| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, a reduction of 10% means going from "guaranteed hit" to "never stands a chance."
Who knew 10% had that much power, held that much importance. It's almost like bias has completely overcome statistics.
Compared to Strength 18, there are two possible results on the d20 that will spell a hit rather than a miss. That is a non-negligible benefit. The extra damage on a hit is also non-negligible.... what, are you saying you'll only hit on a 19-20 die roll... what?
Solarians apparently are built for pure damage, or at least the kind that are actually effective in a fight, with Stellar Rush at 2nd, Plasma Sheath at 4th, and Corona at 6th. If nothing else, they kill people with steady damage.
Um, no, Solarions aren't built for pure damage. They have combat abilities, just like every other class. They have really nice combat abilities. But pure DPR is not their thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I run up and smash it in the face!"
"Okay, you've now made the space whale angry, now what"
"... but I already smashed it in the face!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, cannot possibly believe this... debate, for lack of a better word, is still going on. And over multiple threads no less. But I do admit it is amusing in a somewhat bizarre way as it has actually lasted more time than the game has been out and available to most people (not counting preorder headstart of course). This also begs the question about how much actual empirical evidence there is regarding the poor Solarian's in-combat -or is it general?- "uselessness" not just at 1st level but also beyond it when we have all or most of us just begun playing Starfinder, but whatever.
As a certain pointy-eared half-alien tends to say...
Fascinating.
Apparently, a reduction of 10% means going from "guaranteed hit" to "never stands a chance."
Who knew 10% had that much power, held that much importance. It's almost like bias has completely overcome statistics.
The game's math is extremely harsh.
Typically, a completely min-maxed character is looking at 50% success rate, most of the time.Thus, the 14 STR option would be looking at 40% success rate. This means that for every 4 hits the 14 STR build gets in, the 18 STR build gets in 5 hits.
A 25% increase in your rate of hitting before accounting for the increased damage from a higher stat is extremely important.
Apparently, a reduction of 10% means going from "guaranteed hit" to "never stands a chance."
Who knew 10% had that much power, held that much importance. It's almost like bias has completely overcome statistics.
The game's math is extremely harsh.
Typically, a completely min-maxed character is looking at 50% success rate, most of the time.
Thus, the 14 STR option would be looking at 40% success rate. This means that for every 4 hits the 14 STR build gets in, the 18 STR build gets in 5 hits.
A 25% increase in your rate of hitting before accounting for the increased damage from a higher stat is extremely important.
*looks at enemies in Dead Suns*
That math doesn't really hold up. A 14 STR is looking around 50% hit rate for the AP. 18 is overkill.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're only looking at that 50% succesrate if all you are fighting are converted pathfinder monsters or npcs build using player rules at low level.
Case in point of wacky conversion on low level:
Pathfinder goblin: AC 16, touch 13, flat-footed 14, HP 6
Converted goblin: EAC 15, KAC 16, HP 7 (6*1,25)
Starfinder space goblin: EAC 11, KAC 12, HP 6
As you can see the conversion proces is not really that optimal at low level, because of the different mathematics involved in pc vs npc combat when comparing pathfinder to starfinder.
Another example (comparing CR 1/3 pathfinder skeleton vs CR 1/2 starfinder skeleton)
Pathfinder skeleton: AC 16, touch 12, flat-footed 14, HP 4
Converted skeleton: EAC 15, KAC 14, HP 5
Starfinder skeleton: EAC 10, KAC 12, HP 6
And even more examples: CR 1:
Pathfinder ghoul: AC 14, touch 12, flat-footed 12, HP 13
Converted ghoul: EAC 13, KAC 14, HP 16
Starfinder ghoul: EAC 11, KAC 12, HP 17
A CR 1/2 example:
Pathfinder human bandit: AC 17, touch 13, flat-footed 14, HP 11
Converted human bandit: EAC 16, KAC 17, HP 13
Starfinder human mercenary: EAC 10, KAC 12, HP 13
As you can see the conversion rules for low level really go flat on AC, as Pathfinder enemies have way higher AC than their starfinder equivalents that have been published.
|
Apparently, a reduction of 10% means going from "guaranteed hit" to "never stands a chance."
Who knew 10% had that much power, held that much importance. It's almost like bias has completely overcome statistics.
