|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Maybe not necessarily numbers but I think there should be changes to certain base actions and rules to make playing ranged something more dynamic, instead of forcing ranged-ness with just class features, feats, and equipment.
For instance, Take Cover coming baseline with a half-speed stride so that there's more movement and helps melee still be able to get in range but still having survivability,
Make some sort of 'ranged flanking' possible. Maybe shooting someone--hit or miss--not in standard/light cover 'primes' them where their off-guard against the next ranged strike by someone else or by taking a move action that isn't Stand. Maybe have Area Attack 'prime' too and melee or tanky classes have ways to ignore it like Rogue or Barb did.
Personally while I'm open to introducing new actions. I'd rather Paizo not modify existing actions too much. As the bigger the changes, the harder it will become to port classes across systems when expectations of functionality will break down. Which is to say, anything that should be added to Starfinder should be a reasonable addition to Pathfinder, and vice versa, such as being able to make Piloting its own skill instead of Lore skills.
We already see such issues with the Soldier, where the majority of it is simply incompatible with Pathfinder without underlying changes in one system or another, which will likely make it a banned class in a good proportion of Pathfinder tables that are open to introducing Starfinder classes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Also, big changes like this would require more playtesting, which can disrupt their publishing schedule - not something Paizo can really afford, and the whole reason the rules aren't reprinted in the Playtest is because they don't need to be tested.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Yeah I just fundamentally disagree that everything should be interchangeable. I think a lot of thing 'should' be interchangeable between them but not everything.
Or they can make hacky 'same actions but actually just straight up better' like if they make the half-stride+cover be a disttinct action from Take Cover but it's literally just Take Cover but better if too much baseline changes is unrealistic.
I still want ways to ranged flank be something that's spreadout and baseline for characters. Hell, make it a class feature to every single Starfinder class.
it's not my favourite way to do it, but at least it's something to make ranged more fun that doesn't need everyone to take feats.
|
7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Like I feel that "taking cover is more important where guns are all over, so people are better at it" is specifically the sort of thing you want to enable with feats, rather than baseline rule changes.
After all, feats represent "a thing you learned how to do which gives you a new option".
That's why I said it's a feat that every starfinder 2e class gets.
I don't really care for 'what makes sense' really, I'm sympathetic with the desire for compatibility but my main reasoning is simply that having 'mobile take cover' be baseline is that it makes ranged combats more dynamic instead of rn where it feels like once you're in it you stay in it for a majority of the time and since there isn't a lot of baseline thing that a SF2 character gets unlike a PF2 character in melee with AThletic actions, feints, flanking, etc.
You know I think you're onto something there, a suite of base feats for all characters participating in SF2e.
That way, when you port your barbarian or your magus, they also get the feats, it would help with general ranged combat feel and be removed or even added to PF2e games. I'm not sure that's really Paizo's style, but I like the idea myself.
I don't think you'd need a lot of them, maybe two or three at most.
Something to help with cover, something to help with strategic placement. And then maybe something that could make guns spicier, not really sure on the last one.
Additional base feats could work, but the execution is where it is problematic.
You can bake them in as core rules, and make it a side bar as a conversion guide, but I don't think Starfinder intends to have any conversion guides toward Pathfinder in the Player Core, maybe GM Core. The Starfinder Player Core is meant to be completely standalone. This means that such a conversion guide would take up page space which can be allocated to Starfinder stuff, which is a bane in how much it can surprisingly remove in favor, which I think Starfinder players might find unfair, as it's for a compatibility patch to another game they might not touch, while Pathfinder needs no such page space to be allocated to compensate.
The other approach is to say all PCs in Starfinder get these bonus feats, but that would feel awkward in a dedicated Starfinder game, as it would feel tacked on, and like Starfinder itself is more of a Pathfinder mod, and less able to stand on its own.
Perhaps it can be a web supplement, but those are niche and easily overlooked by the average player and GM.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I agree. Right now, ranged combat is quite static in my opinion: from my experience, intelligent enemies who don't have any preset behavior tend to stay behind cover the whole time and attack from there, which tends to make fights quite static and repetitive. Because these enemies tend to be spaced quite far apart and have no reason to group together, the Soldier doesn't often feel like they're getting to do their thing either. I've experimented with a few extra universal actions and house rules that have made encounters a lot more dynamic, which I might post in a separate thread too:
Spot: As a single action, you help a willing adjacent ally's shot find its mark against a designated target you're observing. Until the start of your next turn, the ally's next ranged attack against the target gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to half your level (minimum 1). A target benefiting from greater cover against the attack has the benefits of standard cover against it instead, and a target benefiting from standard cover has the benefits of lesser cover instead. This action has the auditory trait if you guide your ally with advice, the visual trait if you point to the target, or the manipulate trait if you use an appendage to guide your ally's attack.
