|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I don't have any idea what kind of character you like to play, so giving that kind of advice is hard, but Starfinder Forerunner is a really bad choice mechanically for a Solarian, so I'd skip it.
For me personally, I'd probably go Desna or Weydan as a patron and Ace Pilot for theme of the options presented, but that's me and my preferences not you and yours.
Still, I've always found it useful to think through the details of a character's life. Not only where they were born but their family, friends, experiences, education, and life plans. Who is this person as a person?
Was asking more about the pick than the butterfly stinger. I know that's strong, and how strong it is, but was curious about Pick > Rapier, since at the end of the day there's still an outside chance the Lore Warden won't crit, somehow. Didn't know about Piranha Strike adding more static damage.
Ah! Gotcha. Yeah, accuracy was not a problem for that character (there was a Bard in the party...I didn't even add those static damage mods to the example)...so why not go with Piranha Strike?
I'd strongly advise more Dex. Maybe only to the tune of 14 or 15, but it makes a big difference in Pilot and in combat. Personally, I'd go Dex 16, Int 12, Str 9...but that's just personal preference.
Longarm Proficiency (and later Specialization) will also help you out in combat quite a bit doubling your damage eventually. I highly recommend it.
Well, first, with vastly more attacks (the Lore Warden Fighter doing the Butterfly Sting trick had seven attacks most turns by 11th level due to TWF to the Magus's four) that's more crits. And secondly, since you know the crit is sitting on them you can make it always be a spell enhanced attack that crits. That second one is really big.
Thirdly, and the reason for the light pick, Magus can add a whole lot of static damage bonuses, too, if they like. Sure, you only get 20d6 from Shocking Grasp...but 4d4+72 is a much better addition to that than 2d6+36 (assuming 11th level, 5 Enhancement from Arcane Pool + 6 Piranha Strike +7 Dex).
It also saved the Magus some Critical Feats, allowed the entire rest of the party to benefit from the Lore Warden's Crits (just about everyone in melee had x3 weapons), and encouraged everyone to take Outflank (which got ridiculous pretty quick).
You don't actually need a specific Swashbuckler Archetype for a whip, though Mysterious Avenger for Proficiency is very nice. Whips are one-handed slashing weapons and thus available for Slashing Grace.
You just need a way to make the whip deal lethal, of which Whip Mastery is probably best...though that is two Feats. That plus Slashing Grace would be ideal, but you won't get that until 5th level. Though you could get an extra Combat Feat to do it at 5th via Rogue Talent if you wanted.
One level of Mysterious Avenger and then going Archaeologist seems totally reasonable and mechanically effective to me.
The problem with that is that it would be notably better than just about any other Feat. Which is potentially very problematic if you want to keep Feats as options rather than having absolutely mandatory Feat chains.
I'm just about positive this doesn't work. It probably runs up against the 'class abilities don't work in starship combat unless they specifically say so' thing, but even if not, I' don't think you can be said to 'wield' a Starship Weapon on a mechanical level. You certainly fire them. But wield them? No.
I added some Class Skills to Kineticist, Paladin (and thus Antipaladin), and Cavalier, as well as Barbarian (in the form of 'Cultural Ties') and Brawler (adding it back into 'Woman of the World').
Pretty minor stuff.
People talk about how good it feels to roll a bunch of dice, but I think when every character is doing it on most rounds it'll lose its lustre.
Everyone I've ever played with who enjoyed rolling buckets of dice kept doing so even if they got to do it several times a turn. And they did, since I've run Exalted games.
Uh...nothing results in more than 13d12, and 13d12 is only on unwieldy weapons and thus only once a round.
The highest damage you can roll with d12s more than once a round is 9d12.
And, for the record, ignoring unwieldy weapons the highest other options are 12d10, 14d8, and 18d6.
So...they've done as you requested, more or less. The only thing you wind up ever rolling more than 50 of a turn is d6s.
