How do you guys even play this?

[Bloodright]

Hi everyone!

I just recently picked up Starfinder for FG, and I have been running and playing in DnD 5e on FG for awhile now.

This system seems almost unplayable on FG. The math and extra calculations makes using it on FG almost a chore. Many of the skills and spells are not even locked and have the coding completed. So, I am curious how everyone is able to play this? Did you guys go through and manually change and code the different effects? Please, I really want to enjoy this system.

[Octavious]

Hi Bloodright,
I also bought the FG version for Starfinder, GM a few games . Spells were not used in my games and I didn't notice too much missing otherwise. But the starship combat is horrendous as there is NO starship combat tracker to automatically play the combat. I know lots of people will say I do this or that for starship combat but... I paid for the whole thing and its still incomplete . I stopped buying any further SF books, modules and so forth , stopped playing it altogether just because of that . To me its not worth the money to invest in a vtt version if you still have to do some with pen and paper.. Im sure lots of people feel the same as I do .. I just dm and play 5e anymore.. and forgetting about SF altogether. Maybe in a year or two they may have it finished ..IDK

[Bloodright]

Hi Bloodright,
I also bought the FG version for Starfinder, GM a few games . Spells were not used in my games and I didn't notice too much missing otherwise. But the starship combat is horrendous as there is NO starship combat tracker to automatically play the combat. I know lots of people will say I do this or that for starship combat but... I paid for the whole thing and its still incomplete . I stopped buying any further SF books, modules and so forth , stopped playing it altogether just because of that . To me its not worth the money to invest in a vtt version if you still have to do some with pen and paper.. Im sure lots of people feel the same as I do .. I just dm and play 5e anymore.. and forgetting about SF altogether. Maybe in a year or two they may have it finished ..IDK

Thanks for the quick reply, I am noticing this now, as I go through the system more and more. In it's current incarnation, i would call this an early Alpha project. I just wish i had known that, before dropping money on it.

[GunbunnyFuFu]

I believe there is a money-back guarantee in place...best bet would contact Smiteworks, let them know you're not happy with it, and they'll make it right I think.

[Blahness98]

My players didn't have an issue with spells and the like. We came from Pathfinder, so the coding and everything was similar to what we were used to. Coming from 5e, it probably is going to be a step backwards.

[Bloodright]

I believe there is a money-back guarantee in place...best bet would contact Smiteworks, let them know you're not happy with it, and they'll make it right I think.

I don't mind supporting a project, just wish there was some notice of the current state of completion of the product prior to purchasing. I really do wish to learn this system and enjoy it with my player.

[Bloodright]

My players didn't have an issue with spells and the like. We came from Pathfinder, so the coding and everything was similar to what we were used to. Coming from 5e, it probably is going to be a step backwards.

Very much so, but I am going to start working on building the class abilities and then eventually the spells and abilities. It just bothered me when i saw several spell descriptions unlocked. seemed like lazy coding.

[Flyteach]

Hmmmm, well I guess I've got a different perspective. Not that I'm trying to be a cheerleader, cuz I'm not. But, understand what FG is. It's a virtual table top. There's a lot of automation already given what one has to keep track of in an in-person session. I'm not looking for a video game version of SF (or PF or any other tabletop RPG). Although starship combat could (and probably will) be better, I am able to run scenarios and play with players whom I cannot have eyeball games with and FG provides the answer. If you're looking for a lot of the computations to be done for you and not having to learn many rules (a la 5e) then it's probably not ready for you yet (and may not ever meet your expectations). However, as someone who's been playing RPGs for nearly 40 years, FG gives me the opportunity to play regularly with friends and players who I can otherwise only play with once per year at worst and a couple of times per year at best. So, if you want to play (and learn the game) then FG will give you that opportunity. If you want a complete OOTB system without even having to know and understand rules, mechanics, etc., then you'll have to wait. And before anyone starts flaming, I know what 5e is and what it can do. It's certainly brought people into gaming. But, for me, it doesn't supply nearly the depth that I enjoy in an RPG. FG let's me play my game of choice.....I don't expect it to do a lot except be a tabletop. It's much more than that, even in SF's current state. But, I haven't yet had something that I couldn't do that FG let me get the idea and/or picture across to my players and that we couldn't resolve just like in any other session.
Flyteach

