Calth's page

Late to the party, but its probably a good idea for when the Campaign Clarifications come out for this to put a note for the studied target ability for the spawn slayer that the size category boosts don't stack with each other. Because as written they do, since each is phrased "at level X, if target is size Y or larger, add an additional Z". So a Colossal target, at level 20, would gain the boosts for large, huge, gargantuan, and colossal since they are "Y size or larger" for all of the boosts.

I am more upset, with regards to skills at least, about how much emphasis is now on attributes rather than ranks. With this system, if they are shooting for a variation of ~20 for bonuses, at least half of that is coming from attribute scores. And that half is twice as much as training effects the variation, +10 vs +5 at level 20. In the current system, you can still be amazing in skills that are your dump stat, as shown by the 8 Cha intimidate builds Ive run multiple times. That doesnt seem viable with the system as presented here.

I mean, its the same for all the proficiency systems were proficiency is half as important as attribute, but I am much more okay with that for spells/defenses/BAB than skills. Which is the drawback of a one size fits all system for so many game statistics.

Thanks for laying all that out, Thune. It's very clear.

I wasn't thinking of Spell Combat, though. What I'd imagined would look something like this:

Declare Spellstrike
Make free melee attack at full BAB against Target A while casting Blade Lash
Use Blade Lash to trip Target B at +10
End Round

If a GM accepted that action (based on the fact that Blade Lash has a range of touch, and should therefore be Spellstrikeable), then a player could incorporate that sequence of actions INTO a Spell Combat attack, thereby getting to cast another spell in the bargain.

But...as I'm explaining it all, I can imagine how I'd respond as a GM if a player tried that out on me. I don't think I'd buy it.

You are misunderstanding how Spellstrike and normal free touch attacks from spells work, as well as target of the Blade Lash spell. When you cast a touch spell, you get a free touch attack to touch the target of the spell, not any random creature. Spellstrike lets you swap that touch attack for a melee weapon attack, but it still has to be the target of the spell. And for Blade Lash the target that would be touched is one of your equipped melee weapons. So any attacks made per Spellstrike for Blade Lash have to be against one of your own wielded weapons.

I have seen the idea that alchemists are not spellcasters, steictly speaking, and there for cannot take feats with a caster level pq. You might want to check which side of that your GM is on.

A bit late to the party, but there is a FAQ that explicitly states that Alchemists aren't spellcasters and cant take magic item crafting feats. Its not really just an idea.

Alchemist: Is an alchemist a spellcaster for the purpose of crafting magic items other than potions?
As written, no, alchemists are not spellcasters, and therefore can't select feats such as Craft Wondrous Item.
The design team is aware that this creates some thematic problems with the idea of an alchemist creating golems and so on, and plan to examine this in the future.

Here is the relevant FAQ confirming what everyone has said.

Bloodrager Bloodlines: Can a bloodrager use abilities that require sorcerer levels and relate to sorcerer bloodlines like robe of arcane heritage?
No. Some hybrid classes, like the brawler, have a class feature allowing them to use items related to their parent class, but the bloodrager doesn’t.

Material composition of creatures is one of those issues that some game elements assume is well defined when it really isn't. RAW produces some really wonky results, so basically its down to whatever the GM decides it does.

Unless you want the marionettes to last only 14 rounds not including awaken construct casting time, you are missing a 15k gp material cost permanency per object. So yes, awaken object does create constructs, but only for the spell duration, and it wont do you much good with regards to awaken construct due to the short duration. Including permanency for animate objects for the staff is 771k gp / number of charges minus about 2k for reducing lower level spell cost.

Please cancel this order along with my Starfinder subscription.

Calth wrote:

Caleb Garofalo wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I really do wish Paizo would make rulings on 4 armed creatures.

There are several four-armed creatures in the Bestiaries, and the Kasatha is even so affluent that it became core in Starfinder. You'd think there would be something out there telling us GMs what to do when the Xill picks up 2 two-handed weapons.

My gut is that wielding 2 two-handed weapons, is treated as wielding 2 one-handed (non-light) weapons.

If my gut is right, in the chart the greatswords should be treated as the longsword entry, and the greatsword entry is wrong.

But this is just my gut, I need to know where I can find rules on it.

There are no rules for dealing with manufactured weapon attacks for PCs with more than 2 arms. So by RAW, adding arms does not allow a PC to do anything with manufactured weapons that a 2 armed PC cannot do (ignoring the ability to physical hold additional items). A lot of people don't like this, but its basically all house rules on how to deal with it.