The game's math is extremely harsh.
Typically, a completely min-maxed character is looking at 50% success rate, most of the time.
Thus, the 14 STR option would be looking at 40% success rate. This means that for every 4 hits the 14 STR build gets in, the 18 STR build gets in 5 hits.
A 25% increase in your rate of hitting before accounting for the increased damage from a higher stat is extremely important.*looks at enemies in Dead Suns*
That math doesn't really hold up. A 14 STR is looking around 50% hit rate for the AP. 18 is overkill.
I'm gonna be honest, I think that mechanically some of the predictive math is done with pathfinder being the basis but there is enough mechanical differences that pathfinder numbers make a poor baseline. Its like when Pathfinder first came out and everyone was still using 3.5 stuff as a baseline and in their home games to find out that pathfinder stuff was more powerful then 3.5 stuff and thought all the math was broken until pathfinder got away from mixing with 3.5 and viewed only within it's own context. (note: the math of pathfinder is still broken but it is less broken when only viewed with other pathfinder stuff and not in conjunction with 3.5 stuff.)
Apparently, a reduction of 10% means going from "guaranteed hit" to "never stands a chance."
Who knew 10% had that much power, held that much importance. It's almost like bias has completely overcome statistics.
The game's math is extremely harsh.
Typically, a completely min-maxed character is looking at 50% success rate, most of the time.
Thus, the 14 STR option would be looking at 40% success rate. This means that for every 4 hits the 14 STR build gets in, the 18 STR build gets in 5 hits.
A 25% increase in your rate of hitting before accounting for the increased damage from a higher stat is extremely important.*looks at enemies in Dead Suns*
That math doesn't really hold up. A 14 STR is looking around 50% hit rate for the AP. 18 is overkill.
However am I going to hit someone with an armor class of 10/12!
Not really. This 10% you're going on and on about is not the game maker or breaker you're making it out to be.
Are Starfinder games going to be about one-on-one combat 24/7 while simultaneously stuck at 1st level forever? Because if not, I am just going to go ahead and assume that built-for-combat-only one-trick ponies are going to find sooner or later that challenges in an AP do not only come in the form of enemies carrying big sticks and even bigger guns. Not to mention they may also get bored during those times in an AP that do not actually involve who can kill the other guy the fastest. Just sayin'...
So, assuming a 1d6 weapon the practical difference is:
65% chance of hitting for 1d6+2. Average damage per attack: 3.575
Versus
75% chance of hitting for 1d6+4. Average damage per attack: 5.625
The 18 strength version has a 57% higher damage output.
That's fairly significant if you think you're primarily a melee attacker. I don't think 4 points more of Con gives you +57% damage you can take before you die.
(Whether 14 strength is 'enough' is beyond the scope of my calculations.)
Yeah, as the devs have stated, enemies have lower ACs than PCs of equivalent level, for a reason.
If we grab those ghoul stats from above, a solarian with 14 Str and Weapon Focus will hit on an 8, or 65% of the time, for 1d6+2 damage, average 5.5.
18 Str and Weapon Focus will hit on a 6, or 75%, for 7.5 average damage.
14 Str (.55×5.5)+(.05×5.5×2)=3.575 average damage.
16 Str (.6×6.5)+(.05×6.5×2)=4.55
18 Str (.65×7.5)+(.05×7.5×2)=5.626
17/3.575=4.755 rounds
17/4.55=3.74 rounds
17/5.626=3.021 rounds
That's the overkill, between 16 Str and 18 Str. Two PCs with 14s kill a ghoul in an average of 3 rounds. The same PCs with 16s kill it in 2 rounds. The same PCs with 18s still won't kill the ghoul in one round on average. You're getting better damage, but not speeding up the fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are several points in the AP where dumping your social skills will cause you to be in more fights than you'd like, or even be unable to move forward without GM intervention.
Combat is only one pillar of the game. Ignore the other pillars at your own peril.
I have a player in my group who is working on building a 1st level human soldier. He is finding that he has to make some hard choices in terms of equipment purchases, to the point that he initially is considering not bothering with a melee weapon (while being well aware of the possible resulting issues with doing that).