[Bloodright]

Hmmmm, well I guess I've got a different perspective. Not that I'm trying to be a cheerleader, cuz I'm not. But, understand what FG is. It's a virtual table top. There's a lot of automation already given what one has to keep track of in an in-person session. I'm not looking for a video game version of SF (or PF or any other tabletop RPG). Although starship combat could (and probably will) be better, I am able to run scenarios and play with players whom I cannot have eyeball games with and FG provides the answer. If you're looking for a lot of the computations to be done for you and not having to learn many rules (a la 5e) then it's probably not ready for you yet (and may not ever meet your expectations). However, as someone who's been playing RPGs for nearly 40 years, FG gives me the opportunity to play regularly with friends and players who I can otherwise only play with once per year at worst and a couple of times per year at best. So, if you want to play (and learn the game) then FG will give you that opportunity. If you want a complete OOTB system without even having to know and understand rules, mechanics, etc., then you'll have to wait. And before anyone starts flaming, I know what 5e is and what it can do. It's certainly brought people into gaming. But, for me, it doesn't supply nearly the depth that I enjoy in an RPG. FG let's me play my game of choice.....I don't expect it to do a lot except be a tabletop. It's much more than that, even in SF's current state. But, I haven't yet had something that I couldn't do that FG let me get the idea and/or picture across to my players and that we couldn't resolve just like in any other session.
Flyteach


I guess I got spoiled by the level of work in 5E that I had the expectation that SF would be the same level of work.

[Blahness98]

Very much so, but I am going to start working on building the class abilities and then eventually the spells and abilities. It just bothered me when i saw several spell descriptions unlocked. seemed like lazy coding.

What abilities were you looking at building? Depending on where it came from, look at my effects lists in the sticky on the main Starfinder page. I know I have been slacking on making them (been building a comprehensive Everyman Starlog module), several classes are covered. Let me know what you need or if you need help with anything and I could assist.

From what Russ has said, spells should parse once they hit your character sheet.

[Flyteach]

Bloodright, please don't think I'm trying to dump on you. I'm not. I think a big part of this is that they are different games and 5e is somewhat less (looking for a good adjective) involved that Starfinder or Pathfinder. That's part of the quick appeal of 5e. I can understand it and won't argue it. However, coming from ADnD and Traveller with no "automation" (unless you count what might have been done with a TRS-80 or a Commodore 64), everything was manual. Have you played any eyeball 5e? Or has it all been through FG? Just wondering as that may be part of what's setting your expectations. I've found Starfinder to be a fun, rich, deep game very similar to what I've been used to. FG creates the tabletop that allows me to play without being in the same room as other players. I guess that's all I expected and it certainly suits that purpose. It's not a game in itself....it's just a venue that allows me to play without being in the same physical space as the other players. FWIW, my experience with starship combat in SF hasn't been any different than what I've experienced in eyeball games. We're all still learning the rules and it's new, so it takes time to work through it. We had placement and facing on the map and everything else was resolved just like an eyeball game.
Flyteach

[sciencephile]

I might add that Starfinder really just came out relatively recently and is still being actively improved. Also remember that 5E is about half the market for the tabletop games so it is likely that it gets a higher level of support, as well (more developers, more community development volunteers, etc.). There are times I groan in my Starfinder game but then I just remember that improvements are constantly being added and it's just a matter of patience :)

[Bloodright]

Blah,

your coding looks great, but the abilities need to be set in the race/classes. so you are basically putting a bandaid on the issue. I have already downloaded your coding, and thank you for that.. but I will be coding it directly into the classes and feats directly, vice putting it as a spell on a character sheet. I want my players to be able to have access to everything directly from the mods.