PC'd and NPC's don't have different rules. If a PC has the same abilities on it's character sheet then it can do the same thing.

Then they can go redo the NPCs to make them work correctly since, again, there is no rule equating arms to attacks. All saying PCs and NPCs must work the same(and theres evidence from NPC design guidelines that they don't as in explicit design team guidance that NPCs can do things PCs cant if it fits) does is make the NPCs broken.

Here

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

No, you cant stack it. Spells don't stack with themselves unless they specifically state that they do or provide multiple separate effects. Sands of time has a single effect, so recasting it would only refresh the duration.

This argument only applies to a character attempting to use more than two weapons, though

A four-armed character can wield a weapon in each hand. Whether they can attack with all four, or only two of them, isn't the issue here
The issue is whether a four-armed character can wield a two-handed weapon in each pair of hands, and dual-wield in that manner.
No extra attacks, just bigger weapons.

Again, that's not true. You can't twf with two-handed weapons because you don't have the action economy to do so. Using a two-handed weapon consumes a set of off-hand attack action economy, and PCs only get 1 set of off-hand attacks, so they can only use one two-handed weapon. I'm ignoring swapping physical weapons as that complicates the issue without providing any meaningful information.

Calth wrote:

There are no rules for dealing with manufactured weapon attacks for PCs with more than 2 arms. So by RAW, adding arms does not allow a PC to do anything with manufactured weapons that a 2 armed PC cannot do (ignoring the ability to physical hold additional items). A lot of people don't like this, but its basically all house rules on how to deal with it.

You say adding arms, are you sure this applies to the Kasatha? They have 4 arms by default. I feel like what you're talking about refers to Vestigial arms that have specific wording about what they can and cannot do.

The rules assume a two armed PC implicitly. Adding arms, even by race choice such as Kasatha, doesn't do anything with regard to manufactured weapon attacks because no rules exist that says they do. It doesn't matter where you get them from generally. Vestigial arms have their own separate restrictions beyond those of other arms. Arms let you hold weapons, but there is no rule that says they give PCs attacks. And this includes calling an arm an off-hand, which isn't really that informative. PCs can have many more off-hands than available off-hand attacks (which is governed by the two-weapon fighting rule and feat line).

Some people think that since the rules state that two armed characters get two attacks, more arms get more attacks, and some bestiary creatures do follow this. But no actual rule exists that says so.

wraithstrike wrote:

I really do wish Paizo would make rulings on 4 armed creatures.

There are several four-armed creatures in the Bestiaries, and the Kasatha is even so affluent that it became core in Starfinder. You'd think there would be something out there telling us GMs what to do when the Xill picks up 2 two-handed weapons.

My gut is that wielding 2 two-handed weapons, is treated as wielding 2 one-handed (non-light) weapons.

If my gut is right, in the chart the greatswords should be treated as the longsword entry, and the greatsword entry is wrong.

But this is just my gut, I need to know where I can find rules on it.

There are no rules for dealing with manufactured weapon attacks for PCs with more than 2 arms. So by RAW, adding arms does not allow a PC to do anything with manufactured weapons that a 2 armed PC cannot do (ignoring the ability to physical hold additional items). A lot of people don't like this, but its basically all house rules on how to deal with it.

Calth wrote:

Cevah wrote:

Beware this FAQ:

FAQ is irrelevant because the character isn't using touch attacks. Or full-attacking.

MrCharisma wrote:

If I cast Frostbite and attack Orc A, would I be able to discharge all 5 of my charges of frostbite to affect all 5 orcs since they all took a hit from my Arcane Strike damage?

The OP is clearly trying to get multiple attacks.

/cevah

Still irrelevant. The FAQ has literally nothing to do with his question.

No.

Beware this FAQ:

Quote:

Touch Spells: In the Magic and Combat chapters, it says that I can touch a single ally as a standard action or up to six allies as a full-round action and that I can combine delivering a touch spell with a natural attack or unarmed strike. But what if I just want to deliver the touch spell to an enemy? It just says I can do it “round after round.”

Making a touch attack against an enemy by touching it, beyond the free action to do so as part of casting the spell, is a standard action. It can’t be used with a full attack.

It can’t be used with a full attack.

This nerfs the utility of multitouch spells for attacking.

