I don't really understand the level-gated weapons. Are they scaling way back on flat modifiers? Did they scale HP way up? Do they want combat to go a lot faster? Did they sign a lucrative contract with Chessex?
They're spells for fighters.
Yup
The Amethyst people did something similar for their 4e products. Essentially they had wpn classes (rifle, pistol, melee) that essentially had built in enhancement bonuses to counteract the fact that they couldn't be enchanted.
Saga had a flat bonus to damage equal to half your level as I recall, and iterative attacks cost feats. The math ran away from the intent pretty quickly, and fights chugged at higher levels.
What's this new health system that was mentioned? It looks like they're still expecting you to have stacks of hp that are sheared off by attacks, like every d&d-alike ever?
One thing Starfinder does different is Attribute score generation. You start with 10s, apply theme/ race modifiers, then add 10 points wherever (one-for-one, 18 max). This hopefully cuts down on the extreme min maxing that point buy has.
Every five levels you pick *4* attributes. If It's under 17, add 2, otherwise add 1.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Where weapons do ever escalating amounts of damage by level.
That sounds like a really great system for incentivizing players to never do anything remotely combat-like.
That's not the system at all, though. Starfinder just splits your HP into two pools -- HP and Stamina -- one of which can be recovered with a short rest, one of which can't. So it's a pacing mechanic comparable to hit dice in 4E/5E.
Where weapons do ever escalating amounts of damage by level.
That sounds like a really great system for incentivizing players to never do anything remotely combat-like.
That's not the system at all, though. Starfinder just splits your HP into two pools -- HP and Stamina -- one of which can be recovered with a short rest, one of which can't. So it's a pacing mechanic comparable to hit dice in 4E/5E.
That's not so bad, then. As long as it fits the overall feel they're going for.
The old system was rough mostly because a chance of instant death baked into the basic combat rules is a great way to get people to avoid investing in characters.
That seems a bit more sane, although I'm confused as to what advantage Stamina offers that HP doesn't, or vice versa. Is it just the cooldown on refresh?
That seems a bit more sane, although I'm confused as to what advantage Stamina offers that HP doesn't, or vice versa. Is it just the cooldown on refresh?
It's the timing aspect. Stamina gives you a buffer of health that's not a big deal to lose (a level 1 character can fully regain it 4 times a day if they have 16 in their key attribute). So the clear intent is to make it so players always have enough health to dive into stuff heroically but that deeper wounds and more dramatic fights still stick to you more substantially.
As far as huge healthpools go it seems an okay system?
One thing Starfinder does different is Attribute score generation. You start with 10s, apply theme/ race modifiers, then add 10 points wherever (one-for-one, 18 max). This hopefully cuts down on the extreme min maxing that point buy has.
Every five levels you pick *4* attributes. If It's under 17, add 2, otherwise add 1.
Eh. This with the increased focus of "prime ability" scores is going to mean that everybody starts with a max in that number. The old system was about representing the costs of specialization because 9 times out of 10 the pc is going to be picking actions that play to their strengths.
I'm actually not sure I think this is bad in the end. Everybody ending up with the "max" in their prime stat so attack rolls are all roughly equal is probably a good thing ultimately but 1-1 point costs aren't going to do a damn thing about min/maxing. The removing the benefit of having an 8 is the only thing that will really result in that feel.
Well, prime stat doesn't set attack roll. For example I've made an Envoy and Charisma's the Key stat for that with weapons being split pretty evenly (even if you go pure ranged because of grenades) between strength and dexterity. With Int useful for bumping me up to 10 skill points a level about the only stat I'm not really using is Wisdom.
Not that it stops min maxing but I don't think the answer for every class is 'take 18 in key skill'
It won't stop min maxing, but it will stop "you need this race and a 3 in Charisma". I could pick a race with an Int penalty and not feel punished for making a technomancer.
Sometimes I forget how cynical people in this community are towards d20 games.
I think it's kind of the Call of Duty effect where, because D20 is the default and popular, most people in a general RPG thread are going to be people who've either burned out or not really gotten into d20 games and are looking for different stuff.
Also for people who are good at Pathfinder if you could give me envoy build advice that'd be great.
It won't stop min maxing, but it will stop "you need this race and a 3 in Charisma". I could pick a race with an Int penalty and not feel punished for making a technomancer.
Exactly. A baseline mod of +0 in every stat is going to prevent people from being worse than useless at things just to get a mild advantage in their chosen area. People are always going to game out the actual stat distributions, but at least this keeps things from being completely ridiculous. I think it's a good change.
I would love to be in a position to do super crunchy games again, and I've had a lot of fun with d20 games over the years.
But the actual systems that go into d20 games that rely on a bunch of crunch have grown to bother me for a myriad of reasons in the 15 or so years I played them.
It's always possible something amazing is going to come out of that well and just wow me, but after so long in such wide operation it's all just minor variations on the same ideas and none of that is compelling enough to get me to turn away from the other options available at this point.
So weapons and items aren't level gated. They just throw in an 'Item Level' to give you a guideline on the appropriate level for an item to show up. I've made it to the equipment chapter.