Maybe the theoretical soldier vs. solarian builds are overlooking important non-combat equipment?
|
I have a player in my group who is working on building a 1st level human soldier. He is finding that he has to make some hard choices in terms of equipment purchases, to the point that he initially is considering not bothering with a melee weapon (while being well aware of the possible resulting issues with doing that).
Maybe the theoretical soldier vs. solarian builds are overlooking important non-combat equipment?
At the very least he should pick up a club. It's free, and it's better than an unarmed strike.
Apparently, a reduction of 10% means going from "guaranteed hit" to "never stands a chance."
Who knew 10% had that much power, held that much importance. It's almost like bias has completely overcome statistics.
The game's math is extremely harsh.
Typically, a completely min-maxed character is looking at 50% success rate, most of the time.
Thus, the 14 STR option would be looking at 40% success rate. This means that for every 4 hits the 14 STR build gets in, the 18 STR build gets in 5 hits.
A 25% increase in your rate of hitting before accounting for the increased damage from a higher stat is extremely important.*looks at enemies in Dead Suns*
That math doesn't really hold up. A 14 STR is looking around 50% hit rate for the AP. 18 is overkill.
A 14 STR Full BAB character is looking at +3 to hit, -1 to hit when full attacking.
The very lowest KAC's I've seen while looking through Dead Suns are 12, meaning you'd hit that on a 13 when full attacking, 40% chance.
Apparently, a reduction of 10% means going from "guaranteed hit" to "never stands a chance."
Who knew 10% had that much power, held that much importance. It's almost like bias has completely overcome statistics.
The game's math is extremely harsh.
Typically, a completely min-maxed character is looking at 50% success rate, most of the time.
Thus, the 14 STR option would be looking at 40% success rate. This means that for every 4 hits the 14 STR build gets in, the 18 STR build gets in 5 hits.
A 25% increase in your rate of hitting before accounting for the increased damage from a higher stat is extremely important.*looks at enemies in Dead Suns*
That math doesn't really hold up. A 14 STR is looking around 50% hit rate for the AP. 18 is overkill.
A 14 STR Full BAB character is looking at +3 to hit, -1 to hit when full attacking.
The very lowest KAC's I've seen while looking through Dead Suns are 12, meaning you'd hit that on a 13 when full attacking, 40% chance.
Uh, if you're full attacking of course your accuracy is lower. Unless you got a lot of buffs going on it's probably not the best idea to FA so early in the game.
The same PCs with 18s still won't kill the ghoul in one round on average. You're getting better damage, but not speeding up the fight.
That's not exactly the case.
What will actually happen in any given fight is unpredictable; maybe it will take two rounds, or maybe three, or more.
Hitting more often makes it more likely that you will win faster, even if it only makes a difference one battle in five.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, if you're full attacking of course your accuracy is lower. Unless you got a lot of buffs going on it's probably not the best idea to FA so early in the game.
Two attacks at 40% accuracy is on average .8 hits per round. That's more than you'd get with one attack at 60%.
Oh yeah, I forgot the full attacks. Let's see what that changes.
Without full attacking:
14 Str (.55×5.5)+(.05×5.5×2)=3.575 average damage.
16 Str (.6×6.5)+(.05×6.5×2)=4.55
18 Str (.65×7.5)+(.05×7.5×2)=5.626
17/3.575=4.755 rounds
17/4.55=3.74 rounds
17/5.626=3.021 rounds
With full attacking:
14 2((.4×5.5)+(.05×5.5×2))=5.5
16 2((.45×6.5)+(.05×6.5×2))=7.15
18 2((.5×7.5)+(.05×7.5×2))=9
17/5.5=3.1 rounds
17/7.15=2.38 rounds
17/9=1.9 rounds
Full attacking does make the higher Str more attractive, but you can't full attack every round.
Uh, if you're full attacking of course your accuracy is lower. Unless you got a lot of buffs going on it's probably not the best idea to FA so early in the game.Two attacks at 40% accuracy is on average .8 hits per round. That's more than you'd get with one attack at 60%.
0.8 hits per round? Huh?
Unless the enemy was prone or something I'll take the one 60% over the two 40%, hit once rather than missing twice.
The same PCs with 18s still won't kill the ghoul in one round on average. You're getting better damage, but not speeding up the fight.That's not exactly the case.
