|
One of my players built his character, a Vesk, as a melee tank with a Doshko and Step-Up thinking things were the same with AoO, and now believes his build is useless.
Is it?
Would he be better off rebuilding to a less Unwieldy weapon?
Should he drop Step-Up since you can do AoO with it and the laser pistol wielding alien can just shoot you in the face without provoking?
|
You would use it if you never planned on doing any of the things that Unwieldy restrict anyway, since they generally do more damage than equivalent weapons. Classes like Mechanics and Envoys that have a lot of other things to do with their Move and Reaction besides Full Attacks and AoO for example.
If your concept is to make AoOs, you should use one of the other types of weapons that allow that. You can always say the Spear or Pike is a lighter style of Doshko if it's the flavor that's bothersome.
Not all doshkos are considered unwieldy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with his character (pretty sure this is the game I'm in) is that he's upset that he is interpreting not being able to AoO with a Doshko, not adding 1.5 STR mod to damage with 2h weapons, and Step Up requiring a Reaction as making "all 2h melee fighters useless" or at least. I tried to explain that Step Up is useful for Full Attacks and Step Up and Strike is good later on. Also that there are plenty of high damage 2h weapons that aren't unwieldy. But he insists that 2h weapons are pointless because "1d10 over 1d8 is a negligible difference" according to him.
Essentially it's an unwinnable thing. Because he's very used to the way Pathfinder works, used to the broad selection of feats, used to the action economy, etc that he feels Starfinder is unfairly making "2h melee pointless".
He also refused to acknowledge the fact that he had most of the kills in our first session (over 50% in fact) while I, a melee Solarion with a 1h Solar Weapon... got no kills and spent a lot of my time doing mediocre (relative to him) damage.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Step up is useful because the alien with the laser pistol can't back up and prevent you from full attacking by forcing you to move. Plus when they move they can't make a full attack. Step up and strike is even better and you need one before the other.
Personally I might not advise the unwieldy weapon since you cann't full attack, but they should be able to buy a Flame Doshko without unwieldy fairly quickly. So it's not unreasonable to hold onto one while they wait to buy the other.
As for not being able to make an AoO, don't forget that as a Vesk Your player is always armed and able to attack. It says nothing bout needing their hands free, and while the the descriptions mention claws they also mention teath and strikes with their tails. Your player will do less damage with it but it's still an option if they want to make the someone regret their actions.
As for not being able to make an AoO, don't forget that as a Vesk Your player is always armed and able to attack. It says nothing bout needing their hands free, and while the the descriptions mention claws they also mention teath and strikes with their tails. Your player will do less damage with it but it's still an option if they want to make the someone regret their actions.
I hadn't been able to think of a situation where the Vesk's racial claw attack was something that would actually contribute much to one's build, and so had more or less dismissed it. But you've found one: it's useful for a Vesk with an Unwieldy weapon, since it allows them to keep their AOO (and do some decent damage with it, too).
Nice!
|
|
@Hasteroth
If that's the case I don't think there's much you can do. This isn't pathfinder, and until they realize and accept it they're going to have a lot of problems. Step up is pretty great, it lets you trade your reaction for a move action for free in certain cases. In Starfinder's action economy that's big. It's really an anti gunner instead of anti mage ability, but that's in your favor since there are a lot more of those in this system.
If they really want to do str and a half there's a soldier ability for that. Other than that what can you do.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unwieldly almost stopped our Vesk from using one, until we figured out:
1. Vesk can AoO with their bare 'hands'
2. Switching grips allows him to have his offhand free between turns
Yes, this prevents a full attack with the doshko if he still wants AoOs, but he seems fine with that. I have had no one even attempt a full attack yet.
So why did he want to use one? A 1,000 credit spending limit, 1d12 damage, "And it looks badass."
|
|
As for not being able to make an AoO, don't forget that as a Vesk Your player is always armed and able to attack. It says nothing bout needing their hands free, and while the the descriptions mention claws they also mention teath and strikes with their tails. Your player will do less damage with it but it's still an option if they want to make the someone regret their actions.I hadn't been able to think of a situation where the Vesk's racial claw attack was something that would actually contribute much to one's build, and so had more or less dismissed it. But you've found one: it's useful for a Vesk with an Unwieldy weapon, since it allows them to keep their AOO (and do some decent damage with it, too).
Nice!