Provide Cover: As a single action, you pull a willing adjacent ally into cover, or help them retreat further into cover. The ally Takes Cover.
Cover Exposure: Taking cover exposes you from angles where you're not covered. While Taking Cover, you're off-guard to attacks when you don't benefit from cover.
Because cover became much riskier and there were huge returns for catching someone taking cover from an exposed angle, combat was much more dynamic as everyone moved around more, with Provide Cover still letting characters obtain cover (and even greater cover) when really needed. Because everyone was less entrenched in cover, off-guard a bit more often, and taking more damage with Spot, fights also tended to play out quicker too, instead of dragging on like they often do now. Thanks to those two universal actions, especially Spot, the Soldier was also getting many more opportunities to catch at least two enemies at a time. If anyone wants to give these additions a try, I very much recommend them, as I found they made my encounters a fair bit more fun. As an added bonus, Spot made ranged Strikes feel a lot more reliably damaging, as the flat modifier guaranteed a better amount of minimum damage even if you rolled really low on your one or two damage dice.
SF1e has the covering fire and harrying fire actions, hopefully these make it into SF2e. Although they are not automatic effects like flanking, both require an action and need to roll to succeed. Covering fire is a good teamwork way to help a melee character cross open ground.
Covering Fire:
You can use your standard action to make a ranged attack that provides covering fire for an ally. Make a ranged attack roll against AC 15. If you hit, you deal no damage but the selected ally gains a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against the next attack from a creature in your line of effect
One Idea for a ranged version of flanking would be to set up a cross-fire. It could be a long-range way to give the suppressed condition if multiple attackers attack the same target.
Disagree with Cover exposure, since that could easily lead to 'better to not take cover ever' thinking. Hell it does weird thing with forced movement--pulling someone(literally) out of cover might lead to them being harder to hit
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Teridax wrote: I agree. Right now, ranged combat is quite static in my opinion: from my experience, intelligent enemies who don't have any preset behavior tend to stay behind cover the whole time and attack from there, which tends to make fights quite static and repetitive. Because these enemies tend to be spaced quite far apart and have no reason to group together, the Soldier doesn't often feel like they're getting to do their thing either. I've experimented with a few extra universal actions and house rules that have made encounters a lot more dynamic, which I might post in a separate thread too:
Spot: As a single action, you help a willing adjacent ally's shot find its mark against a designated target you're observing. Until the start of your next turn, the ally's next ranged attack against the target gains a circumstance bonus to damage equal to half your level (minimum 1). A target benefiting from greater cover against the attack has the benefits of standard cover against it instead, and a target benefiting from standard cover has the benefits of lesser cover instead. This action has the auditory trait if you guide your ally with advice, the visual trait if you point to the target, or the manipulate trait if you use an appendage to guide your ally's attack.
Provide Cover: As a single action, you pull a willing adjacent ally into cover, or help them retreat further into cover. The ally Takes Cover.
Cover Exposure: Taking cover exposes you from angles where you're not covered. While Taking Cover, you're off-guard to attacks when you don't benefit from cover.
Because cover became much riskier and there were huge returns for catching someone taking cover from an exposed angle, combat was much more dynamic as everyone moved around more, with Provide Cover still letting characters obtain cover (and even greater cover) when really needed. Because everyone was less entrenched in cover, off-guard a bit more often, and taking more damage with Spot, fights also tended to play out quicker too,...
I like it. It's a small amount of page space for the desired effect
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Gobhaggo wrote: Disagree with Cover exposure, since that could easily lead to 'better to not take cover ever' thinking. Hell it does weird thing with forced movement--pulling someone(literally) out of cover might lead to them being harder to hit This I think can easily be disproven just by running an encounter where you and the enemy aren't within immediate reach of one another (I keep coming back to this, but the Fire Team Fiasco encounter from Field Test #5 is good example of what I mean): because you'd start a fair distance from your opponent, they're unlikely to come all the way to you and catch you off-guard, so Taking Cover would be a smart thing to do. As a fight progresses, however, that cover becomes riskier the longer you stay in it, so you wouldn't want to linger for too long (and, on the flipside, you'll want to punish enemies who entrench themselves, which aeon guards certainly will be doing). It effectively makes cover much more of a temporary benefit than the near-permanent increase in defense that it is now, which is what it ought to be in my opinion.
Still don't like it, I'm not thinking about the optimal condition where it's on a smartly designed map and encounter but more on 'random collection of stuff that can be used with cover'
It's like how MAP is meant to discourage always attacking, but taking defensive cover is an action that plenty of people already do not like to do. And I'm still kinda weirded out if someone pushes a character away from cover then they won't be able to get flanked, and if they're able to be flanked than Taking Cover an unnecessarily high risk.