It also factors into cost, crafting, hardness, etc. So it's pretty much just quality rating.
Any thoughts on what to do when Out of Character talk dominates the action? Our group is developing a nasty habit of asking one another for advice on the majority of what they do or say, and it really grinds down the pace of play.
This is for Blades in the Dark. I could add or amend an existing EXP trigger to discourage OoC. But the wording is tricky, as sometimes it is absolutely good to joke and comment on the absurd things going on. I would just prefer if they played the will of their character, and not that of the group hivemind.
Any thoughts on what to do when Out of Character talk dominates the action? Our group is developing a nasty habit of asking one another for advice on the majority of what they do or say, and it really grinds down the pace of play.
This is for Blades in the Dark. I could add or amend an existing EXP trigger to discourage OoC. But the wording is tricky, as sometimes it is absolutely good to joke and comment on the absurd things going on. I would just prefer if they played the will of their character, and not that of the group hivemind.
"hey I like table talk but could y'all stop trying to get a consensus on every move? Blades is about reckless scoundrels flying by the seat of their pants and I'm not going to punish you for acting without considering every possible option"
I feel like there's probably a meta move you could pull here. Most operations in BitD are going to have either time or stealth components to them.
If your players want to spend time endlessly discussing their moves, then things just get riskier for them on their rolls. And they permanently lose the "is this plan daring" to their engagement roll until they cut the table talk down to acceptable levels.
I feel like there's probably a meta move you could pull here. Most operations in BitD are going to have either time or stealth components to them.
If your players want to spend time endlessly discussing their moves, then things just get riskier for them on their rolls. And they permanently lose the "is this plan daring" to their engagement roll until they cut the table talk down to acceptable levels.
not to mention gaining "is this plan contingent on many factors?"
Sometimes I forget how cynical people in this community are towards d20 games.
I think it's mostly Pathfinder we dislike. Maybe 5e to a lesser extent.
Well, we can find things to dislike about basically any d20 system.
But we can do that with any other game available, too.
The lesson here is that all forum threads are about ripping the joy from things you love.
Or about improving them.
If the only non-depressing discussion you can think of involves gushing about a subject in total, then it's really not that useful to even have a thread for it.
I mean, shockingly (as a person actively using a forum right now), I don't actually hold the opinion that they suck the joy out of everything. It was just a glib joke on how if you discuss anything for long enough you'll find yourself overly aware of the negatives.
I like 13th Age well enough. But I do think the Icon Gimmick is kinda forced and hokey.
I have some people back home interested in a 13th Age game, but I think I am going to redo the Icons into whole organizations rather than individual people. That makes a lot more sense to me.
I like 13th Age well enough. But I do think the Icon Gimmick is kinda forced and hokey.
I have some people back home interested in a 13th Age game, but I think I am going to redo the Icons into whole organizations rather than individual people. That makes a lot more sense to me.
...that's sorta the default assumption of 13th Age. Rarely does an actual Icon relationship mean the Icon thinks your swell. Lots of the Icons are distracted and/or busy, for example plugging a hole into a chaotic nether realm of demonic horrors by stuffing their body into the gap, so they don't have to be a 1:1 thing. Positive dice imply that if the Icon were aware of you and your actions they'd think well of you and maybe consider you an ally but really those relationship dice are how all the folks who support and serve the Icon think about you.
Some Icons this is super easy. Got + Emperor dice? The "government" file on you shows good operations and they view you as a useful asset. Got negative Diabolist dice? Then the demons noticed you fixing up some demon breaches and think you should be eliminated if possible.
Also, so long as we're vaguely on theme I think it's my actual job to remind people that if they want Starfinder style Science fantasy but a little more grounded and far less crunchy there's always Fragged Empire and it's gorgeous, beautiful art.
+1
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
So weapons and items aren't level gated. They just throw in an 'Item Level' to give you a guideline on the appropriate level for an item to show up. I've made it to the equipment chapter.
It also factors into cost, crafting, hardness, etc. So it's pretty much just quality rating.
My friend who does Pathfinder Society was telling me how they handle the weapon "levels" in that. If you pick up a weapon you can use it. If you keep it till the end of the adventure, you can buy it if you are within 2 levels of it. So basically finding one is a -2 level discount to an item. I think that means they are hard gating straight-up buying weapons.
He said there were some other variations, like how ships are handled.
Posts
Yup
The Amethyst people did something similar for their 4e products. Essentially they had wpn classes (rifle, pistol, melee) that essentially had built in enhancement bonuses to counteract the fact that they couldn't be enchanted.
Saga had a flat bonus to damage equal to half your level as I recall, and iterative attacks cost feats. The math ran away from the intent pretty quickly, and fights chugged at higher levels.
What's this new health system that was mentioned? It looks like they're still expecting you to have stacks of hp that are sheared off by attacks, like every d&d-alike ever?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Where weapons do ever escalating amounts of damage by level.
That sounds like a really great system for incentivizing players to never do anything remotely combat-like.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Perhaps they did fix 3.x-a-like combat.