What will actually happen in any given fight is unpredictable; maybe it will take two rounds, or maybe three, or more.
Hitting more often makes it more likely that you will win faster, even if it only makes a difference one battle in five.
That's why it's an average. For every fight with hot dice, there'll be one that's cold. And if you're only seeing a result on 1 in 5 fights, why not put those stat points somewhere else? Get a better Int for more skills, or boost your defenses. Is making every fifth fight one round shorter worth it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the enemy was prone or something I'll take the one 60% over the two 40%, hit once rather than missing twice.
With two 40% attacks you have a 16% chance of two hits, a 48% chance of just one hit, and a 36% chance of two misses.
This is unambiguously better than a 60% chance of one hit and a 40% chance of a miss.
I don't really see how a 48% chance of one hit is better than a 60% chance of one hit.
Because it's a 16% chance of hitting twice, and if you don't hit twice, you still have a 48% chance of hitting once. So really a 64% chance of hitting at least once.
Because it's a 16% chance of hitting twice, and if you don't hit twice, you still have a 48% chance of hitting once. So really a 64% chance of hitting at least once.
No, you have a 48% chance of hitting once.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see how a 48% chance of one hit is better than a 60% chance of one hit.
It a 64% chance of at least one hit. 48% of the time it's one hit, plus 16% of the time it's two hits.
To look at it from the other side, with a single attack ou have a 40% chance of doing no damage. On a full attack you have a 36% chance of no damage.
If you hit 60% of the time on a single attack, you are better off on a for terms of making a full attack, absent any other tactical considerations.
I don't really see how a 48% chance of one hit is better than a 60% chance of one hit.
Because you also have a 16% chance of hitting twice.
16%+48%=64% chance to hit at least once. Already higher than the 60%. And then you also hit a second time a quarter of that 64%.
Because it's a 16% chance of hitting twice, and if you don't hit twice, you still have a 48% chance of hitting once. So really a 64% chance of hitting at least once.No, you have a 48% chance of hitting once.
No, it isn't. It's a 48% chance of only hitting once.
Out of 100%:
16% both attacks hit
48% one of the two hts, the other misses
36% both miss.
16+48>60
Full Attacking whenever you can is the mathematically right choice in Starfinder.
Full Attacking with even only two attacks breaks even with single attacks if you have a 40% chance to hit on a single attack or a 20% chance to hit on each of the two attacks of a Full Attack. At any higher accuracy, Full Attacking has a statistically higher damage output.
At three attacks, it's even more clearly the superior choice.
Full Attacking whenever you can is the mathematically right choice in Starfinder.
Full Attacking with even only two attacks breaks even with single attacks if you have a 40% chance to hit on a single attack or a 20% chance to hit on each of the two attacks of a Full Attack. At any higher accuracy, Full Attacking has a statistically higher damage output.
At three attacks, it's even more clearly the superior choice.
Well, I'd hedge it by saying it's the correct choice if your goal is only damage, which a lot of times it is. Sometimes you might need that move or swift for something else though.
Well, I'd hedge it by saying it's the correct choice if your goal is only damage, which a lot of times it is. Sometimes you might need that move or swift for something else though.Full Attacking whenever you can is the mathematically right choice in Starfinder.
Full Attacking with even only two attacks breaks even with single attacks if you have a 40% chance to hit on a single attack or a 20% chance to hit on each of the two attacks of a Full Attack. At any higher accuracy, Full Attacking has a statistically higher damage output.
At three attacks, it's even more clearly the superior choice.
I did say it's, quoting, "the mathematically right choice".
If you need to do other stuff, sure, Full Attacking may not be an option, but from a purely numerical perspective it wins out in any realistic scenario.
No argument there.
Full Attacking whenever you can is the mathematically right choice in Starfinder.
Full Attacking with even only two attacks breaks even with single attacks if you have a 40% chance to hit on a single attack or a 20% chance to hit on each of the two attacks of a Full Attack.
More precisely it's usually the mathematically right choice. You might not have that 40% chance. If you're not hitting on a 13, you probably shouldn't full attack.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And this is where a discussion should begin about the difference between hard and soft skills and why ignoring soft skills often leads to poor analysis.