ALso it works weird with non-directional cover benefit like from being prone or tower shields. I'd rather just make Taking Cover more dynamic for everyone invlved, that's why I suggested making it also half-stride.
Gobhaggo wrote: Still don't like it, I'm not thinking about the optimal condition where it's on a smartly designed map and encounter but more on 'random collection of stuff that can be used with cover' I don't really buy these excuses, as the mechanic works even on maps and encounters that aren't "smartly designed", so long as you don't just plonk the party and enemies within 15 feet of each other in a featureless white room. If there's a good distance between you and the enemy, you're unlikely to get flanked when you Take Cover, and even in closer quarters, it can be a risk worth taking if you anticipate an enemy going for another target.
Gobhaggo wrote: It's like how MAP is meant to discourage always attacking, but taking defensive cover is an action that plenty of people already do not like to do. And I'm still kinda weirded out if someone pushes a character away from cover then they won't be able to get flanked, and if they're able to be flanked than Taking Cover an unnecessarily high risk. This is an interesting slip of the virtual tongue, as flanking is an actually pretty good example of a mechanic that already exists, applies the same detrimental condition, yet doesn't discourage characters from getting into melee in Pathfinder, quite the contrary. As a matter of fact, when PF2e was in its own playtesting stages, there was a lot of vocal fear voiced about the prospect of characters entering conga lines where everyone would be flanking one another, but that too never materialized in practice.
As for Taking Cover, it's perhaps a niche action in Pathfinder, but in Starfinder it very much isn't. In fact, it's too good right now, because it's all too easy for characters to just Strike or Cast a Spell and Take Cover each round, making fights overly static and drawn-out. The game could do with more ways of countering cover.
Gobhaggo wrote: ALso it works weird with non-directional cover benefit like from being prone or tower shields. I'd rather just make Taking Cover more dynamic for everyone invlved, that's why I suggested making it also half-stride. Weird how? If you're getting cover from all directions, you're not going to be off-guard, which is great given that the purpose of Taking Cover while prone or while raising a Tower Shield is to provide protection in situations where you're likely surrounded. Having characters half-Strike while Taking Cover just means everyone can Take Cover more easily every round, which to me sounds like the opposite of what should be happening.
Yeah my perspective is that Taking Cover is good so we should lean into it more by making it better.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm seeing two sides of this, and they seem to be rather mutually exclusive.
On one side, having these ranged-meta things be feats that can be taken - probably as general feats so that they are available to everyone - means that they nearly become must-pick status.
The benefit being that these aren't baked into the classes or the general rules, so the compatibility between the two systems is easier. The core rules are the same and there aren't specific general actions like Cover Fire that people have to remember are in one system but not in the other. And classes don't need things added or removed during the port process from one system to the other.
On the other side, having these ranged-meta things be either general rules or built into the class chassis as-needed means that there aren't feat taxes that nearly every character needs to take in order to feel optimized or even effective.
Personally, I think I fall into the category of wanting these types of changes to be core rule changes. Having a Cover Fire action as a general action rather than something that needs to have a feat spent on it or only available to certain classes.
I would rather have to remember different general rules for the two systems than have to spend feat taxes or have difficulty deciding if a Pathfinder class should have an ability added as a built-in or not.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm fine with adding additional actions on the condition they can be easily added to Pathfinder. Covering Fire I think is a good example of one that could easily be added as an expansion action to make ranged play more interesting.
Though I do not support changing existing actions to buff them. Maybe expand them with things Pathfinder would not consider, like how Detect Poison would detect Radiation, but that change was made with the assumption that even in Pathfinder, if Radiation was a more pronounced thing, Poison would detect it.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
moosher12 wrote: Personally while I'm open to introducing new actions. I'd rather Paizo not modify existing actions too much. As the bigger the changes, the harder it will become to port classes across systems when expectations of functionality will break down. Which is to say, anything that should be added to Starfinder should be a reasonable addition to Pathfinder, and vice versa, such as being able to make Piloting its own skill instead of Lore skills.
We already see such issues with the Soldier, where the majority of it is simply incompatible with Pathfinder without underlying changes in one system or another, which will likely make it a banned class in a good proportion of Pathfinder tables that are open to introducing Starfinder classes.
Id agree with you if Sf2e was an expansion for Pf2e, everything in the new book should work 100% with the game it is expanding. If Starfinder wants to stand on its own and be its own game, it needs to make changes. As is Starfinder is never going to be more than a Pathfinder expansion. Paizo has said contradicting statements in interviews and in the playtest itself about Starfinders relationship with Pathfinder. They need to come out cleanly state what they want Starfinder to be. I and others want Starfinder to be its own game with its own rules that uses the 3 action system (Paizo engine). While others want essentially a space themed splat book, and there's nothing wrong with that, but in this case Starfinder would just not be for me and many like me.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
That I can agree with. Compatibility has limits, and if they want to make more changes, they'll have to decide whether the compatibility promise is worth keeping. But while the Compatibility promise is in place, people who intend to meld the systems will be wanting to make sure compatibility is smooth. If they want to break that promise, it's better they decide to make the decision sooner rather than later.