I've gotta say this is one build where a two level dip, specifically in Solarian is actually a really good idea.
Basically because the big problem with a melee Exocortex Mechanic is that melee characters desperately need their Move Actions to actually get into combat...unless they have something special.
The easiest such thing to acquire in terms of how many levels it costs is, indeed, Stellar Rush.
So the build goes like this:
Str 16 Dex 13 Con 10 Int 14 Wis 10 Cha 10 (Dex 15 or Int 16 if you can grab a race that gives bonuses in two of Dex, Int, and Str and a penalty in Wis or Cha...so an Android, of the races available thus far).
Go Mechanic (Exocortex) 1/Solarian 2/Mechanic X.
Your 3rd level Feat is Advanced Melee Weapon Specialization (this is neat because it's not ever a wasted Feat since you're never grabbing the third level of Solarian). Your other Feats are sorta up to you (though Step Up is highly recommended, as is Nimble Moves at 5th).
You wear Heavy Armor and use a Basic Melee Weapon at 1st when the difference is minor, then switch to an Advanced Melee Weapon pretty quick in there. Heck, you might even wind up using Stellar Weapon for a level or two.
Your Solarian dip gives you three very nice things:
1. Stellar Rush. This is why you took the dip. It allows you to use your Exocortex as a Move then charge as a Standard. That's great, and means you effectively get your Exocortex bonus for free against any opponent you have to move to get to.
Your Stellar Weapon or Armor is basically meaningless in the long run, though I'd go Stellar Weapon to have a free flashlight/letter opener, and I suppose a free Advanced Melee Weapon for a couple of levels until you invest in acquiring one.
It is indeed from Deadly Aim. I do not advocate actually taking or using Deadly Aim.
Yeah, Mindbreaker produces damage up the wazoo. Like I said, the reluctance to go with a low Cha race on it is personal as much as practical.
And mechanically, Halfling is probably best, yeah. The combination of good stats and a flat bonus to all Saves is very nice.
Lashunta's low Con isn't the problem (-1 Stm is pretty easily dealt with for the first few levels, heck your Stm+HP is higher than a Halfling's at 1st), it's the fact they get bonuses to neither Dex nor Wis, the two stats best for the build you seem to be aiming for. You can really upgrade a couple of skills to a scary degree with one, though. Those floating +2s...
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
I have too, but again, real world with no gods vs fantasy world with actual gods. If the god doesn't care, it doesn't matter. It's not heretical (as in 'wrong' rather than merely unusual) if the god doesn't care. And again, in a world where gods actually do exist and can literally answer questions, you don't have to have the nonsensical blind faith and 'mysterious ways' and revelations given to a single guy who everyone else just has to take at his word. If you can ask and get a straight answer, when divine revelation really can be sent to lots of people, when holy messengers can be summoned fairly easily, I can't help but think that people will be more inclined to ask the actual source than in our world.
More inclined? Absolutely. Always do so or listen to the answer they get? Not so much.
And I'll point again to the real world where a number of eminently provable scientific things have been completely denied by relatively large numbers of people under certain circumstances. Evolution and vaccines being a good idea are both stellar examples of things that have been pretty thoroughly proven but there are still large groups of people who actively disbelieve in.
Something intangible that most people can't observe directly like the will of a God is hardly less likely to be disbelieved than things like that.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Minor points of disagreement with larger groups, yeah, but anything really wrong should result in some obvious warning or punishment regardless of how many people do it. Not just getting a few things wrong or making mistakes or a bad choice here and there, but routinely and dogmatically violating the tenets that a god really pushes should result in some sort of obvious warning or punishment.
Eventually? Yes. But we're talking about busy immortal beings. Eventually could be a few hundred years, depending on circumstances and how great the heresy is. Heck, if it's within one step of their alignment it isn't even enough for them to strip powers from an individual Cleric. Not inherently anyway.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
They can hate each other's guts but one would hope that they could at least be honest with each other regarding the truth of actual doctrine. Being personally horrible to each other is one thing but lying about your god's will is another entirely. Sure, you have a%@#!+&# gods and people who want to lie about everything but then we have moved from honest disagreement about something to actual deceit (which I personally would be very careful about when trying to convince people of what my patron deity wanted).