I wrote a little something about this not too long ago, as I was thinking about this while sitting at my desk watching a webcast by my CEO. He was talking about "how do we know we're doing well as a company?"
There's two important things to look at. The first are KPI (Key Performance Indexes) and Metrics; these are line items that can be measured and quantified. Things such as failure rates, customer shipping commitment dates, profits, etc. The second are unquantifiable - "soft" items that improve quality without being able to track. These are things like ensuring employees are happy, have a good work-life balance, are able to control their anger when they get frustrated, and genuinely care about making the company better. Or customer satisfaction. They may be able to be measured somewhat, but it's very challenging.
Likewise, we have Hard and Soft sciences. The Hard Sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, etc - are all things that can be mathematically quantified, or have mathematical proofs, with hard evidence and data. The Soft Sciences - psychology, political science, sociology, etc - are fields where it's very difficult to get good measurements and very challenging to quantitate.
And again we see it in education. Hard and Soft Skills. We can teach students Hard Skills and test it in English, math, science, etc. In fact, in the US school performance is based on how well students do in the Hard Skills. But Soft Skills are extremely important and we no longer teach those, mostly because we cannot easily measure them. These are things like emotional management, how to deal with anger, creative and divergent thinking, ability to work well with a team, effective communication, conflict resolution, etc.
Again and again we see these two types: hard categories which can be quantified, and soft categories which is very challenging or impossible to quantify.
And here in D&D/PF/SF we see it. DPR, KPR, Builds are all Hard, as they can easily be quantified and compared. But there are many features where they would be considered Soft, because of how difficult it is to quantify them. Abilities that contribute to social and exploration pillars, abilities which are used infrequently, abilities which don't directly contribution it to how fast they can kill a monster, etc. These soft abilities are extremely important to the game and play a critical role in class balance, but it's very difficult to quantify them. As such, many people trying to do a comparison ignore them, because it's too challenging to quantitate.
They're not alone. Many people try to ignore or brush aside items in the Soft Categories for the same exact reason. But it's also true that when you ignore them because it's too challenging, whatever analysis you're doing will be wrong.
Failure to account for the soft categories leads to business failure, social failure, school failure, failure of governmental programs, and many other problems. So, too, does it lead to a failure in analysis here in Starfinder/Pathfinder/D&D.
Also I think it's rather clear Colette has made up their mind about the Solarian and seemingly only cares about how fast/hard you can kill an enemy, and if they are seriously going to say someone's character build is bad because it doesn't hold up to their arbitrary ideals of a 'good' character, then there's not much point in trying to argue with them.
You are remembering incorrectly, then, because "overkill" was never an issue. There is really no such thing as "overkill" for attack bonuses in Starfinder. The flat-footed condition is only a -2 penalty to AC, and charging imposes a -2 attack penalty, so you will hardly ever run into a situation against significant opponents wherein you hit on a 2+.
It is completely fallacious reasoning to assume that "Well, I hit *enough*, so Strength 14 as a 1st-level melee character is fine," when you could be hitting even more often with a starting Strength 18.
You are wrong, period.
Any adventure where your 18 str char kill all the enemies but fail charisma skills would be better done with a STR 14 character that also manage to kill said enemies AND make the Charisma skills. Period.
Now, a situation where your str 18 character kills, but a str 14 chsracter doesn't, might be diferent. It was not the case.
Also I think it's rather clear Colette has made up their mind about the Solarian and seemingly only cares about how fast/hard you can kill an enemy, and if they are seriously going to say someone's character build is bad because it doesn't hold up to their arbitrary ideals of a 'good' character, then there's not much point in trying to argue with them.
That's fibe, is up to her to decide what she likes more.
But it is a blantant attempt to murder logic to pretend that there is no such thing as overkill in combat.
Any given SF scenario/AP/homemade advebtute made by a group od combat specislists that kill all enemies in two roubds and survive all encounters, but fail important skill rolls would be more efficiently resolved by a well rounded group that kill all enemies in 3 rounds and survive all encounters BUT make the skill rolls. Arguing the opposite is arguing that 1>2
I'd say it depends on how yer playing the character. I got a fighter with 20 Str with a 8 Cha in PF because I wanted him to be like a certain swordsman with a large sword with a gruff attitude. I leave it to his softer companions to do all the talking because that's how I wanted to play. I contribute hell alot in combat but leave me outside when we are going to the ball (or scowling in the corner while everyone socialize).