OCR/RCR did a lot of interesting things, vitality among them. It was a neat way of costing magical stuff.
But crits were career ending. It didn't feel very heroic, which as pointed out wasn't great for the space opera they were aiming for.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Personally I just switched back to using hp and had costs take hp. It is, after all, the oldest form of narrative currency.
Every five levels you pick *4* attributes. If It's under 17, add 2, otherwise add 1.
That's not the system at all, though. Starfinder just splits your HP into two pools -- HP and Stamina -- one of which can be recovered with a short rest, one of which can't. So it's a pacing mechanic comparable to hit dice in 4E/5E.
That's not so bad, then. As long as it fits the overall feel they're going for.
The old system was rough mostly because a chance of instant death baked into the basic combat rules is a great way to get people to avoid investing in characters.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It's the timing aspect. Stamina gives you a buffer of health that's not a big deal to lose (a level 1 character can fully regain it 4 times a day if they have 16 in their key attribute). So the clear intent is to make it so players always have enough health to dive into stuff heroically but that deeper wounds and more dramatic fights still stick to you more substantially.
As far as huge healthpools go it seems an okay system?
Eh. This with the increased focus of "prime ability" scores is going to mean that everybody starts with a max in that number. The old system was about representing the costs of specialization because 9 times out of 10 the pc is going to be picking actions that play to their strengths.
I'm actually not sure I think this is bad in the end. Everybody ending up with the "max" in their prime stat so attack rolls are all roughly equal is probably a good thing ultimately but 1-1 point costs aren't going to do a damn thing about min/maxing. The removing the benefit of having an 8 is the only thing that will really result in that feel.
Not that it stops min maxing but I don't think the answer for every class is 'take 18 in key skill'
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I think it's kind of the Call of Duty effect where, because D20 is the default and popular, most people in a general RPG thread are going to be people who've either burned out or not really gotten into d20 games and are looking for different stuff.
Also for people who are good at Pathfinder if you could give me envoy build advice that'd be great.
Exactly. A baseline mod of +0 in every stat is going to prevent people from being worse than useless at things just to get a mild advantage in their chosen area. People are always going to game out the actual stat distributions, but at least this keeps things from being completely ridiculous. I think it's a good change.
Pathfinder exists because of cynicism toward d20 systems.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
For me it's not cynicism, and it's not D20, it's just that I played D&D3-3.5 for five years and... that was enough.
I still like D20 games, I just can't do heavy crunch, character build optimization, tactical combat D20 games.
But the actual systems that go into d20 games that rely on a bunch of crunch have grown to bother me for a myriad of reasons in the 15 or so years I played them.
It's always possible something amazing is going to come out of that well and just wow me, but after so long in such wide operation it's all just minor variations on the same ideas and none of that is compelling enough to get me to turn away from the other options available at this point.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Well, we can find things to dislike about basically any d20 system.
But we can do that with any other game available, too.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It also factors into cost, crafting, hardness, etc. So it's pretty much just quality rating.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
The lesson here is that all forum threads are about ripping the joy from things you love.
This is for Blades in the Dark. I could add or amend an existing EXP trigger to discourage OoC. But the wording is tricky, as sometimes it is absolutely good to joke and comment on the absurd things going on. I would just prefer if they played the will of their character, and not that of the group hivemind.
"hey I like table talk but could y'all stop trying to get a consensus on every move? Blades is about reckless scoundrels flying by the seat of their pants and I'm not going to punish you for acting without considering every possible option"
If your players want to spend time endlessly discussing their moves, then things just get riskier for them on their rolls. And they permanently lose the "is this plan daring" to their engagement roll until they cut the table talk down to acceptable levels.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
not to mention gaining "is this plan contingent on many factors?"
Or about improving them.
If the only non-depressing discussion you can think of involves gushing about a subject in total, then it's really not that useful to even have a thread for it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I have some people back home interested in a 13th Age game, but I think I am going to redo the Icons into whole organizations rather than individual people. That makes a lot more sense to me.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
...that's sorta the default assumption of 13th Age. Rarely does an actual Icon relationship mean the Icon thinks your swell. Lots of the Icons are distracted and/or busy, for example plugging a hole into a chaotic nether realm of demonic horrors by stuffing their body into the gap, so they don't have to be a 1:1 thing. Positive dice imply that if the Icon were aware of you and your actions they'd think well of you and maybe consider you an ally but really those relationship dice are how all the folks who support and serve the Icon think about you.
Some Icons this is super easy. Got + Emperor dice? The "government" file on you shows good operations and they view you as a useful asset. Got negative Diabolist dice? Then the demons noticed you fixing up some demon breaches and think you should be eliminated if possible.
My friend who does Pathfinder Society was telling me how they handle the weapon "levels" in that. If you pick up a weapon you can use it. If you keep it till the end of the adventure, you can buy it if you are within 2 levels of it. So basically finding one is a -2 level discount to an item. I think that means they are hard gating straight-up buying weapons.
He said there were some other variations, like how ships are handled.