[Bloodright]

Bloodright, please don't think I'm trying to dump on you. I'm not. I think a big part of this is that they are different games and 5e is somewhat less (looking for a good adjective) involved that Starfinder or Pathfinder. That's part of the quick appeal of 5e. I can understand it and won't argue it. However, coming from ADnD and Traveller with no "automation" (unless you count what might have been done with a TRS-80 or a Commodore 64), everything was manual. Have you played any eyeball 5e? Or has it all been through FG? Just wondering as that may be part of what's setting your expectations. I've found Starfinder to be a fun, rich, deep game very similar to what I've been used to. FG creates the tabletop that allows me to play without being in the same room as other players. I guess that's all I expected and it certainly suits that purpose. It's not a game in itself....it's just a venue that allows me to play without being in the same physical space as the other players. FWIW, my experience with starship combat in SF hasn't been any different than what I've experienced in eyeball games. We're all still learning the rules and it's new, so it takes time to work through it. We had placement and facing on the map and everything else was resolved just like an eyeball game.
Flyteach

I understand what you are saying, and i have played pen and paper games all the way back to 1st edition dnd. played many others the same way. but if i am going to use a VTT, and paid as much as i had.. i would expect a certain level of automation.

[damned]

There is a significant level of automation.
This does not extend to Starships though.

No ruleset (bar Celestians AD&D and that has limited available content - c'mon Wizards!) has the automation or is likely to, of 5E.
2/3rds of all games played are played on 5E. Its twice the size of every other system combined.
The reality is it will get more coding effort and support than other rulesets.

If you are not happy with a (Fantasy Grounds Store) purchase you can request a refund via email within 30days.
From Steam it has to follow their refund policies.

[Bloodright]

many of the mystic spells were not coded correctly, and were still unlocked, that is what started this bit of frustration. I was working with a friend to test out the combat system and work out the kinks with character creation.

[damned]

many of the mystic spells were not coded correctly, and were still unlocked, that is what started this bit of frustration. I was working with a friend to test out the combat system and work out the kinks with character creation.

There is a StarFinder bug thread and the current Dev is very responsive to anything posted in there.
I know he is working on the system pretty much every day.

He will appreciate (deep down) anything you report to him.

[Bloodright]

Thanks for the suggestions folks, I am going to poke around with the classes and themes, and see if i can find specifics of things that need fixing. If I can fix them myself, then i will. was hoping for 3rd party mods that would have already had fixes for some of these.

[Bloodright]

ok, I think i see the problem...

The person that made Starfinder just copied Pathfinder's system, and then tried to tailor it to starfinder.. the issue is, there are alot of abilities and flexibility that you do not have in the pathfinder software. one specific item, is the lack of putting an ability in the Action tab and configuring it for play. while in DnD 5e, you can add abilities to the Action tab and configure them for use in combat with full effects. The pathfinder system forces the abilities to be either a spell or a weapon, no in between. This is what has confused me the most about SF. I never played pathfinder on FG, and after seeing all this, I doubt i would ever do so. this limitation of flexibility restricts the system so much, that it prevents the users from actually using FG as it is intended.

[Andraax]

Starfinder is based on Pathfinder/DnD 3.5, not DnD 5e. Most rulesets are not as feature rich as the 5e ruleset, either.

[Blahness98]

Moderator - deleted

From my limited play with 5e, the system just does the work for you. You can drag sneak attack from your abilities tab to your actions tab and it creates the power for you with all the effects and everything. While it doesn't automatically do that in PF or SF, you can still make your powers. It would be a "spell" but all you are doing is creating a spell class that is called "actions" and filling that up with actions and effects that you will need for said actions. 5e just uses a different class for abilities.

Also, if you really wanted to have everything drag and drop, I have modules for Pathfinder that do what you are asking of it. Once again, you have to create a spell class initially, but it will create the ability and then copy over the effect which you will need. So, what you are asking for from 5e can be done, IF you make the modules do that themselves.

[Bloodright]

Starfinder is based on Pathfinder/DnD 3.5, not DnD 5e. Most rulesets are not as feature rich as the 5e ruleset, either.

I don't want the same system of play.. I was referring the option to add abilities and items to the action tab to automate some of the features. I was using DnD 5E system on FG as a comparison.