If Starfinder is gonna break off to change the underlying rules, I'd rather it become it's own entirely different thing. Because if conversion is going to be a nightmare to the point it's more convenient to ban the classes than attempt to reconcile them, I'd rather Starfinder completely seperate itself than attempt to make itself a quote-on-quote "compatible", but not actually functional without a comprehensive home rule document. I have enough to work on as a GM as it is, and I'd rather not get my players hopes up if the conversion is going to be clunky on all levels. It's a headache for GM's, and will be a headache for players.
I won't lie, I want a space themed expansion to Pathfinder, but conversely, I want Pathfinder to be a fantasy themed expansion for Starfinder. I want to run Iron Gods in Pathfinder 2E using the Starfinder assets. I want to let my Kingmaker players get more interesting loot and encounters when they finally reach the Numerian hexes. So my bias is clear. But if they decide to make it incompatible but similar, I can respect that. But they need to abandon the promise of compatibility to do that, that way I can return to focusing on just Pathfinder.
Starfinder 1E had the promise that Pathfinder 1E characters would be compatible with a huge asterisk. And for the same reason porting a character from Pathfinder 1e to Starfinder 1E was a process to the point of being inconvenient. And I, and I feel many GMs would alike, would be unwilling to allow Starfinder and Pathfinder conversions in the average game unless the conversion system is smooth and convenient. If there is going to be compatibility, I don't want an asterisk, or a quote on quote over the "compatible" It's either compatible, or it's not.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Yeah, I absolutely want to run Pathfinder classes in Starfinder (e.g. Kineticist, Thaumaturge, Monk, Exemplar) and I absolutely want to run Starfinder classes in Pathfinder (Mystic, Envoy, Solarian,Vanguard eventually hopefully). So I'd strongly prefer most of the differences are not intrinsic to top level choices for characters.
Like I plan on playing an Elemental Mystic in a Pathfinder game coming up, and it looks like all I really need to do is "replace recharge weapon, or just have it be a dead option".
Finoan wrote: I'm seeing two sides of this, and they seem to be rather mutually exclusive.
On one side, having these ranged-meta things be feats that can be taken - probably as general feats so that they are available to everyone - means that they nearly become must-pick status.
The benefit being that these aren't baked into the classes or the general rules, so the compatibility between the two systems is easier. The core rules are the same and there aren't specific general actions like Cover Fire that people have to remember are in one system but not in the other. And classes don't need things added or removed during the port process from one system to the other.
On the other side, having these ranged-meta things be either general rules or built into the class chassis as-needed means that there aren't feat taxes that nearly every character needs to take in order to feel optimized or even effective.
No i'm saying make them feats but give every starfinder 2e classes those feats.
Gobhaggo wrote: Finoan wrote: I'm seeing two sides of this, and they seem to be rather mutually exclusive.
On one side, having these ranged-meta things be feats that can be taken - probably as general feats so that they are available to everyone - means that they nearly become must-pick status.
The benefit being that these aren't baked into the classes or the general rules, so the compatibility between the two systems is easier. The core rules are the same and there aren't specific general actions like Cover Fire that people have to remember are in one system but not in the other. And classes don't need things added or removed during the port process from one system to the other.
On the other side, having these ranged-meta things be either general rules or built into the class chassis as-needed means that there aren't feat taxes that nearly every character needs to take in order to feel optimized or even effective.
No i'm saying make them feats but give every starfinder 2e classes those feats. I'm not sure why I am being quoted on this. That is one of the options that I mentioned: feats for this type of action ability - probably general feats since class feats that every class has access to isn't a thing. Shield Block would be an example of this that does actually exist in PF2. A general feat that exists to give an action that can be used with shields.
Personally I don't like it because then it becomes feat tax that every character has to pay, or be at a disadvantage. Shield Block falls into that category. Any character in PF2 can pick up a shield and use the Raise Shield action to gain the bonus to their AC. But anyone that builds their character to be a shield user that doesn't have Shield Block built into their class pretty much always takes Shield Block as a feat tax for the playstyle. It is technically possible to not do so, but it is not standard.
Having Starfinder ranged weapons and ranged combat be given the treatment of Shield Block doesn't sit well with me if it is intended to be ranged combat meta. Shield Block works well enough in PF2 because carrying and using a shield is one option among many - shield user isn't the primary meta.