In the end, it's how you want to play yer characcter. I always say at the table that how we play our flaws can at times out shine our strengths when it comes to fun. I mean, in the end, this is all about fun, right?
And this is where a discussion should begin about the difference between hard and soft skills and why ignoring soft skills often leads to poor analysis.
I wrote a little something about this not too long ago, as I was thinking about this while sitting at my desk watching a webcast by my CEO. He was talking about "how do we know we're doing well as a company?"
There's two important things to look at. The first are KPI (Key Performance Indexes) and Metrics; these are line items that can be measured and quantified. Things such as failure rates, customer shipping commitment dates, profits, etc. The second are unquantifiable - "soft" items that improve quality without being able to track. These are things like ensuring employees are happy, have a good work-life balance, are able to control their anger when they get frustrated, and genuinely care about making the company better. Or customer satisfaction. They may be able to be measured somewhat, but it's very challenging.
Likewise, we have Hard and Soft sciences. The Hard Sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, etc - are all things that can be mathematically quantified, or have mathematical proofs, with hard evidence and data. The Soft Sciences - psychology, political science, sociology, etc - are fields where it's very difficult to get good measurements and very challenging to quantitate.
And again we see it in education. Hard and Soft Skills. We can teach students Hard Skills and test it in English, math, science, etc. In fact, in the US school performance is based on how well students do in the Hard Skills. But Soft Skills are extremely important and we no longer teach those, mostly because we cannot easily measure them. These are things like emotional management, how to deal with anger, creative and divergent thinking, ability to work well with a team, effective communication, conflict resolution, etc.
Again and again we see these two types: hard categories which can be quantified, and soft categories which is very challenging or impossible to...
From looking at the Solarian class it seems like it would fair better in an analysis of it's hard skills vs soft skills. It's dpr is good, it has good abilities to boost it's damage and attacks. Where it fails to me is it's soft skills, it's abilities don't seem good, I like the augury and charm person, but the gravity don't seem like I would ever want to use them. Especially when consider how the movement boosts seem easily replaced by using items like jet packs and other tech solutions.
It has skill boosts that are decent at low level, but the soldier can get similar bonuses by taking skill focus feats which it has better access to with all of it's bonus combat feats. However, both those classes don't compare well to the other 5 classes. All other classes get at least +6 to skills, and to me have more abilities to influence narrative. If the Solarian had better out of combat abilities I would hold it's suitability against it less. It would be a glass cannon with interesting out of combat options. Currently it just doesn't have enough. Hopefully that can be addressed with supplemental material in later releases.
So, assuming a 1d6 weapon the practical difference is:
65% chance of hitting for 1d6+2. Average damage per attack: 3.575
Versus
75% chance of hitting for 1d6+4. Average damage per attack: 5.625The 18 strength version has a 57% higher damage output.
That's fairly significant if you think you're primarily a melee attacker. I don't think 4 points more of Con gives you +57% damage you can take before you die.
(Whether 14 strength is 'enough' is beyond the scope of my calculations.)
Of course it is more. Significantly more. That's the definition of oveekill.
The point is, if both characters won their battles and finished the encuenters, both passed the combat part. One just fibe, the other breezed over it. But if one of them managed to get clues for the adventure with skill checks, and the other didn't, the one who beat 2 parts of the advebture was more efficient thsn the one who smashed one part and missed the second
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do not play a solarian for social skills.That's fibe, is up to her to decide what she likes more.
But it is a blantant attempt to murder logic to pretend that there is no such thing as overkill in combat.
Don't tell me why I play solarians
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The concept for my Solarian is that he is a Kasatha who is a scholarly warrior who enjoys meeting other species and learning their customs, so yes, I do play my Solarian for social skills who also can hold his own in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, I've got a soldier with social skills.
Sharpshooter, Phrenic Adept. Human, and two starting feats are Skill Synergy and Minor Psychic Ability.
11, 16, 10, 12, 10, 14.
He's good at shooting things and can hold his own in social skills.
You don't need to maximize combat to be effective. And the way DCs are working out with ships, then you'll definitely need good solid skills.