[Bloodright]

From my limited play with 5e, the system just does the work for you. You can drag sneak attack from your abilities tab to your actions tab and it creates the power for you with all the effects and everything. While it doesn't automatically do that in PF or SF, you can still make your powers. It would be a "spell" but all you are doing is creating a spell class that is called "actions" and filling that up with actions and effects that you will need for said actions. 5e just uses a different class for abilities.

Also, if you really wanted to have everything drag and drop, I have modules for Pathfinder that do what you are asking of it. Once again, you have to create a spell class initially, but it will create the ability and then copy over the effect which you will need. So, what you are asking for from 5e can be done, IF you make the modules do that themselves.

Moderator - Deleted

You misunderstand what I was getting at. The way the module is made in FG limits its ability to do so much more and add much more customization and flexibility.

[Zacchaeus]

Keep it civil please.

[Bloodright]

Keep it civil please.

Will do

[Bloodright]

What I am getting at is... Why have a character do a roll that requires a 3d6 roll, while making them roll 1d6 three times? What i want is for them to roll 3d6 one time. streamline the system on FG and it will make for faster and smoother play for your players and the GM. you spend less times looking up the math and abilities, and more time enjoying the game.

[damned]

What I am getting at is... Why have a character do a roll that requires a 3d6 roll, while making them roll 1d6 three times? What i want is for them to roll 3d6 one time. streamline the system on FG and it will make for faster and smoother play for your players and the GM. you spend less times looking up the math and abilities, and more time enjoying the game.

What is the example roll/action you are trying please?

[Bloodright]

What is the example roll/action you are trying please?


any of the class features, some of the cantrips.. "Reactive armor" for example. there was no coding at all for it. many of the Feats are done manually, when you can have them applied like always on self buffs.. etc.. many many examples.. you just have to look and ask.. can i automate this?

[Bloodright]

you can actually have it pop up with a inquiry when an engineer is created, asking if they want Exocortex or Drone.. then it will populate that path from there on for the class. I REALLY want this to work.. I want to have so much fun with this, but I can't hand this incomplete product to 5 friends that are not familiar with the system and get them to enjoy it, after playing on the DnD 5e system with FG.

[Andraax]

It's a Pathfinder product, not a 5e product. It will probably never have the level of automation of the 5e ruleset.

[Bloodright]

25799

this is an example of what i am talking about.. i have in the action tab, racial/class/feats/spells all on one page for my players.. buttons to trigger the actions and provide results.. calculations are done..

[Bloodright]

It's a Pathfinder product, not a 5e product. It will probably never have the level of automation of the 5e ruleset.

But it can, if they would just open up the actions tab a bit more.. why restrict, just because that is always the way you did it before?

[Andraax]

But it can, if they would just open up the actions tab a bit more.. why restrict, just because that is always the way you did it before?

Are you volunteering to write the new code?

[Bloodright]

If I could , I would. But, I don't have the time, and they wont be able to pay me as much as I make now.

[Bloodright]

As you can see. I am not here just complaining. I am trying to find solutions. Offering suggestions. I am committed to playing this, because I see what it can be.

[damned]

Hi Bloodright - could you please post an example of your 1d6 roll in Starfinder that should be a 3d6?

[Andraax]

Since Pathfinder is a small part of Smiteworks market, and Starfinder an even smaller part of that market, it's not likely they will invest the time to bring the large amount of automation from 5e to Starfinder. They may not even be allowed to do so, under their license for 5e (though that is purely speculation on my part). You're talking about hundreds of hours at a minimum.

[Bloodright]

Hi Bloodright - could you please post an example of your 1d6 roll in Starfinder that should be a 3d6?

You are getting to literal. The statement was a metaphor

[Bloodright]

Since Pathfinder is a small part of Smiteworks market, and Starfinder an even smaller part of that market, it's not likely they will invest the time to bring the large amount of automation from 5e to Starfinder. They may not even be allowed to do so, under their license for 5e (though that is purely speculation on my part). You're talking about hundreds of hours at a minimum.

I am the customer, you are a customer. Any company will strive to keep a customer happy. If I start complaining about a lack of quality in the product, they have three choices. Fix it, Ignore me, or drop the product.

The product is mostly complete. It needs tweaks and some modifications that I stated before.