Lying is a tricky bit of terminology. What if they just shade the truth a bit? And many Gods wouldn't object to a bit of that sort of thing at all.
But my point wasn't actually that the LE guy would lie, it's that many a Paladin would be deeply suspicious he would and thus not believe him even if he isn't.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
This seems to hold the position that Gods can do whatever they like whenever they like, or at least descend from the heavens and directly speak to their worshipers without spells being involved. That's rather profoundly untrue in Golarion and most other settings. If the Gods can enact absolute signs like this on a regular basis what stops them from, say, smiting the looming evils of the setting?
Gods freedom of action is sharply circumscribed (by mutual agreement) in Golarion, limiting them to communicating with their worshipers in subtle ways for the most part unless directly asked. Something similar seems to be true in most other settings featuring deities, IME.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Again, if the god doesn't care it isn't really a heresy, is it?
Factually untrue statements about a deity and their portfolio remain heretical even if the God in question doesn't care that much about them.
what if the heretic is getting their divine magic powers from a demon or some such pretending to be the god in question?
Also, there's this. When you have fiendish deities out there with 'heresy' as one of their primary areas of interest, and other similar things, you get people spreading actual lies about what a particular deity might want, and often in a very convincing manner.
Oh, sorry, you're right. If anyone else anywhere enjoys something, you should never criticize that thing. That way it never gets feedback other than yes-men and can't improve. I'll criticize even things I like if they need it.
As will I. Heck, I've already criticized several things in Starfinder (the ship combat rules are actively broken for example, something I brought up even before Owen KC Stevens noted he was aware of the problem and it would be corrected...as are NPC gunnery scores, something I hope to see corrected soon).
My point was not that you should never criticize anything, my point was that if you actively dislike the core assumptions of a system you're probably not gonna be especially constructive or unbiased with your criticism, nor will the process be fun for you or anyone else.
That's probably true of just about everyone, and it's certainly true of you from what I've seen thus far.
To round back to my analogy, there's a difference between going to a party, having fun, and while there noting that you hate the song currently playing, the decor in the living room clashes, and maybe a handful of other problems, and going there specifically to criticize the fact that alcohol is being consumed and loud music is occurring, and throwing in criticizing the decor and some other stuff while you're there. The former is useful, the latter is weird and aggressive and no fun for anyone.
Also, it's not like I specifically made an account on this site to complain about Starfinder.
And yet, of your last 50 posts more than half are about Starfinder. You're investing more time and energy into commenting on a game you don't like than one you presumably do. I'm suggesting that's a waste of energy for everyone and not a productive use of anyone's time, including yours.
Depending on stats, yes.
For example, if going high Dex that'll take care of your Reflex and Great Fortitude is a great feat to go with, say, Longarm Proficiency.
Taking both is probably overkill, though. I mean, you need something to do in combat other than cast, so a Feat invested on offense is recommended.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Have we found Starfinder's Harsk?
He's not quite as bad as Harsk. His level 8 offense is actually on par with the Soldier's for example (though that's not saying much given that the Soldier is a switch hitter with +6 AC, +2 Resolve, and +5 Initiative over him). He's also actually decent (though not overwhelmingly good) at several relevant skills.
He's the closest we've got at the moment, though, yeah.
The PFS pregen stats for Harsk are legitimately terrible offensively. He does something 1d10+2 damage once a turn at level 7, for example, due to using a Heavy Crossbow with no way to reload it as less than a move action and not having Deadly Aim. Playing him is thus a universally bad idea.
Does anyone else find it odd that the Iconic Solarian uses light armor without the solar armor? And how they distributed the stats for the iconic solarian, but for the iconic soldier they really focused on the stats that mattered?
