentially are firearms, so RaI, I would assume it's easy to reason that a bayonet can be mounted to one.
Idk even the small stuff like finishing someone off with a melee strike, raising a shield, and popping off a pistol shot is still an advantage over other PCs. You're going to want to clamp down on that some in a system where all choices are on as even a keel as possible
WWHsmackdown wrote: Idk even the small stuff like finishing someone off with a melee strike, raising a shield, and popping off a pistol shot is still an advantage over other PCs. You're going to want to clamp down on that some in a system where all choices are on as even a keel as possible I question if it is as bad as it sounds. A Ranger, Champion, or really any Beastmaster can spend that 3rd action to have their animal companion do the melee strike for you. And that's vanilla.
There is a point to be made about a pistol shot or raising a shield I can agree, but even then, the solution seems simple. Add Cybernetic Arms as an available augmentation. They already were a thing. It does not have to remain "an advantage over the other PCs" if the PCs can buy the ability if they want to." I can tell you while there are many players that would go for such an augmentation, there are also many players who would not care to get it because it either does not feel thematic enough, or does not fit their playstyle in the first place.
True but keeping that AC relevant requires constant class feat expenditure. Not quite as cheap as an initial chargen ancestry choice. Maybe the limb augment could work. It would just depend on whether or not the devs would want to balance the game under the assumption that all players have access to more than two limbs at all times.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
WWHsmackdown wrote: True but keeping that AC relevant requires constant class feat expenditure. Not quite as cheap as an initial chargen ancestry choice. Maybe the limb augment could work. It would just depend on whether or not the devs would want to balance the game under the assumption that all players have access to more than two limbs at all times. Keeping Animal Companions relevent is a factor, but at what level does that apply? At Level 1, certainly I feel like I can get more utility out of an animal companion than I would multi-arms in their current state. I'd probably opt for the animal companion. Might the animal companion need feats? Sure. But that's not until Level 4. That can be months to almost a year of play, speaking from experience.
Then if you want to get any use out of your multiple arms, that's an ancestry feat tax, of which, mind you, you only get 5. Double Draw and All Hands on Deck? If those are required to make the fact you have multiple arms remotely flavorfully useful, what's the point of having the other Level 5 and 9 ancestry feats, if the expectation is you lock into those instead? 2/5ths of your feats, 3/5ths if you're a skittermander. If you play a Kasatha, you might think the History Buff is super thematic to your character, but now you have to weight it against, "Is it better than capitalizing on the fact I have four arms?" Then you look at the fact it's once per day, and realize, Yeah, it is better. But then you go back to realizing you might as well just have two arms.
Mechanically, 95% of the time, if a kasatha had two of their arms surgically removed, they'd feel no different than a four armed Kasatha. I mean, I guess it's the goal, but. if the difference is that marginal, it kind of messes with the suspension of disbelief. Like, imagine a player's kasatha loses an arm, and it might not even cross their mind to get a prosthesis because they didn't need the arm anyway.
I understand the frustration. I just don't know if simulationism is gonna win the tug of war with gamism, it certainly didn't with PF2e. We'll see how it shakes out in the final product. I suspect a middle ground but I'm no oracle.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Posting this in the right place. Yes, I'm aware much of this has been discussed. Yes, I'm aware that the jury is still out. The point is to provide feedback on my observations for the playtest.
The following was written and posted in the main feedback thread before moved to here:
In regards to multiarmed ancestries (currently Kasatha and Skittermander), is there any reason that they have to distinguish which set of hands are their primary? Does it matter that they have free hands or extra weapons in those hands because at the end of the day they still experience the MAP and they only have 3 actions? I just feel as if this is some sort of holdover from the previous edition where having extra limbs may provide extra actions. Even if quickened they would still not have more actions than other characters. The only mechanical benefit would be that they have more items in hands or that they don't have to worry as much about having free hands.
Post reading of the thread:
I always love it when people pull out moderately corner cases for why a thing might be broken. "What if the players who play multi-arm ancestries use rocket launchers and fire multiple rockets a turn?!" Then make it so they can't hold multiple rocket launchers. Who here can honestly tell me they don't want see a General Grievous style Kasatha Solarian wielding four weapons in a game? Again, the action economy would only allow for 3 to 4 attacks at most and the final two would be almost pointless with how the MAP works.
Mythic JMD031 wrote: Post reading of the thread:
I always love it when people pull out moderately corner cases for why a thing might be broken. "What if the players who play multi-arm ancestries use rocket launchers and fire multiple rockets a turn?!" Then make it so they can't hold multiple rocket launchers. Who here can honestly tell me they don't want see a General Grievous style Kasatha Solarian wielding four weapons in a game? Again, the action economy would only allow for 3 to 4 attacks at most and the final two would be almost pointless with how the MAP works.
You just made me imagine Stitch saying "You fool! I have been trained in your jedi arts by Count Dooku!" and for that, I thank you.
Also just to add, Barathu is also a multi-armed ancestry, it's just locked behind an ancestry feat.
|