To ignore the customer could be like shooting themselves in the foot. I would then be forced to complain more to the masses and try to help other would be customers from experiencing a bad product.

To drop the product, would also be detrimental, as customers will see this as a failure in the ability of the company, and they would lose faith in their ability for future products.

I am not here to strong arm the company, but as a customer, there is an expectation of quality with any product you purchase.

[Andraax]

If there are bugs, they should be reported on the appropriate forum thread (or start one if it's not been reported yet). If you have feature additions that you would like to see, those should be added to the wishlist (https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/). If those feature requests are already there, you should add your vote so Smiteworks knows it's important for you.

[damned]

You are getting to literal. The statement was a metaphor

Hi Bloodright - every ruleset works differently to some extent. Some to a large extent. Im asking for the specific example because it may be something that works but works differently and once we understand what it is we can learn to do it the way it works in this ruleset.

[Bloodright]

If there are bugs, they should be reported on the appropriate forum thread (or start one if it's not been reported yet). If you have feature additions that you would like to see, those should be added to the wishlist (https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/). If those feature requests are already there, you should add your vote so Smiteworks knows it's important for you.

I plan to, I just picked this up no more than 2 days ago. I will put together a list of items that needs to be addressed in level of severity, then I will offer solutions to these items that I would use. Up to them.

I am still learning the game system, so I am taking my time with this.

[Bloodright]

Hi Bloodright - every ruleset works differently to some extent. Some to a large extent. Im asking for the specific example because it may be something that works but works differently and once we understand what it is we can learn to do it the way it works in this ruleset.

The issue is, that many of the abilities are not using the FG system to automate very much. All class features, and feats can be automated, all spells, and weapons with special abilities can be automated. The current configuration of this Ruleset on FG, is not utilizing this feature of FG.

[Andraax]

The issue is, that many of the abilities are not using the FG system to automate very much. All class features, and feats can be automated, all spells, and weapons with special abilities can be automated. The current configuration of this Ruleset on FG, is not utilizing this feature of FG.

Pretty much only 5e has that automation. This ruleset is not built on top of 5e.

[Bloodright]

Pretty much only 5e has that automation. This ruleset is not built on top of 5e.

this i understand, but with one change, one.. you can do so much more. open up ability as an action item, then you can do so much more.

[Bloodright]

I am not asking to change the game Starfinder.. I am asking to change how Starfinder works on FG,.

[Andraax]

I am not asking to change the game Starfinder.. I am asking to change how Starfinder works on FG,.

Those features are part of the 5e ruleset. Starfinder is not based on the 5e ruleset, it's based on the 3.5/Pathfinder ruleset. Those features do not exist within the 3.5/Pathfinder ruleset. You can only inherit features of rulesets that are in your chain of inheritance - in this case, it's CoreRPG -> 3.5/Pathfinder -> Starfinder. To get features that are in the 5e ruleset into Starfinder, you would have to re-write the code to work in Starfinder (or put it into 3.5/Pathfinder and inherit it from there).

[damned]

Hi Bloodright,

Fantasy Grounds has a layered environment:

[Common across all newer Rulesets]
There is the Core Engine which does all the graphic rendering and dice physics and file management.
On top of that there is (typically but not always) CoreRPG which adds a lot of the Windowing, Lists and Basic Campaign management - all generic.
[Specific to each Ruleset]
Then on top of that is the ruleset that has been coded for the specific RPG system.
And then interacting with all of that is Content laid out in a specific format for that ruleset. A lot of content fields are generic - story and maps mostly, but things like NPCs, spells, items etc have formats that are specific to that ruleset.

The specific ruleset is where almost ALL the stuff to do with that specific game system resides. Code that is in the 5E ruleset is not in the Pathfinder or Starfinder rulesets and just sitting there waiting to be unlocked.
The code is in most cases fully or largely unique to that ruleset.
The Powers/Actions was written for the 5E ruleset by a different developer to the Starfinder ruleset and doesnt exist in the Starfinder ruleset.
Even if someone were to code it in it would not work with all the existing DLC and existing campaign data because of the structure and format differences.

I hope that adds more light and not the other way around!