The Iconic Solarian's stat-block is really poorly designed in general. I'll leave speculation as to why to others, but it's very true.
It's not like you can't make a good (if perhaps not optimal) Kasatha Solarian, either. They just didn't.
He's by far the least optimized of the Iconics as compared to basically everyone else, not just the Soldier. By far.
This is true as levels go up. At 1st it's a lot less true for people who are plinking away with ranged weapons, since throwing grenades, like all thrown weapons, is based on Str, not Dex.
Someone without Proficiency and Str 10 probably has a -4 to hit that AC 5 at 1st level, meaning it requires a 9 on the die. Not insurmountable by any means, but a legitimate concern.
My point was that you need to have engineering training and spend a feat to do this, and that it's so badly done that it falls over by itself in 6 to 24 seconds even if nothing touches it. I don't doubt it could be useful. I'm saying it's ridiculous that you need a feat to do it, and do it poorly.
To quote the Feat:
"As a move action, you can stack and reinforce objects that are too small or too fragile to provide cover into a single square of adjacent cover."
Anyone can get cover from a heavy box or a flipped table (those are 'objects large or tough enough to provide cover'). With the Feat, you can do it from things you normally couldn't get cover from without the Feat, and possibly at an action economy advantage. That's a good Feat.
Darkling's point was that it lets you create a blast shield out of nothing. A sane GM wouldn't let you use the feat if nothing appropriate is there (although a sane GM would probably not require you to take this feat in the first place).
What the low end for objects you can use for this is, is rather up to the GM. It's just definitionally lower than that for people who lack the Feat, probably by quite a bit. I personally probably wouldn't allow styrofoam cups, but would allow something like paint cans or general trash, for example.
If the intent WAS to let you transmute a paperclip and a granola bar into a shielded bunker with nothing but the power of your imagination, however, then this game is even worse than I thought.
If you hate the game so much, and you certainly seem to based on your post history, why are you continuing to post about it?
I've read (and even played) a number of games I disliked or thought were poorly designed, and I've never gone on Forums specifically for that game just to go on about all the problems it had. It seems a singularly un-fun thing to do, and kinda not great to the people on the Forum in question who like that game.
It's like showing up to a party and then doing nothing but complain despite everyone else seemingly having a good time. It doesn't sound like a fun idea, and even if you're objectively correct in your complaints, everyone else is having fun and you're being kind of a buzzkill to no good purpose.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
You need a Crystal to get Fusions. They have levels right in the table.
Nope. Starfinder has undercasting.
Your Mystic Healing can only be cast as a 3rd level spell if it's taking up a 3rd level 'Spell Known' slot. Not a 1st level one. See 'Variable-Level Spells' on p.330 for details.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Have you ever actually debated a religious person about something that is commonly said to be supported by their faith but is not actually supported (or even contradicted) by their holy text?
I have. Their ability to say 'Nope, I don't believe it.' is pretty impressive. I don't see why their God being real would change that tendency of human behavior.
People's capacity to only believe what they want to believe even in the face of direct evidence is well nigh unlimited.
And I say this as a religious person.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Well I mostly play Mystara which has high-level folks coming out the seems, so finding someone to cast Commune should be easy enough with any major Immortal. I can't speak for how things work in detail in Golarion, but in serious enough matters I really can't see how the word of the god doesn't make it around eventually. Sure, for a minor cleric somewhere to start spreading heretical teachings with no one to determine whether he's right or wrong, it make take a while to filter through to those with power or never get noticed, but you won't be getting anything like the major religious splits we've had IRL without someone checking it out.
Such heresies will definitely be less common the more high level people you have around to cast Commune. And you definitely won't get something huge in the way of a church split like the Protestant Reformation.
But smaller heresies can still creep in, as can large heresies in an isolated group, which was rather my point.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Possibly, possibly. People are strange and stupid, after all. But how many would accuse someone who has just received the direct divine revelation on matters of doctrine of lying about it? That sounds like a great way to lose your clerical powers to me.