I think that's because most just think of it as a claw attack, but it's just a general state of being armed and deadly. My Vesk is a Heavy weapon soldier, but with that even though my hands are full of say a reaction cannon the enemy isn't free to just walk past me to the lightly armored envoy. I may never be the melee threat the solarion is but they ignore me at their peril.
Unwieldly almost stopped our Vesk from using one, until we figured out:
1. Vesk can AoO with their bare 'hands'
2. Switching grips allows him to have his offhand free between turnsYes, this prevents a full attack with the doshko if he still wants AoOs, but he seems fine with that. I have had no one even attempt a full attack yet.
So why did he want to use one? A 1,000 credit spending limit, 1d12 damage, "And it looks badass."
Though, as Darkling36 pointed out, it's not clear you even need to bother switching grips:
As for not being able to make an AoO, don't forget that as a Vesk Your player is always armed and able to attack. It says nothing bout needing their hands free, and while the the descriptions mention claws they also mention teath and strikes with their tails.
Unwieldly almost stopped our Vesk from using one, until we figured out:
1. Vesk can AoO with their bare 'hands'
2. Switching grips allows him to have his offhand free between turnsYes, this prevents a full attack with the doshko if he still wants AoOs, but he seems fine with that. I have had no one even attempt a full attack yet.
So why did he want to use one? A 1,000 credit spending limit, 1d12 damage, "And it looks badass."
Fun fact; Vesk head horns mean that head butts from them are actually quite painful!
Unwieldy is not for someone who wants to deal damage with as many attacks as possible - if you want to full attack, then it obviously isn't a weapon quality you want. Unwieldy weapons are useful for the people who wouldn't be making a full attack anyway. For the dedicated melee specialist, this probably isn't them. For someone who specializes in something else, and also melee, though? Unwieldy isn't as much of an issue, because it's typically a trade-off for higher base weapon damage.
Take the Envoy, for instance. An Envoy will either be burning move actions to maintain buffs like Get 'Em, or will be making single attacks as part of granting the party those buffs. If you want a melee Envoy, diplomatically chopping people apart, Unwieldy isn't such a drawback - you're not making a full attack anyway. Would it be better if you could make an AoO with your weapon? Certainly. Is the AoO important enough for this supporting melee character to warrant a less unwieldy weapon? That's a matter of taste.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
An unarmed strike can be dealt with any limb or appendage. Unarmed strikes deal nonlethal damage, and the damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus to weapon damage rolls.
Normal: You don’t threaten any squares with unarmed attacks, and you must have a hand free to make an unarmed attack.
Which is correct?
Another question: since their natural weapons act as a modifier to their Unarmed Strike, would the Vesk Natural Weapon Specialization apply to Improved Unarmed Strikes? That would put its average damage about in line with a Basic Melee Weapons of your level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious, what sort of damage can you expect with Unwieldy versus a full attack.
We'll take a level 7 soldier, and compare the wrack devastation blade (2d8) to the advanced doshko (2d12). Both weapons are level 7 and have no other abilities to influence the math. We'll assume that the soldier has a hit chance of 60% without full attacking, and has a +5 Str bonus (16 at creation, 5th level boost, mk I personal upgrade).
Wrack devastation blade, average 9+12
2((0.35×21)+(0.05×21×2))=18.9
Advanced doshko, average 13+12
(0.55×25)+(0.06×25×2)=16.25, 86% of the blade's damage
And at level 11 when Soldier's Onslaught comes online, using an ultrathin doshko (4d12) and an ultrathin curve blade (3d10). The soldier will now have a mk II personal upgrade for a +6 Str bonus, still with a 60% hit chance base.
Ultrathin curve blade, average 16.5+17
3((0.25×33.5)+(0.05×33.5×2))=35.175
Ultrathin doshko, average 26+17
(0.55×43)+(0.05×43×2)=27.95, 79% of the blade's damage
And finally at level 20, with an apocalypse devastation blade (12d8) versus a dimensional blade doshko (13d12). Our soldier now has a +8 Str bonus.
Apocalypse devastation blade, average 54+28
3((0.25×82)+(0.05×82×2))=86.1
Dimensional blade doshko, average 84.5+28
(0.55×112.5)+(0.05×112.5×2)=73.125, 85% of the blade's damage
However, since the doshko wielder isn't taking an accuracy hit, they might want Deadly Aim.