[Bloodright]

Hi Bloodright,

Fantasy Grounds has a layered environment:

[Common across all newer Rulesets]
There is the Core Engine which does all the graphic rendering and dice physics and file management.
On top of that there is (typically but not always) CoreRPG which adds a lot of the Windowing, Lists and Basic Campaign management - all generic.
[Specific to each Ruleset]
Then on top of that is the ruleset that has been coded for the specific RPG system.
And then interacting with all of that is Content laid out in a specific format for that ruleset. A lot of content fields are generic - story and maps mostly, but things like NPCs, spells, items etc have formats that are specific to that ruleset.

The specific ruleset is where almost ALL the stuff to do with that specific game system resides. Code that is in the 5E ruleset is not in the Pathfinder or Starfinder rulesets and just sitting there waiting to be unlocked.
The code is in most cases fully or largely unique to that ruleset.
The Powers/Actions was written for the 5E ruleset by a different developer to the Starfinder ruleset and doesnt exist in the Starfinder ruleset.
Even if someone were to code it in it would not work with all the existing DLC and existing campaign data because of the structure and format differences.

I hope that adds more light and not the other way around!

it does.. sadly it does, this game will never use all the features of FG. what a waste. so much extra work on the players and the GM.

[damned]

Those features are part of the 5e ruleset. Starfinder is not based on the 5e ruleset, it's based on the 3.5/Pathfinder ruleset. Those features do not exist within the 3.5/Pathfinder ruleset. You can only inherit features of rulesets that are in your chain of inheritance - in this case, it's CoreRPG -> 3.5/Pathfinder -> Starfinder. To get features that are in the 5e ruleset into Starfinder, you would have to re-write the code to work in Starfinder (or put it into 3.5/Pathfinder and inherit it from there).

Starfinder shares a lot of code with Pathfinder but it is not layered on Pathfinder or 3.5E - it is layered only on CoreRPG.

[Bloodright]

Starfinder shares a lot of code with Pathfinder but it is not layered on Pathfinder or 3.5E - it is layered only on CoreRPG.

LOL, so who at Paizo do i need to poke in the eye to fix this hot mess?

[damned]

it does.. sadly it does, this game will never use all the features of FG. what a waste. so much extra work on the players and the GM.

There may however be better/different ways of doing things than what you are currently doing.
I dont play/run StarFinder so I wont be able to advise you on them - but if you post some specific examples others may be able to confirm that you are doing it right or if there are other ways that may work better for you.
Either way - it will be different to 5E.

The community rulesets for AD&D and to a slightly lesser extent DCC use a lot of 5E code but others do not.
There are many reasons for that - different developers, different techniques that have improved over time, different APIs opened up over time, developers learning from past projects, different capabilities of different programmers, different interpretations by developers of what is the best (best from a combination of coding, rules interpretation and ui), and other things...

SmiteWorks develop the Engine (well the engine is the engine but their compiled engine) and CoreRPG.
They also do 3.5E (no DLC), PathFinder, 4E (no DLC) and 5E.
And there is significant differences in how each of 3.5E/Pathfinder and 4E and 5E work - even though its the same developer - that is probably mostly due to better ideas, coding, interface options that have developed along the way, and not insignificantly the fact that 5E outsells, outplays, outeverythings, every other system combined 2:1 - thats not just on Fantasy Grounds, thats across the industry. So 5E is likely to always be the best supported system. Its also not nearly as complex an RPG as Pathfinder/Starfinder which is a significant factor.

All the other rulesets are by external developers. These are typically niche systems with sales vastly dwarfed by 5E's which makes it much harder to justify spending equivalent amounts of programming time etc.

[damned]

LOL, so who at Paizo do i need to poke in the eye to fix this hot mess?

No one. It doesnt really have anything to do with Paizo.
Pathfinder is easily the second most popular RPG played on Fantasy Grounds and most PF groups are really happy with it.
Its not 5E - its much more complex than 5E - it started way before 5E on FG so it has a much longer time span of code having been written for it and so contains some older stuff and some newer stuff.

Pathfinder 2 is in development - you have a beta copy on your system - and it will likely be much closer to 5E in terms of features but will not be 5E as the game systems are different, the rules are different, the way characters are built and evolved is different.