Does it? Two people can be devoutly faithful to the same faith and still hate each others' guts. A Paladin seems unlikely to take a LE Cleric's word for much of anything, for example, and both of them can be coreligionists.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
This basically proves my point, doesn't it? Saranae obviously doesn't care enough about opposing slavery and whatnot to do anything about it when her own faithful are OK with it, so there isn't really anything wrong with it. At worst it's something along the lines 'please don't do X, but you won't get any real punishment for it'.
Uh...what part of 'Goddess of Mercy' was unclear? It's not that she's okay with any of that, she is profoundly not okay with any of it, she's just so far unwilling to bring the hammer down on the people in question, because that wouldn't exactly be merciful. She's been trying to gently guide them back to the path of righteousness rather than being all dictatorial and smite-y because that's who she is.
She's also very close to just bringing the hammer down anyway, because they haven't been listening.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Slight tangent: As for the one step alignment shift thing, I much preferred how BECMI (and I believe 2e)did it: each Immortal listed allowed alignments of laity and clergy, which could be 'any'.
Well, per the official Pathfinder rules, laity can be any Alignment for any God. Clerics and other priests just need to be within one step.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
That's basically what I've been saying, isn't it? Is any given idea really heretical if the god doesn't care? If clerics still get powers and no sanctions for doing X, there isn't a problem. And a quick Commune or lesser divination should be enough to answer whether some aspect of doctrine is bad or not. In this particular case, worshipers who stop being all masochistic might be unorthodox but they won't be actually heretical. At least not in the sense of one side being right and the others wrong.
My whole point was that the masochism was the heresy, actually. And one of long standing.
And that's the thing, the heresy in question is 'Pharasma demands this.' which is factually untrue and makes their faith deeply heretical in many ways. It's just not a heresy that the Goddess herself actually cares much about.
Nice work Deadmanwalking. I don't agree with everything, but it is very well done.
It looks good in general... but you might not want to give the whole world edit access to it. I've seen a couple of guides messed up by trolls and you've put a public link here.
An excellent point (though I do usually keep an offline backup).
Is it better now? I don't use Google Docs a lot.
EDIT: Actually, examining settings, people other than me already shouldn't be able to edit it. Am I wrong?
I responded to the general statements you've been making all thread. I quoted that specific piece for emphasis.
The only thing I said that you quoted was entirely about me, and me alone. Your intent may have been to respond to other statements, but that isn't what you did.
I am not a mind reader and responded to what you actually said, which was to quote something I said exclusively about myself and claim I couldn't know that.
Alternatively, I suppose you could have quoted the only absolute statement I made out of context in order to make it seem like I was saying things I hadn't. Huh. Thinking about it, that's not much better.
I'm not really thinking of a third way an out of context three word quote from the beginning of a sentence not directly involving how people in general would react to the Serum got to be the line you quoted to respond to my argument as a whole.
If you have an alternate explanation, and make clear what you actually mean, I'd be pleased to hear it and continue this conversation in a convivial fashion. Barring that, your particular assertions and/or the method you have used to make them have been rather high-handed and more than a bit insulting and I'm not super inclined to have an actual debate with you on that particular issue.
Not sure why that's making you so disgruntled. The fact is that the chemical compound is fairly vaguely described and obviously very much beyond any form of modern science. Given that, asserting a bunch of side effects that aren't explicitly laid out as inevitable seems like a bit of a stretch.
See, this I disagree with but would not become 'disgruntled' arguing against. My objection was to you either:
A. Saying you know better than I do how I would react to something.
B. Quoting something out of context to imply that I made far more definitive statements than I did regarding how people might react to the Serum of Sex Change.
Neither is appropriate.
Is it 'let's pretend people said things they didn't' time? Because I don't think you can find that line anywhere in my post.
You responded to me saying I know something specifically about myself with a message that amounted to 'No, you don't. It's impossible to know that.'