You are allowed to like and promote that option.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I don't think a few cover and grouping mechanics break compatibility. Fights could just flow differently in starfinder, which they should, bc they're shoot outs.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Depending on the rules expansions, you could add them to 2e in general and they'd benefit Pathfinder too in a more niche way. For instance, if you add a couple of universal actions around providing or ignoring cover, or change how cover works so characters Taking Cover are off-guard from exposed angles, all of that could work in Pathfinder as well. They'd just be niche rules in that game that might sometimes come up when fighting in ranged combat, much like how flanking in melee would be a niche rule in Starfinder.
General feats or additional actions which MUST be compatible with Pathfinder 2E's base core. Any new actions or conditions should be able to be added in with no problems at all or else this fabled Compatibility will be broken and I know a few people who be very disappointed in not using the years of content for Pathfinder 2E. The gun meta always feels awkward because it is strange and changes a ton of notions made from Pathfinder 2E, like STR and Athletics are king. In hind-sight a monk is still hella powerful, maybe more so.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I think actions to make Take Cover easier should be discouraged honestly. Especially as all the places you can Take Cover in already give you at least lesser cover by definition.
One of the most tedious parts of "roll to hit" / "pass or fail" games with any more complexity than a Mork Borg clone is frequent misses. One of the best appeals to 2e here is the +10 is a crit system. Good cover doubles down on miss chance and erases most of the extra crits.
Cover is thematic for ranged combat but also boring in practice for this kind of game, imo, if the enemies are doing it, and to some extent if the players are doing it.
Teridax is right to experiment with all of these different ways of addressing that, honestly. I do think it's interesting that "off-guard from exposed angles" becomes enough motivation for people to get behind the target when removing their cover to me would be enough for me personally.
I love the idea of more covering shots and assisting shots and more of those actions being basekit, potentially requiring automatic weapons, etc. More things like athletic maneuvers but working from range to adjust to the ranged meta. Suppressed is a good start.
As far as compatibility goes, the message of "compatible but different metas" makes me feel like they've got more room to push boundaries than they're using so far.
At the very least if "pop in and out of cover to maximize your AC versus things that are already doing that" is going to be the meta, the additional options we add to the game should be "more things that destroy cover or get someone out of cover" (a la XCOM).
There are more issues like this. The flying rules where written for character using wings. It makes no sense for a Barathu to spend an action to stay in the air.
We got 2 additional Skills but not more skill increases. Untrained improvisation feels even better now and playing a low int Soldier feels even worse now.
PF2e Languages don't make sense in a setting where there will be over 190 Ancestries.
Acrobatics is even more niche after tumble through became less usefull due to the ranged meta.
Things like jet packs (should) use Piloting for flying which makes acrobatics even more useless.
Survival feels pointless unless you play very specific scenarios.
Nature feels almost useless next to medicine and society because animals are not that important in a sci fi setting.
While i understand that you can't "lean out of cover" while wielding a bow, you should be able to it, when using a Rifle / Pistol.
Why is lying prone detremental to my sniper attack?
Why do i need to spend an action to drop prone?
Medicine should not be a wisdom skill in the future.
We need better rules for damaging terrain. I want to blow up a door with a grenade or rocket launcher. I want to destroy cover the same way.
...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Trashloot wrote: We got 2 additional Skills but not more skill increases. Untrained improvisation feels even better now and playing a low int Soldier feels even worse now. The Piloting skills were already Lore skills you could get in Pathfinder. if anything, they became cheaper, as you just compressed 3 Lore skills, (potentially 4 if you wanna separate Terestrial Flight and Space Flight), into one skill. Computers Lore was also theoretically possible.
Trashloot wrote: PF2e Languages don't make sense in a setting where there will be over 190 Ancestries. Have you not looked at how many languages are in Pathfinder? There are a lot. When in doubt, use the Translate spell. And translater apps are explained to be a thing, but won't be as perfect.
Archives of Nethys lists 111 languages. And I can tell you that's not a comprehensive list to the actual amount of languages spoken in Golarion alone, as more have been listed in Pathfinder 1E and 2E that were not listed in that list.
Trashloot wrote: The flying rules where written for character using wings. It makes no sense for a Barathu to spend an action to stay in the air. The flying rules were also built for the Fly spell, which does not use wings, if anything, you're hovering better than jet propulsion would allow.
Trashloot wrote: Acrobatics is even more niche after tumble through became less usefull due to the ranged meta.
Things like jet packs (should) use Piloting for flying which makes acrobatics even more useless.
So, making it even less useful by moving Maneuver in Flight checks to another check is making this better?
Trashloot wrote: Survival feels pointless unless you play very specific scenarios. Removing Survival would remove the ability to have those scenarios.
Trashloot wrote: Nature feels almost useless next to medicine and society because animals are not that important in a sci fi setting. Fey and animals still exist, for example nature would identify a Glitch Goblin. And while on a planet, there is still alien wildlife.
In Second Contact, for example. Out of 9 creatures, Nature identifies 6 of them.
