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.
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.
Java Man wrote:
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Renata Maclean wrote:
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.
Caleb Garofalo wrote:
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.
Caleb Garofalo 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.
Still irrelevant. The FAQ has literally nothing to do with his question.
FAQ is irrelevant because the character isn't using touch attacks. Or full-attacking.
David knott 242 wrote:
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.
It might help to look at the Starfinder feat and not the Pathfinder feat.
David knott 242 wrote:
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.
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.
The Doc CC wrote:
Yeah, this is about the 10th time its come up, and its a known error at this point that is going to be fixed.
The Cyber Mage wrote:
Starship scale creatures are currently planned for future releases, might even have gotten into Alien Archive if I remember the interview right.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
David knott 242 wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Its not really bad. Don't Quit is a major example. It sucks without spending a resolve point and is strong when using one.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
The feat is mediocre enough to not worry about. One of the few things I would call a trap option.
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 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Be this one race with OK but non-ideal stats or wait til level 11 aren't great solutions.