/cevah

FAQ is irrelevant because the character isn't using touch attacks. Or full-attacking.

Belts of Giant Strength only go up to +6.

But there are many ways to build up your character's strength with or without these belts. The key question is which of these methods give the best benefits for their cost.

It was more that +2 strength or so over the belt isn't really worth 3 feats worth of investment along with a specific deity choice. Orc bloodline at least gets you a more expensive/rarer bonus type. I mean, a +1 tome costs more than adding +6 str enhancement to any belt. If I was going to spend 3 feats, I cant imagine going this route over the orc route.

I guess you can consider both, but even then 3 feats and a daily 4th level spell is a lot for basically 1.5ish feats worth of benefit and 54k gold max.

Cant really see any benefit of going this path over Orc bloodline. Unless you aren't going to ever buy a strength belt, which is unlikely because dispels are a thing and the combo doesn't come online til mid-levels.

You can get it for rays (but not for other spells), according to a source that is official as it gets:

Weapon Focus wrote:

Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

No leaning about it.

It might help to look at the Starfinder feat and not the Pathfinder feat.

I'd lean no. Rays is for sure a no, since rays don't have special rules in Starfinder.

Handing out a bigger ship works well at the start of a campaign -- but I was thinking more of what to do when the party size increases unexpectedly between sessions. At that point, they already have a ship, and we have used up enough time creating or leveling up characters and thus I want to get them into the action with no further delay.

I guess I was mostly looking for ideas for what the extra people can do on a ship not designed to have that many crew. I suppose I could have the new players operate allied fighter craft that show up to help out the PCs if I have already set up the session to start with a space battle.

The rules regarding larger than 6 crew for PCs are basically non-existent at this point. Which is both bad for higher levels with larger ships and larger parties. There are rules for adjusting CR for multiple player ships, so that might work, but the rules also state to keep the tier of all ships pretty close.

Hacker Operative:
Better Group combat utility
Better general skill monkey
Hacks at double speed
50% to not trigger countermeasures

Exocortex Mechanic
Built in hacking kit
Can hack at range
Automatically removes one countermeasure
Not as good generally at skills
Less group combat utility
Unique Starship engineering abilities
Remote access to starship libraries/piloting
Knows all countermeasures that activate when failed hacking, can make check to make one not trigger
computer trapfinding
exocortex can hack on its own, but cant use that and combat boost until level 15

To summarize, operatives are probably better overall, but exocortex mechanics are probably the best at hacking.

Disclaimer: Not a huge fan of the exocortex mechanic, that all of its special abilities don't work together until very late levels is huge issue to me.

Well. I haven't seen this thread yet, so please forgive me if I am beating the metaphorical dead horse, but it seems like Paizo managed to demonstrate the writers have no sense of scale.

I ran the numbers on a colossal ship and believe I did it right.

Colossal Ship: Length over 15,000 feet, Weight Over 8,000 tons

Smallest colossal ship:
Length: Feet: 15,000
Meters: 4572
Assume: Width = 400 meters, Shape is a cylinder
(Note: This thing would look narrow like a pencil)
Volume = (3.14) (R^2)(h) = 3.14 * 200 * 200 * 4572 = 5.74 * 10^8 cubic meters

How does 8,000 tons stack up?
Density of Air at 1 atmosphere: 1.225 kg / cubic meter at 15 degrees C
Weight of air: 7.03 * 10^8 kg
Convert to tons: ~775,000 tons

Density of Water at 4 degrees C: 1,000 kg / cubic meter
Weight of that much water: 5.74 * 10^11 kg
Convert to tons: 633 million

For more fun: the USS Enterprise (the real ship) was 1123 feet long, had a beam (max width) of 132 feet, and weighed 93,000 tons.

In other words, they are technically correct that it is over 8,000 tons.

The math for the ships one size category down is even funnier, because it literally seems to say the ships are mostly vacuum. It would be the only way those weights and lengths would work.

Yeah, this is about the 10th time its come up, and its a known error at this point that is going to be fixed.

Honestly if my players want to chase down a dragon with their ship, I'll likely take a few minutes to stat the dragon up as s ship and go from there.

Starship scale creatures are currently planned for future releases, might even have gotten into Alien Archive if I remember the interview right.

I think a Fighter can get more than anyone else. Taking Advance Armor Training and Weapon Training, he can grab Acrobatics, Bluff, Disguise, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Knowledge (Engineering), Ride, and Swim.