Additionally, your Primal Mystic needs Nature to learn Uncommon primal spells.
Trashloot wrote: While i understand that you can't "lean out of cover" while wielding a bow, you should be able to it, when using a Rifle / Pistol. Valid. But the counter point is Example 3 of page 424 of the Player Core, or page 477 of the Core Rulebook. If two characters are on a different corner of the wall, they'd just be able to peak around the corners and effectively not have cover against each other.
Trashloot wrote: Why is lying prone detremental to my sniper attack? Also valid. But I think this is a problem in Pathfinder 2E as well, as it should apply the same to crossbows and firearms.
Trashloot wrote: Why do i need to spend an action to drop prone? The action is to do it appropriately, unless you plan to just, fall to your knees and slump like you just died on the spot.
Trashloot wrote: Medicine should not be a wisdom skill in the future. Valid, personally I allow it to be Int or Wisdom in my Pathfinder games. But I think Wisdom should still be allowed, rather than switched to exclusively Int. flexibly Int or Wisdom is thematic. But not exclusively one or the other.
Trashloot wrote: We need better rules for damaging terrain. I want to blow up a door with a grenade or rocket launcher. I want to destroy cover the same way. Valid, in agreement here.
moosher12 wrote: The The Piloting skills were already Lore skills you could get in Pathfinder. if anything, they became cheaper. Computers Lore was also theoretically possible. Yeah but those two skills are way more important in Starfinder. It feels so bad to not have computers trained. Because you miss out on your level bonus to the skill check, which means you become a grandpa who can't google basic stuff after a few levels. Alternetively the GM needs to artificially keep the DCs low. Like when you scale the Request DC super low, because your player hasn't invested in diplomacy.
This is also a thing i would love to see changed. Diplomacy should be a baseline thing like perception. But we would need a few (skill / general) feats to increase it, for people who want to specialize in it.
moosher12 wrote: Have you not looked at how many languages are in Pathfinder? There are a lot. When in doubt, use the Translate spell. And translater apps are explained to be a thing, but won't be as perfect.
I have. But do they really make sense? You can choose a hand full languages when you make your character. You can't learn languages on the fly (like aquiring formulas or a wizard learning new spells) so you need to know in advance which languages will be usefull. But can you really make that decision beforehand ? Ok your GM could tell you which languages become usefull but then whats the point? And translation apps make them feel even more weird. I kinda want to see a redesign of the whole language concept. Either make the disappear and say that everyone uses a universal translater. Or make fewer languages so that your choices matter. Maybe have 10 Languages. That way all of them could come up during an adventure path.
Wouldn't it be better if the languages would look like this:
- Azlanti (Language of the enemy. Have them infiltrate everything so that they always show up in any campaign. Like the Romulans.)
- Vesk (Language of your Frenemy)
- Pact Worlds Common (Language of your Frenemy if you start in Vesk Space)
- Pirate Tongue(Secret Language among space pirates and smugglers.)
- Short Wave (Language of intelligent Machines and Technophiles)
- Necril (Language of the Dead)
- Ancient (Dead Language of a Civilisation which died during the Gap. Old Secrets)
- Akklo (Magic language for arcane and occult secrets and Mysteries.
- Nuspeak (Mixture of Vesk and Pact Worlds Common with heavy slang. Some love it others hate it. Use at your own risk)
- Telepathy (Not as a seperate language but as a technique which takes up a language "slot")
I came up with this on the fly so there is definetly room for improvement. But if those where the Starfinder languages i would instantly know how to use them as a GM and a Player would be able to pick languages based on description alone. You could of course still add campaign specific languages for your backwater planet of choice.
But they are way better than "Ysoki" and "Shirren". (If you ask me)
moosher12 wrote: So, making it even less useful by moving Maneuver in Flight checks to another check is making this better?
No. Acrobatics needs to either go or get a redesign. Maybe you can make a acrobatics check to run in a zig zag pattern to dodge bullets. Or maybe you could use Acrobatics to dive in to cover. Maybe you could have a baseline reaction where maneuvering thrusters in your armor throw you to the side to avoid a hit. (Basically nimble dodge) Maybe acrobatics could allow you to draw weapons and equipment faster. Without tumble through this feels stupid. Getting use out of balance is super rare and i never saw anyone using the squeeze action. And Flying feels clunky at best.
moosher12 wrote: Removing Survival would remove the ability to have those scenarios. You could use nature for those scenarios without a problem. Subsist has little use because food doesn't weigh anything and costs next to nothing. This is even worse in Starfinder. You could grab an explorers canteen and a few upbs and survive forever. Building a shelter uses crafting. Bandaging your wounds to survive uses Medicine. You don't even use survival to craft makeshift traps. Cantrips like Know the way invalidate sense direction almost entirely.