Starfinder is much smaller than Pathfinder again in terms of games played, units sold etc. And it is more complex than Pathfinder. My limited exposure to Starfinder suggests that it is actually pretty good - bar the absence of Starship combat.

[Bloodright]

There may however be better/different ways of doing things than what you are currently doing.
I dont play/run StarFinder so I wont be able to advise you on them - but if you post some specific examples others may be able to confirm that you are doing it right or if there are other ways that may work better for you.
Either way - it will be different to 5E.

The community rulesets for AD&D and to a slightly lesser extent DCC use a lot of 5E code but others do not.
There are many reasons for that - different developers, different techniques that have improved over time, different APIs opened up over time, developers learning from past projects, different capabilities of different programmers, different interpretations by developers of what is the best (best from a combination of coding, rules interpretation and ui), and other things...

SmiteWorks develop the Engine (well the engine is the engine but their compiled engine) and CoreRPG.
They also do 3.5E (no DLC), PathFinder, 4E (no DLC) and 5E.
And there is significant differences in how each of 3.5E/Pathfinder and 4E and 5E work - even though its the same developer - that is probably mostly due to better ideas, coding, interface options that have developed along the way, and not insignificantly the fact that 5E outsells, outplays, outeverythings, every other system combined 2:1 - thats not just on Fantasy Grounds, thats across the industry. So 5E is likely to always be the best supported system. Its also not nearly as complex an RPG as Pathfinder/Starfinder which is a significant factor.

All the other rulesets are by external developers. These are typically niche systems with sales vastly dwarfed by 5E's which makes it much harder to justify spending equivalent amounts of programming time etc.

thanks for taking the time to explain this out to me. I was looking at all the rulesets using the FG Corerpg and they just tailored the UI and content to the game, but what you have said, is that they modified this ruleset from the corerpg, and they didn't include these functions.

[damned]

thanks for taking the time to explain this out to me. I was looking at all the rulesets using the FG Corerpg and they just tailored the UI and content to the game, but what you have said, is that they modified this ruleset from the corerpg, and they didn't include these functions.

Hah. It is confusing.

Ive been involved in 4 rulesets -
Maelstrom (community)
Barbarians of Lemuria (commercial)
Call of Cthulhu 7e (commercial)
MoreCore (community)

and they all differ in many, many ways...
from my perspective they differ heavily because of very different game mechanics and then because of learning new ways to do stuff

[Bloodright]

once i get some time to learn the system, i might start building a few things to help out. any reason why they went with spells like Fear I or level 1, Fear II, etc.. format? there are alot of duplication with the mystic spells, so i was not sure, if it was meant to be like that, or they just coded the different levels of the spells to make it easier.. or harder.. depending on your take of it.. LOL

[Trenloe]

25799

this is an example of what i am talking about.. i have in the action tab, racial/class/feats/spells all on one page for my players.. buttons to trigger the actions and provide results.. calculations are done..
I'm confused.

A lot of what you show here is *not* automatically created when you drag/drop a race/background/class etc. to a PC. Did you manually create a lot of these entries yourself, or drag/drop these from community developed reference PCs?

Assuming you manually created a lot of these yourself - you can do this in Starfinder. You just need to stop thinking that a "Spell Class" is just for spells. As has been mentioned already, you can create a new "spell" class in a Starfinder PC and call it anything you want - it is not limited to just spells. Just like you click the "Create Power" star icon in 5E to create a new section to add abilities etc., in Starfinder click the same star icon to create a new section to add abilities etc. - a number to one of the level slots (e.g. type "1" in the level 0 field) and you can then add powers/abilities etc. just like you would in 5E. It's one extra step, but you can fill out a PC in a very similar way to what you show

[Bloodright]

I'm confused.

A lot of what you show here is *not* automatically created when you drag/drop a race/background/class etc. to a PC. Did you manually create a lot of these entries yourself, or drag/drop these from community developed reference PCs?