Thats 2 + int + 8 from weapon training. Plus another 1-3 depending on what weapon you use.

11 (int) + 2 (class) + 7 (advance armor) + 2 (advance weapon) + 1 (human skilled) + 1 cunning + 1 favored class bonus.

25 skill ranks for a stupidly int fighter. This doesn't include Profession (soldier) from Adaptable Training or Craft (Armor) from Master Armorer. That could be 27 if those skills are important.

You are underestimating the fighter a little bit in your calculations a bit. You can get a full 12 skill ranks from advanced weapon training and armor training. Armor Training has 9 ranks to choose 8 from due to 4 max limit on adaptable training, so don't take bluff or intimidate there. Take either bluff or intimidate with your first versatile AWT leaves you three skills to pick up, which is pretty easy. Close/bows gets you stealth, sense motive, and perception. Master Armorer AAT is another 1 skill. So that's 2 feats minimum for the extra AAT but that's not a big deal for a fighter.

You then VMC bard to pick up a bunch of general skill boosts and one versatile performance and pick perform(wind). You can fudge around weapon groups and versatile performance but its not too hard to get up to 14 ranks from those.

So 2 class + 9 AAT + 4 AWT + 2 VMC Bard +1 human +1 cunning +1 FCB = 20 skills with 10 intelligence. Start with 20 + 5 level ups + 5 from wishes + 6 enhancement +2 profane gets you to 38 intelligence and 14 more skill points to 34 a level. Old age for that last +2 to Int gets you 35 skill points a level. Probably other tricks to get a +2 int. Mantle of immortality makes age penalties pretty irrelevant anyways. Background skills lets you drop both the profane bonus and old age, or keep the profane bonus and drop the starting Int down to an 18.

This is probably the last thing the devs thought people would complain about...

They're not mathematicians so they're not held to the same standards. It isn't a book of formulae, it is a roleplaying game. It's not wrong its just different.

Kind've like how for precise calculations I will use metric since that's easier, but I estimate in imperial since that's easier (for me) to visualize. Context matters.

Except there are formulas in the book, which is generally the source of the complaint. Its completely counterintuitive to utilize that notation in a formula for no real reason besides carry over form previous products. Most people familiar with math notation are not going to see "1-1/2 x 2" and get 3 on the first go. The only reason I know is that Pathfinder basically never writes subtraction into its formulas, but that's not something someone new to RPGs is going to know. If its a source confusion that serves no legitimate purpose, it was a mistake. Not a major mistake, but one nonetheless.

Calth wrote:

Squeakmaan wrote:

rknop wrote:

...and, no, nothing's going to convince me that writing a subtraction where you don't want to subtract is correct.

Except that's quite clearly not what they did, you briefly misread something, happens to all of us now and again. It's an incredibly common form of writing 1.5. It's taught in schools, it's taught in technical programs, it's used very often in construction, engineering, and a host of other trades. We get that you were unfamiliar with its usage, that does not make it wrong.

Wasn't taught in any engineering course I took, as that's mixed notation and would have been marked incorrect. Ive never seen it used in the context of equations outside of Pathfinder (I have seen 1-1/2 as a measurement notation but that's not an equation). "1 1/2" (while bad its not as bad), "1.5", "3/2" are all better than "1-1/2". And I find it hard to believe anyone that actually works meaningfully with equations would approve of the notation.

I see it every day at my job, when the engineers write paperwork, they always use fractions because that's what the mechanics are trained to read. They don't say use the 1.75 in. wrench they say use the 1-3/4 in. wrench.

That's... not engineering. That's specifying a part size. They aren't using that terminology for equations.

I would be hesitant to even use the times ten rule for conversion, as the starship battle damage rules are very gamey. Basically, damage scaling with ship size scaling makes no sense beyond being coherent game rules for a fairly tight level curve covering huge size disparities. (The worst damage weapon does about 1% of the damage of the best damage weapon, which barely makes sense in terms of weapons technology for ships of identical size rather than ships with thousand fold size differences.)

rknop wrote:

...and, no, nothing's going to convince me that writing a subtraction where you don't want to subtract is correct.

Except that's quite clearly not what they did, you briefly misread something, happens to all of us now and again. It's an incredibly common form of writing 1.5. It's taught in schools, it's taught in technical programs, it's used very often in construction, engineering, and a host of other trades. We get that you were unfamiliar with its usage, that does not make it wrong.