(Opinion!:)To me it feels like survival only exists for the excuse of having to role if you get lost. And this can be funny.
Trashloot wrote: Yeah but those two skills are way more important in Starfinder. It feels so bad to not have computers trained. Because you miss out on your level bonus to the skill check, which means you become a grandpa who can't google basic stuff after a few levels. Alternetively the GM needs to artificially keep the DCs low. Like when you scale the Request DC super low, because your player hasn't invested in diplomacy.
This is also a thing i would love to see changed. Diplomacy should be a baseline thing like perception. But we would need a few (skill / general) feats to increase it, for people who want to specialize in it.
I would note that googling a decent recipe for an apple pie is a DC 10 check. Where you'd start to see a DC 15 or higher and need training in computers is in hacking, or trying to find a specific useful scientific document, or trying to online stalk someone to get information that is not so readily available.
Trashloot wrote: I have. But do they really make sense? You can choose a hand full languages when you make your character. You can't learn languages on the fly (like aquiring formulas or a wizard learning new spells) so you need to know in advance which languages will be usefull. But can you really make that decision beforehand ? Ok your GM could tell you which languages become usefull but then whats the point? And translation apps make them feel even more weird. I kinda want to see a redesign of the whole language concept. Either make the disappear and say that everyone uses a universal translater. Or make fewer languages so that your choices matter. Maybe have 10 Languages. That way all of them could come up during an adventure path. Yeah... I don't think you're convincing the Space Dwarves to give up Dwarven. When in doubt, check out my home rule for extra languages.
Paizo Forums: Additional Language Subsystem
Trashloot wrote: You could use nature for those scenarios without a problem. Subsist has little use because food doesn't weigh anything and costs next to nothing. This is even worse in Starfinder. You could grab an explorers canteen and a few upbs and survive forever. Building a shelter uses crafting. Bandaging your wounds to survive uses Medicine. You don't even use survival to craft makeshift traps. Cantrips like Know the way invalidate sense direction almost entirely.
(Opinion!:)To me it feels like survival only exists for the excuse of having to role if you get lost. And this can be funny.
Combining Nature and Survival is a valid approach, can't argue with that one. What I would say is, UPBs are not forever. They are a limited supply, and over a long term campaign, there is a threat of running out, same way as with rations. Also. Your adventurers also will get sick of generic UPB paste after the first week, switching that up with local meats and herbs can do a lot on a thematic level. While it won't have a static effect, tell me about the last time you've ate the same thing for weeks on end. You are assuming you can always go back to town, that is not always a luxury. And campaigns can be made where that is especially not a guaranteed luxury.
moosher12 wrote: I would note that googling a decent recipe for an apple pie is a DC 10 check. Where you'd start to see a DC 15 or higher and need training in computers is in hacking, or trying to find a specific useful scientific document, or trying to online stalk someone to get information that is not so readily available. I know. But this is still weird. Not picking diplomacy feels weird in pathfinder. Now there is another "i kinda want this on every character" skill without getting more increases.
moosher12 wrote: Yeah... I don't think you're convincing the Space Dwarves to give up Dwarven. When in doubt, check out my home rule for extra languages.
Paizo Forums: Additional Language Subsystem
Cool i will definetly look at it :D. But regarding Dwarves. What is the point of dwarvish as a language. I get the idea. They are proud and they like having their language. (Which never changes and everyone speaks even if they were born on the moon). But what now? When you are creating your character you have dwarvish as a language option? Why would you pick this. To speak to the dwarves ofcourse. ... But all of them speak common. I just ran an adventure path where a dwarven banker was a npc. He didn't have a stat block but i assume she spoke dwarven. She obviously used common to communicate because she is talking to her customers from all over absalom. She doesn't even have a reason to use her dwarven language when my dwarven player greets here because it would be unfriendly towards her other customers.
There was a dwarven criminal earlier in the campaign. He also spoke common because he was paired up with non dwarves who didn't speak dwarvish. There are other ancestries who didn't even show up in my campaign. It feels like languages solely exist because they always existed and for the random xenophobe mono culture which you randomly find. (Im speaking about the ancestral languages here. You can ofcourse have a few languages linked to the main plot of your campaign).
I think the biggest problem is that the world building is not set up for languages to matter. A new Edition Release would be the best way to retcon something like this to make languages matter. Elves and dwarves are a super duper minority anyways. They can have their language which don't matter. But lets do something cool with the pact worlds. The Starfinder Setting is still relatively fresh and i don't think there are many Starfinder Grognards who get mad at change.
moosher12 wrote: Combining Nature and Survival is a valid approach, can't argue with that one. What I would say is, UPBs are not forever. They are a limited supply, and over a long term campaign, there is a threat of running out, same way as with rations. Also. Your adventurers will get sick of generic UPB paste after the first week. While it won't have a static effect, tell me about the last time you've ate the same thing for weeks on end. You are assuming you can always go back to town, that is not always a luxury. And campaigns can be made where that is especially not a guaranteed luxury. I totally agree. But i think the system should enforce this in some way if they want subsist to matter. Either have rations spoil after a while or add a small line which explains that you can get fatigued after only eating UPB Paste. I don't even need a hard rule. Just some guidance for new GMS.