Assuming you manually created a lot of these yourself - you can do this in Starfinder. You just need to stop thinking that a "Spell Class" is just for spells. As has been mentioned already, you can create a new "spell" class in a Starfinder PC and call it anything you want - it is not limited to just spells. Just like you click the "Create Power" star icon in 5E to create a new section to add abilities etc., in Starfinder click the same star icon to create a new section to add abilities etc. - a number to one of the level slots (e.g. type "1" in the level 0 field) and you can then add powers/abilities etc. just like you would in 5E. It's one extra step, but you can fill out a PC in a very similar way to what you show

some were just dragged over from the character Abilities tab, which Starfinder will not allow you to do. It just makes things more complicated by making them all spells. then you have other factors you have to deal with, such as spell preparations.. Now that damned was able to make me see the full limitations that I am facing. I will now be able to figure out some form of path to reach what i want.

[Trenloe]

It just makes things more complicated by making them all spells.
Try to shift your thinking. Don't think of them as spells, just think of them as powers/abilities/whatever.

To expand on what has been discussed in this thread: abilities etc. aren't "coded" intrinsically. Most text in 5E abilities/feats/spells/etc. follows a very repeatable format. This allows the 5E ruleset to parse that text when it is added to the actions tab, or when the right-click "reparse spell actions" menu option is selected.

The issue with Pathfinder, Startfinder, Pathfinder 2, and many other RPGs is that they don't follow a repeatable format for things like this. The FG Starfinder ruleset tries to do some parsing of spell/ability text in the actions tab, but this can sometimes have limited results as Paizo don't follow a fixed format to describe the mechanics in the descriptive text. For example, if I create an ability on the actions tab and use a Description of "The target is confused" and then right-click on the ability and select "Reparse spell actions" then a cast action will be added and also a "Confused" effect action. But this is a simple example that works. More complex ability descriptions may have limited results in parsing out the correct FG actions.

Whereas the 5E ruleset appears to have all of it's abilities/feats/spells/etc. "coded" in FG, that is not actually the case. There is no FG effect/action code embedded in the FG data. It is just that the descriptive text is repeatable and so it's possible to write relatively straightforward parsing code in the 5E ruleset to extract FG action data from the descriptive text.

So, what can be done to improve this in the Starfinder ruleset? Some thoughts... This is just me thinking out loud.
- Add another option other than "spells" to the actions tab. This is more just a naming convention to get people away from thinking that actions are just for spells. I've done this in the Pathfinder 2 Playtest ruleset - basically hidden the spell specific fields in the spell class and called it powers. It's the same thing as spells, just used in a different way.
- Allow FG data records other than spells to be dragged to the actions tab, and treat them appropriately. As mentioned above - this can all be done manually now. It just short-cuts a little bit of right-clicking. The main issue will still be that FG will be limited in what FG action/effect data it can parse out of the descriptive text.
- Look at fine tuning the current parsing of descriptive text - to try and improve the FG actions/effects created. This will never, ever result in close to a 100% match, as that is just not possible due to the wide range of descriptive text formats used to essentially represent the same underlying game mechanic.

If you think these are a good idea, then I'd recommend adding them to the FG wishlist so the devs can track them.

In the meantime, as has already been mentioned in this thread, all of the above can be done in the current FG Starfinder ruleset in the actions tab. Maybe the community can start putting together some dummy PCs with drag/drop abilities - like Zacchaeus created for 5E here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?27296-Guides-videos-and-other-helpful-information Or something similar to assist in adding frequently used abilities to the PC actions tab. Because, as has been mentioned, this is another area where 5E excels - FG community content to help GMs and Players automate some aspects of the game.

[Samarex]

once i get some time to learn the system, i might start building a few things to help out. any reason why they went with spells like Fear I or level 1, Fear II, etc.. format? there are alot of duplication with the mystic spells, so i was not sure, if it was meant to be like that, or they just coded the different levels of the spells to make it easier.. or harder.. depending on your take of it.. LOL

Yes, I broke out the spells in that way so that when dropped in your action tab the damage for that level would apply. With using 1 spell and having all the 6 levels in the text you end up with all six damage settings.
This again as said earlier was my interpretation of what would be best. And if there are things I have set in place that can use improvment by all means let me know and I do what I can to make the ruleset as simple as possable.