Wasn't taught in any engineering course I took, as that's mixed notation and would have been marked incorrect. Ive never seen it used in the context of equations outside of Pathfinder (I have seen 1-1/2 as a measurement notation but that's not an equation). "1 1/2" (while bad its not as bad), "1.5", "3/2" are all better than "1-1/2". And I find it hard to believe anyone that actually works meaningfully with equations would approve of the notation.

Crew size does affect how many ship actions can be taken, so it does matter whether you have 1 or 2 NPC gunners (assuming that you have 2+ shipboard weapons).

That's not a function of crew size, but a function of number of officers. Which is an issue because that seems arbitrary. But a gunner with no crew members and a gunner with 30 crew members function identically.

Couple things. First, the crew talk for NPCs is meaningless. Crew size is fluff and doesn't help the NPC skills. NPC bonuses are a function of tier not crew size. (There is correlating as ship size is a function of tier and crew size is a function of size, but that's not a causitive relationship.) Second, I would disagree that operatives edge and similar passive bonuses don't apply. I see that rule as trying to prevent mixing character action economy and starship actions economy. So while the DC scaling are an issue, they are an equivalent issue for PCs and NPCs.

This seems a lot of effort for deciding which of two of the worst tier 4/high tier 5 classes is actually worse than the other.

A lot of the push back against the criticism is coming from the way its presented. The way its presented makes a big deal.

For example look at these two criticisms of the same feature:

One: I am concerned that the exocortex mechanic is going to be inferior to the drone mechanic generally. Gaining longarm proficiency and specialization is nice, but that's really just two feats. Heavy Armor proficiency doesn't seem to be that useful, since mechanics will outdex heavy armor and basically maxdex light armor giving basically the same AC. A skill focus going to your third most important skill and a limited once a day reroll is nothing special. This leaves the attack boost and the autonomous hacking as the big things of the exocortex. The issue is that I don't see the attack boost matching the damage output of a drone and the hacking matching the remote scouting/hacking the drone can do. The final feature of a limited number of mods is mostly covered by equipment, and the option of getting heavy weapons proficiency doesn't seem great unless you end up with unusually high strength on a mechanic. All in all, I find it hard to find a niche where the exocortex mechanic comes out ahead of the drone mechanic unless you absolutely have to be the best hacker at the cost of everything else.

Two: The exocortex mechanic is literally unplayable. It just sucks so much compared to the drone that theres no point taking it. Theres nothing going for it and it shouldn't be wasting space in the book.

Pretty sure option one is going to go over better than option two, and Ive seen a lot of option two presented in this thread.

Mechanics are the best engineers.

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Envoy """capstone""" is hilariously bad.

It increases the average value of your inspiration dice by 0.5 and pretty much nothing else...
This is the most underwhelming class capstone I've ever seen in my life.

That's also not the main portion of the capstone, that's the secondary effect. The main capstone is the Resolve cost reduction to an improvisation.

For only one improvisation, which is really bad. Especially as there are no improvisations whatsoever after level 8, so you can't even choose something cool and high level for it.

Its not really bad. Don't Quit is a major example. It sucks without spending a resolve point and is strong when using one.

It's an extremely situational ability. At the absolute most, you'll use it what, 3-4 times a day? Keep in mind that you're looking at about 20 resolve points total at level 20.

I think you are underestimating what a Starfinder combat day is going to be like. And I wouldn't call an ability to remove basically every non poison/disease/curse condition extremely situational. And saving 3-4 resolve points is a big deal.

You're exaggerating what the ability does. It removes one condition of your choice, at the opportunity cost of a standard action, meaning you can't really do anything else that turn, which is quite the opportunity cost.

And the envoy spending a standard action to remove a multi-turn stun/paralysis/fear effect from the soldier for example is a huge net win for the action economy.

Improved Hurry is another good option for certain playstyles, if someone wants to play pure support.

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Envoy """capstone""" is hilariously bad.

It increases the average value of your inspiration dice by 0.5 and pretty much nothing else...
This is the most underwhelming class capstone I've ever seen in my life.

That's also not the main portion of the capstone, that's the secondary effect. The main capstone is the Resolve cost reduction to an improvisation.

For only one improvisation, which is really bad. Especially as there are no improvisations whatsoever after level 8, so you can't even choose something cool and high level for it.

Its not really bad. Don't Quit is a major example. It sucks without spending a resolve point and is strong when using one.