Advanced Doshko, average 13+12+3
(0.45×28)+(0.05×28×2)=15.4
Ultrathin doshko, average 26+17+5
(0.45×48)+(0.05×48×2)=26.4
Dimensional blade doshko, average 84.5+28+10
(0.45×122.5)+(0.05×122.5×2)=67.375
Wow. Deadly Aim sucks. Other than that, the Unwieldy weapon is about 80-85% of the blade. This also assumes that you can full attack every round. If you need to close to melee, the Unwieldy weapon looks better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because I'm on a math kick, let's run a scenario more in the doshko's favor. We'll assume that every other round you need to move to a new enemy, so round 1 will be a standard attack and round 2 will be a full/standard attack. This is more in the doshko's favor since it's damage doesn't go down while moving.
Wrack devastation blade, average 9+12
(0.55×21)+(0.05×21×2)=13.65, plus the full attack on round two for a total of 32.55
The advanced doshko will do 32.5 damage over those same two rounds.
The ultrathin curve blade will do 56.95 damage over those two rounds, while the ultrathin doshko will do 55.9.
The apocalypse devastation blade will do 139.4 damage, while the dimensional blade doshko will do 146.25.
As we can see, the inflection point is 1 full attack every 2 rounds. If you can get that many or more, the non-Unwieldy weapons come out on top. If you are only getting 1 full attack every 3 rounds or less, Unwieldy begins to shine.
It slips away from the unwieldy weapons when you take attacks of opportunity away. A spell caster or ranged opponent would much rather have an unwieldy weapon he can safely ignore next to him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*munches on discarded metal Doksho in the background*
Wow. Deadly Aim sucks.
That may be a bit strong. However, it does come "online" considerably later than Power Attack/Deadly Aim in Pathfinder.
Because the penalty is fixed at -2 and the damage bonus is half BAB, it only gets to the -2 attack penalty/+4 damage bonus breakpoint at 8th level (for a full BAB class). At higher levels it becomes more of an advantage, but it should not be considered before 7th-9th with a full-BAB class IMO; and envoys, mechanics, mystics, operatives, and technomancers should probably avoid it.
Spring Attack
It's more of a defensive ploy, but fairly strong, especially for 3/4 BAB classes.
at low level to I feel the full attack option is pretty risky. -4/-4 seems much larger a penalty at lower levels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
at low level to I feel the full attack option is pretty risky. -4/-4 seems much larger a penalty at lower levels.
Mechanically, it's almost always better than one attack.
For example, if attacking with a +4 bonus vs. KAC 13, you need a 9 to hit. That's a 60% chance. If you full attack, you instead have two 40% chances, which calculates out to around a 64% chance of at least one hit, and a 16% chance of that actually being two hits. That's quite a lot better, and that's around the bonuses and KAC you're attacking with at 1st.
Now, that's not always an option due to moving, as others note, and that 1d12 damage is not achievable with a weapon you can full attack with, but full attacking really is the optimal thing to do when possible from level 1 (for everyone but Operatives, anyway...Operatives get Trick Attack which changes things a bit).
Interesting even if the to hit chance was lower?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting even if the to hit chance was lower?
Depends on how low, but generally yes.
Assume you only hit on a 15 (Note: This requires a negative to-hit modifier at 1st). That's a 30% chance. On a Full Attack you'll only hit on a 19, which makes for a total 19% chance to hit, but does have a 1% chance of two hits and a nearly doubled number of criticals. Still probably not worth it, though.
But assuming a base 13 to hit (a +0 attack bonus at 1st), we're talking a 40% chance on one attack versus a 36% chance of at least one attack hitting but a 4% chance of both hitting. So those equal out...until you remember that whole 'nearly doubled number of criticals' thing. Which makes full attacking somewhat better.
So at that point or higher to-hit chances, full attacking is better. And that's the highest CR 1 AC I've seen and a +0 to-hit bonus. Almost all PCs have better to-hit odds than that by a fair bit.
See you keep giving me good info like that and I'll let you keep stalking me. :D
Wow. Deadly Aim sucks.That may be a bit strong. However, it does come "online" considerably later than Power Attack/Deadly Aim in Pathfinder.
Because the penalty is fixed at -2 and the damage bonus is half BAB, it only gets to the -2 attack penalty/+4 damage bonus breakpoint at 8th level (for a full BAB class). At higher levels it becomes more of an advantage, but it should not be considered before 7th-9th with a full-BAB class IMO; and envoys, mechanics, mystics, operatives, and technomancers should probably avoid it.