How is that not you saying you know things about me better than I do?
My point here is that you seem very certain in regards to how most people would react to certain compounds despite those compounds having absolutely nothing we can compare them to in the first place.
The only thing I was ever certain of is how I, personally, would react.
I hypothesized, based on the closest approximations we have in reality, and general trends in people's behaviors, what the usual feeling would be...but the only thing I ever said I was certain of is how I, personally, would react.
And that's kind of absurd for obvious reasons.
Saying that something like being dosed heavily with a different set of hormones than I was used to, while also having my self-image profoundly f+$#ed with, would profoundly bother me is absurd?
I don't think that's an absurd statement at all.
Thanks! That one's actually one of the random rules that makes me happiest, just because I like the logic of it.
I haven't GMed for a Gunslinger since adding that particular House Rule, sadly, so I can't say for sure how that would turn out.
I'd hope it helps some of the very high level creatures, and particularly Dragons, out in that regard, but I don't have actual experience to draw on in. It actually won't make much of a difference except vs. very high CR enemies and dragons, but then my goal was hardly to render Gunslingers useless...
Hold on a minute here, let's quote the whole thing I said starting with those words, shall we?
I know that, being very comfortable in my body, trying to adapt to one that was radically different, especially with different hormones effecting my body and mind differently would be deeply upsetting to me personally, and I'm certainly cisgender.
Given that the statement I made here was in regards to how I personally would feel under a specific circumstance, yeah, I know with a fair degree of certainty how that would effect me personally.
I'm a little shocked you'd claim you know better than me how I would feel.
I meant specifically doubling the dice. That nets you 14d6 at 20th, which is lower than the good weapons of that level, but at least in the same ballpark.
Specialization would work normally, providing an advantage to Vesk who took this Feat.
Modern purchasable drones are not more durable than some people, able to take a couple of gunshots without breaking. They are also not fitted with semi-autonomous AI and the programmed ability to sneak up on people. Nor can they follow voice commands.
Maybe it should be cheaper than it is, but it's functionality is miles beyond anything available in the real world civilian market in all ways, and the AI is just impossible in real life.
Ah! You're objecting to the whole idea of leveled gear, not the leveled gear/availability connection.
That's a much more defensible position, thematically, and I can only respond with noting that anything that maintains the same equipment doesn't tend to work so well mechanically with a system featuring the vast power level changes in Starfinder. Not if you want equipment to mean anything, anyway.
And they clearly want equipment to be meaningful.
Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
It means they count.
A Feat to make it an Operative weapon, deal lethal damage, and remove archaic, and a separate mutually exclusive Feat to make it lethal, remove archaic, and, say, double it's damage would be a nice pair of available Feats to add on top of Improved Unarmed Strike.
Those two would very neatly make it an actual viable (but not optimal) combat style for everyone. Which would be nice.
The rules and WBL are not set up with the assumption that PCs will buy a ship. They are set up with the assumption that they will, in some manner, acquire one for free of charge (at least in credits) and then use and upgrade it similarly.
Indeed, it is axiomatic to the Starship Rules that you will always have a ship with Tiers equal to the APL.
If you truly wish your PCs to purchase a starship (something neither I nor the rules recommend, it's mechanically not supported, and it's also much more fun of they have to, say, salvage one), then you can assign any amount of money per BP and simply give the PCs the necessary extra money to purchase/upgrade their ship.
However, by doing this you are almost guaranteeing one of two things:
1. The PCs' ship will be vastly too weak for their level, but probably very good at escaping. They will never engage in ship combat. Their non-ship gear will be vastly better than it should be and make them overpowering in personal confrontation.
2. The PCs' ship will rapidly be unstoppably badass. They will utterly destroy all opposition in starship combat, yes even with the higher difficulties from it being over-tiered. Their non-ship equipment will lag behind a bit.
The first is more likely the higher you make the credit cost per BP, the latter is more likely the lower you make it. Both are bad.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.