It's an extremely situational ability. At the absolute most, you'll use it what, 3-4 times a day? Keep in mind that you're looking at about 20 resolve points total at level 20.

I think you are underestimating what a Starfinder combat day is going to be like. And I wouldn't call an ability to remove basically every non poison/disease/curse condition extremely situational. And saving 3-4 resolve points is a big deal.

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Envoy """capstone""" is hilariously bad.

It increases the average value of your inspiration dice by 0.5 and pretty much nothing else...
This is the most underwhelming class capstone I've ever seen in my life.

That's also not the main portion of the capstone, that's the secondary effect. The main capstone is the Resolve cost reduction to an improvisation.

For only one improvisation, which is really bad. Especially as there are no improvisations whatsoever after level 8, so you can't even choose something cool and high level for it.

Its not really bad. Don't Quit is a major example. It sucks without spending a resolve point and is strong when using one.

The All-Seeing Orb wrote:

There's a feat that requires 4 or more arms, so is effectively Kasatha exclusive.

Owen has said having 2 cybernetic arms in addition would qualify for it to. :)

The feat is mediocre enough to not worry about. One of the few things I would call a trap option.

Envoy """capstone""" is hilariously bad.

It increases the average value of your inspiration dice by 0.5 and pretty much nothing else...
This is the most underwhelming class capstone I've ever seen in my life.

That's also not the main portion of the capstone, that's the secondary effect. The main capstone is the Resolve cost reduction to an improvisation.

The rules for power armour seem pretty great and I like them a lot.

They are clean, simple, and nice.
The relative scarcity of power armour sets in the CRB is a bit sad, but understandable, and it's something I very much expect future books to expand upon.

The only soldier I really want to play is Power Armored Armor Storm style Soldier. Which isn't really core viable as you said.

You cannot combine Spell Combat with Natural Weapons without the arcana. So without the arcana, he makes his single rapier attack from spell combat and the single rapier attack from spell strike.

If you took Natural Spell Combat(bite) you could then either add the bite to that routine at a -5 attack modifier, or replace the rapier attack from spell combat with the bite attack at no additional modifier. This additional attack would trigger a frostbite charge if you cast before making it.

Natural Spell Combat(claw) is trickier. One claw is out for holding the rapier. You definitely can not use the hand/claw you use to cast the spell to replace the spell combat attack. Expect table variation on whether you could make an additional claw attack at -5. This additional attack would trigger a frostbite charge if you cast before making it.

Mechanic drones seem to have insanely low AC - they can't wear armour and their AC doesn't really scale otherwise.

At high levels they will be something like 20 points behind everyone else. It's silly.

Are you forgetting the base armor that drones get? A level 20 combat drone has ACs of 32/35. A flight drone is 35/35. A level 20 PC is going to be in the 39-41 range.

mussary wrote:

One of the things that caught my eye, and will be sure to trip me up is that charge no longer gives a bonus to hit now its -2 attack and ac.

Are you still required to move in a straight line? Do you still get to move twice your speed?

I always thought charging was a fun tactical threat to put against players, like a charging minotaur. It makes that five foot side step important. Don't let the minotaur have a clear path to you or you are in trouble! It makes that particular combat more tactical, unique, and memorable. So yeah I'm a bit taken back by the negative to hit.

However, if there are charging feats it would present the opportunity for us "chargers" to invest feats and become something more unique! Please tell me there are charging feats...
*Fingers crossed*

No charging feats. Several classes gain the ability to move as part of a full-attack, or negate charge penalties though.

How are stamina points and hit points determined?

You get a set amount of hit points for your race and then by class each level. Stamina is by class+con mod per level. Race HP is 2-6. Class HP and SP values are 5-7. So health pools are generally much larger in Starfinder. (A level 20 technomancer for example is gonna have something like 104 hp and 160 sp. A level 20 soldier would be something like 146 HP and 240 sp)

Calth wrote:

Its not their iconic class feature. Stellar Revelations are their iconic class feature. Solar blade is the equivalent of a Paladins divine bond or the Magus using their arcane pool to enchant their weapon.

Except arcane pool was incredibly good, and this is lackluster at best.

Paladins at least get a lot of good class features to balance the very meh divine bond, wheras Solarians get.... what? Which class feature is very good? Which stellar revelation makes getting a whole bag of 'why bother' worth the trade-off?