Actually, as my math above shows, Deadly Aim never comes online for a Soldier. The -2 penalty reduces your accuracy by 10%, thus reducing your damage output by 10%. To make the trade worthwhile, you need to increase your damage by more than 10%.
The bonus is half your BAB, but using a weapon you're specialised in gives a higher bonus. Coupled with Str bonuses, Deadly Aim is only good if half your BAB is more than 10% of your expected damage.
Since any Soldier should do far more than 10×their level in damage, Deadly Aim is a wasted feat for them.
Actually, as my math above shows, Deadly Aim never comes online for a Soldier. The -2 penalty reduces your accuracy by 10%, thus reducing your damage output by 10%. To make the trade worthwhile, you need to increase your damage by more than 10%.
The bonus is half your BAB, but using a weapon you're specialised in gives a higher bonus. Coupled with Str bonuses, Deadly Aim is only good if half your BAB is more than 10% of your expected damage.
Since any Soldier should do far more than 10×their level in damage, Deadly Aim is a wasted feat for them.
From calcs I did a while ago, it was a valid option for ranged Soldiers, since they don't add their ability modifier to damage. This was true even for heavy weapons soldiers that have higher base ranged damage than everyone else.
|
|
From calcs I did a while ago, it was a valid option for ranged Soldiers, since they don't add their ability modifier to damage. This was true even for heavy weapons soldiers that have higher base ranged damage than everyone else.
Using what weapons? With projectile weapons you can get 92 damage a shot, 99 with Sharpshoot. Adding Deadly Aim on top of that is clearly not worth it.
With lasers...we're talking more like 60.5 (67.5 with Sharpshoot), but much higher accuracy. That looks to break about even.
At 10th level the highest damage level 10 ranged weapon is the heavy reaction cannon for 3d10, or 26.5 damage average after specialization (assuming Soldier 10). You can also pick up the gear boost "bullet barrage" to bring that up to 29.5.
Adding 5 damage to that is +17% damage for a -2 to hit. If you math it out, its a small DPR increase.
DPR for Single shot, no Deadly Aim: 26.55
DPR for Full attack, no Deadly Aim: 44.25
DPR for Single shot, w/ Deadly Aim: 27.60
DPR for Full attack, w/ Deadly Aim: 44.85
Marginal, but a DPR increase. Of course, I skewed things here by adding some accuracy boosts. If you don't have Imp. Get 'Em and flatfooted, its a DPR loss. On the flip side if you're using an outdated ranged weapon, or don't have the gear boost for extra damage, deadly aim looks pretty good.
Its all about the accuracy vs. damage per hit ratio. So at high levels (where damage per hit skyrockets) its bad again.
But he insists that 2h weapons are pointless because "1d10 over 1d8 is a negligible difference" according to him.What advantage does he think One Handed weapons are getting? I haven't seen any equivalent of a shield that makes 1H vs 2H much more than a style choice?
It means that you have a hand free to wield a pistol in to make ranged attacks with, or to throw a grenade with, or to chug a Serum of Healing with, and so on and so forth.
Actually, as my math above shows, Deadly Aim never comes online for a Soldier. The -2 penalty reduces your accuracy by 10%, thus reducing your damage output by 10%. To make the trade worthwhile, you need to increase your damage by more than 10%.
The bonus is half your BAB, but using a weapon you're specialised in gives a higher bonus. Coupled with Str bonuses, Deadly Aim is only good if half your BAB is more than 10% of your expected damage.
Since any Soldier should do far more than 10×their level in damage, Deadly Aim is a wasted feat for them.
Eh, your math assumes a 60% miss chance, though. Depending on how the system plays out at higher levels given monster AC, that may not actually be true. In Pathfinder, a properly built fighter had almost no real miss chance once they got a few minor enhancements. If you consider that we also have EAC to contend with and with relatively minor losses to damage output, deadly aim starts looking really fantastic on energy wepaons.
Also, never underestimate the value of swing damage. Consistency is not important if you decapitate the dragon on round 1. That matters a lot.
Not all doshkos are considered unwieldy.
That is correct. However, the non-unwieldy versions deal energy damage... which can be more of a weakness in some cases.
Honestly, I... fail to understand why the Soldier doesn't get an ability/class feature that allow it to treat non-unwieldy weapons as "wieldy". Hey, if they can learn how to rapid-fire huge cannons, I don't see how they couldn't do the same for heavy melee weapons.