Its laughable how little focus Paizo puts on anything that isn't combat. We have 2 GM Books now. Not one of them gives you great tips on how to use the System Mechanics outside of combat. Not one of them tells you how to design battle maps which highlight all the skill actions.
They don't even tell you how to use the survival skill to make the exploration mode in to a fun experience.
Trashloot wrote: I know. But this is still weird. Not picking diplomacy feels weird in pathfinder. Now there is another "i kinda want this on every character" skill without getting more increases. Yeah, it becomes finicky. For example, going from Pathfinder 1E to 2E, they made Perception an auto-scaling skill because it was an autopick in 1E. I've met players who were disappointed that they could not willfully choose to max out Perception to make it Legendary on all characters.
Think it makes some sense for Diplomacy, because some folks are not good talkers, also why you have the choice to pick Deception and Intimidation as your 3 major moods of communication.
Feels like the intention is to take one of the three. An extra slot can probably be allocated to boost them, but the slots as they were might have been calculated with the assumption at least one of them would be picked.
Trashloot wrote: I think the biggest problem is that the world building is not set up for languages to matter. A new Edition Release would be the best way to retcon something like this to make languages matter. Elves and dwarves are a super duper minority anyways. They can have their language which don't matter. But lets do something cool with the pact worlds. The Starfinder Setting is still relatively fresh and i don't think there are many Starfinder Grognards who get mad at change. And yeah, I have to agree this is true. Common is so Common that unless you are traveling outside of mainstream areas, you'll likely never need to know more than one language. And if you are in an area where 90% of the game would be spoken in one language, the campaign typically made that language in Common. A campaign in the 5 king's mountains might make Dwarven Common. And a Campaign that takes place exclusively on Eox might make Common Necril, instead of Pact Worlds Common.
Most of the time in practical play, a language only helps you to impress a local. As the situations in which you run into people who do not speak Common is rare.
Trashloot wrote: I totally agree. But i think the system should enforce this in some way if they want subsist to matter. Either have rations spoil after a while or add a small line which explains that you can get fatigued after only eating UPB Paste. I don't even need a hard rule. Just some guidance for new GMS.
Its laughable how little focus Paizo puts on anything that isn't combat. We have 2 GM Books now. Not one of them gives you great tips on how to use the System Mechanics outside of combat. Not one of them tells you how to design battle maps which highlight all the skill actions.
They don't even tell you how to use the survival skill to make the exploration mode in to a fun experience.
I might be blessed with a good table, but in my experience, players are usually good at being self-moderating in this aspect. I'm running Kingmaker, which means survival is a big thing. My players love to switch up the meals and use thematic things to the area. Some players love that sort of thing. Could they learn Create Food? Yeah. But they never would, because they find it boring. I don't think there is a way to implement a system that forces it that feels good player side though. Players are more likely to chafe at that sort of change in my experience. In my experience, it's best to let the players' tastes indicate when such things are old.
Yeah i really want to play Kingmaker for that reason. (Or even just read it.) Because in normal play it feels like PF2e wanted to kill every aspect of wildernes survival.
Trashloot wrote: We need better rules for damaging terrain. I want to blow up a door with a grenade or rocket launcher. I want to destroy cover the same way. moosher12 wrote: Valid, in agreement here. I have to agree. This could easily be fixed by just adding a keyword to those weapons that lets them do significant bonus damage to structures.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Trashloot wrote: Yeah but those two skills are way more important in Starfinder. It feels so bad to not have computers trained. Because you miss out on your level bonus to the skill check, which means you become a grandpa who can't google basic stuff after a few levels. Alternetively the GM needs to artificially keep the DCs low. Like when you scale the Request DC super low, because your player hasn't invested in diplomacy. All the knuckleheads in my Cosmic Birthday group refused to raise intelligence so it's been left to my Envoy to deal with the frequent Computers checks. Fortunately I'm an Android and can Nanite Surge them but the skill does seem to be a bad one to not have!
Noodlekeeper wrote: Trashloot wrote: We need better rules for damaging terrain. I want to blow up a door with a grenade or rocket launcher. I want to destroy cover the same way. moosher12 wrote: Valid, in agreement here. I have to agree. This could easily be fixed by just adding a keyword to those weapons that lets them do significant bonus damage to structures. Like a beefed up version of this one?
Could be a good opportunity to return the Breaching ability from SF1E.
Recent threads in Playtest General Discussion
|