Notice I only referred to a specific ability of arcane pool, the ability to enchant a weapon.

As for the overall quality of the Solarian, I cant say I'm confidant its good. But claiming that the weapon manifestation is the cause of this is ridiculous. If the solarian is bad, its because stellar revelations are bad, not because a minor class feature is only ok.

Its not their iconic class feature. Stellar Revelations are their iconic class feature. Solar blade is the equivalent of a Paladins divine bond or the Magus using their arcane pool to enchant their weapon.

Soulknifes are third party.

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Calth wrote:

It's a little better than anything else that's not powered and on par with powered.

I've only now noticed this edit.

Notice how many of the weapons I used in my comparisons are even analog.
For example, the ultrathin curveblade is analog and beats out Solarian by 2.5 damage. It's not even remotely powered.

And there are levels where the solarion weapon is the best available like level 6. Where it has a 4 damage advantage. The granular nature of the solarion weapon means it crisscrosses the 2 hander curve. And not actually requiring 2 hands is still an actual advantage you are ignoring. Switching grips isn't a free action in SF so having a free hand is a legit thing.

One-handed weapons have no advantage in a system with a core 4-armed race and easy to purchase extra arms.

Be this one race with OK stats or wait til level 11 aren't great solutions.

Keep in mind that Solarian doesn't even get anything out of a free hand due to being a melee-exclusive class.

What are you going to do with that free hand? Wield a dagger in it?

Open a door? Manipulate a tool? Hold a grenade? Draw an item? Carry the MacGuffin? Anything that you might want to do with a hand while still being able to actually attack?

And not being able to be disarmed or sundered in anyway is cool too. A secondary class feature that gives you a cheaper, invulnerable, weapon that does roughly the same damage as anything else and requires only one-hand is not bad.

Solarians aren't even proficient in grenades. Soldier is the grenade specialist class, so you're arguing against yourself here.

The other are all fairly rarely useful.
As for disarm and sunder - I really doubt they will be at all common, given that, besides them being unfun and thus generally avoided, combat maneuvers target KAC+8, which is quite the high target.

So they can spend the feats to get proficiency with grenades, its not exactly hard. And I am finding it hard to fathom your argument in total. You claim its worthless. Its not, it has a ton of minor but noticeable benefits. Its like claiming a Paladin's divine bond is bad because it doesn't give you a better weapon than anyone else. This is a secondary class feature, its not going to do a whole ton.

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Calth wrote:

It's a little better than anything else that's not powered and on par with powered.

I've only now noticed this edit.

Notice how many of the weapons I used in my comparisons are even analog.
For example, the ultrathin curveblade is analog and beats out Solarian by 2.5 damage. It's not even remotely powered.

And there are levels where the solarion weapon is the best available like level 6. Where it has a 4 damage advantage. The granular nature of the solarion weapon means it crisscrosses the 2 hander curve. And not actually requiring 2 hands is still an actual advantage you are ignoring. Switching grips isn't a free action in SF so having a free hand is a legit thing.

One-handed weapons have no advantage in a system with a core 4-armed race and easy to purchase extra arms.

Be this one race with OK stats or wait til level 11 aren't great solutions.

Keep in mind that Solarian doesn't even get anything out of a free hand due to being a melee-exclusive class.

What are you going to do with that free hand? Wield a dagger in it?

Open a door? Manipulate a tool? Hold a grenade? Draw an item? Carry the MacGuffin? Anything that you might want to do with a hand while still being able to actually attack?

And not being able to be disarmed or sundered in anyway is cool too. A secondary class feature that gives you a cheaper, invulnerable, weapon that does roughly the same damage as anything else and requires only one-hand is not bad.

Calth wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Calth wrote:

It's a little better than anything else that's not powered and on par with powered.

I've only now noticed this edit.

Notice how many of the weapons I used in my comparisons are even analog.
For example, the ultrathin curveblade is analog and beats out Solarian by 2.5 damage. It's not even remotely powered.

And there are levels where the solarion weapon is the best available like level 6. Where it has a 4 damage advantage. The granular nature of the solarion weapon means it crisscrosses the 2 hander curve. And not actually requiring 2 hands is still an actual advantage you are ignoring. Switching grips isn't a free action in SF so having a free hand is a legit thing.

One-handed weapons have no advantage in a system with a core 4-armed race and easy to purchase extra arms.

Be this one race with OK but non-ideal stats or wait til level 11 aren't great solutions.