There are unwieldy heavy weapons and the soldier does not have any ability that 8 can think of that let's them use those more than once a round either. If they could utilize unwieldy weapons as normal weapons there would be little reason to ever chose not to do so. As it is the math works out such that unwieldy weapons may have a lower DPR ceiling, but they have a higher floor. They will do better against Dr/ER and have higher burst damage. Full attacking with a normal weapon or getting an AoO makes a normal weapon look better, but it only works out that way when those circumstances are met. So there's a real choice to be made and northern unwieldy or normal weapons is categorically the "right" choice. That is a good thing in my opinion.
Vesk attacks are natural weapons, not a version of improved unarmed strike.
Vesk have their own version of Weapon Specialization for their natural attacks that adds 1 1/2x level. And yes, at around level 4 with Melee Striker your attacks are around d3 + 12.
An unarmed strike can be dealt with any limb or appendage. Unarmed strikes deal nonlethal damage, and the damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus to weapon damage rolls.Normal: You don’t threaten any squares with unarmed attacks, and you must have a hand free to make an unarmed attack.Which is correct?
Another question: since their natural weapons act as a modifier to their Unarmed Strike, would the Vesk Natural Weapon Specialization apply to Improved Unarmed Strikes? That would put its average damage about in line with a Basic Melee Weapons of your level.
Vesk natural attacks do threaten and are considered armed.
There is a question flaoting around as to whether Improved Unarmed Strike damage improvement works with the Vesk natural attack version of weapon specialization.
IMHO, you may want to check with AOO claw and wielding 2H weapon, IIRC the book states that if you are wielding a 2H weapon you are not considered wielding a "hand/claw" now you could be considered wielding a foot/knee etc for AOO but I do not think those are considered threatening by the rules unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike.
I am taking Improved Unarmed Strike for both theme as well as the fact you can threaten with hands, legs, knees, head butt, etc.
BTW, I also hope that either the Operative gets a maneuver chain for Unarmed Strikes and or the android can swap out the free armor slot for free Unarmed Strike.
MDC
SFS scenarios are seeing NPCs with ACs high enough to negate full attack benefits. It's like the writers forgot AC 18-20 isn't average any longer.
Interesting even if the to hit chance was lower?Depends on how low, but generally yes.
Assume you only hit on a 15 (Note: This requires a negative to-hit modifier at 1st). That's a 30% chance. On a Full Attack you'll only hit on a 19, which makes for a total 19% chance to hit, but does have a 1% chance of two hits and a nearly doubled number of criticals. Still probably not worth it, though.
But assuming a base 13 to hit (a +0 attack bonus at 1st), we're talking a 40% chance on one attack versus a 36% chance of at least one attack hitting but a 4% chance of both hitting. So those equal out...until you remember that whole 'nearly doubled number of criticals' thing. Which makes full attacking somewhat better.
So at that point or higher to-hit chances, full attacking is better. And that's the highest CR 1 AC I've seen and a +0 to-hit bonus. Almost all PCs have better to-hit odds than that by a fair bit.
The problem with his character (pretty sure this is the game I'm in) is that he's upset that he is interpreting not being able to AoO with a Doshko, not adding 1.5 STR mod to damage with 2h weapons, and Step Up requiring a Reaction as making "all 2h melee fighters useless" or at least. I tried to explain that Step Up is useful for Full Attacks and Step Up and Strike is good later on. Also that there are plenty of high damage 2h weapons that aren't unwieldy. But he insists that 2h weapons are pointless because "1d10 over 1d8 is a negligible difference" according to him.
Remind him that Starfinder isn't Pathfinder and the rules are different.
Two-handed weapons were the king of melee combat in Pathfinder, but now they are simply a slightly better choice. But did he notice how two weapon fighting basically doesn't do anything?
Two-handed weapons deal more damage, even if you don't get 1/5 str to damage. Sure, at low levels it isn't very much but as you level up it becomes more and more significant. Starfinder re-balanced combat so that characters don't do as much damage in general as they did in Pathfinder. Besides, what were you going to do with your spare hand if you only wield a one-handed weapon in Starfinder? Extra weapons don't do anything.
He's complaining because of the shock value of his numbers not being as big as they were in Pathfinder, which is accurate. But they're not supposed to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly! Starfinder is less rocket tag and over all more tactical game play. I prefer this setup that how big of numbers can I get.