Erk Ander's page

in that immanence effects seem intended to give the Exemplar power exclusive to them, in order to put them on par with other martials. Gaining that from an archetype, let alone the full benefits just from the dedication feat, means allowing the combination of two different classes' defining features in a way very similar to dual-classing, and so the Exemplar archetype should probably offer no amount of immanence from ikons at all.

This is the most simple and efficient solution. Higher lvl feats could grants the immanence. But the lvl 2 should merely grant a Transcendence with a 1d4 round cooldown.

Major props for revising some stuff from the core-book. I really respect that. Also Hopefully feats will be less situational this time

This is some excessive measures. Yes I understand that none of the content that Paizo themselves make shall include AI-content but to bar others is overreach

I made a comment about this ages ago. To summarize, it makes no sense imo that evil and good are simply polar opposites in terms of how they cause damage. Angels etc are extra weak against evil energy and Fiends extra weak against Good ebergy. But thats sort of shallow view of alighment based damage. Evil and Good are more than just complete opposites. Evil is far more indiscriminate than Good is. As such everybody is equally vulnerable to evil damage regardless of actual alignment. Good damage on the other side tends to be more controlled and deliberate as such evil takes full damage, neutral takes half damage and good takes no damage.

At least thats how I think it should have been

Have to say I love an iconic that that is fairly mature (agewise) and a parent as well. Cool

For myself, I'd love to just go down the list of nations:

Osirion: Hooooo boy. Osirion is my single least-favorite place on Golarion.

I agree that Osirion is not very original

With that said note every region needs to LG wholesome. Some regions like Katapesh are going to to be unpleasant by moderns sensiblities. And if you look at cultures that inspired Katapash or Qadira slavery was everpresent. Katapash is meant to be what its meant to be, not every region has to be unproblematic. Thats why you have Andorans fighting against slavery and other injusticies over there (Which the Okeno Pirates hate). Much like the Worlwound its not a pleasant place not meant to be. Its a symbol of what can happen if wealth is the only thing that matters and you are willing to sell you parents to get it.

Conflickt between Taldor and Qadira has nothing remotelyto do with Crusades. Absolutely nothing. The Crusades was a multinationell and religiously motivated conflict. Qadira vs Taldor is not.

Erk Ander wrote:

Rogues and Swash have the same saves and the same AC. The Swash get 1 hp more per lvl. So the defenses are the exactly the same and Swash get at most 20 more HP. Not exactly squishy.

It's +2 HP per level, actually (so +40 HP eventually, a pretty meaningful number). Swashbucklers also have vastly increased mobility...which translates directly into getting attacked less if you use it right.

They also have much better defensive Feat support (specifically, Charmed Life is a great Save buff, and they have a bunch of high level defensive stuff, most notably Dueling Dance and Incredible Luck).

Sorry +2. The Rogue is more likely to have a higher CON than the Swash due to being a very SAD class and not needing str for damage.

Vastly is a exaggeration, yes the class is faster on par with the monk. And yes Charmed life is nice and its big brother (incredible luck) even nicer. Though it forces the class to upgrade CHA (at least 14) just to use those feats.. But that pretty much it in terms of saves. Dueling Dance is a multiclass feat or 2 away.And its decent.

But if get down to it the Rogue gets debuff that aid the entire party something insane.

The point still stands the class-chassis is only slightly sturdier than rogue. However I belive its much to early to say that Rogue is objectively better. Lets things marinate

Mudfoot wrote:

We know that Rovagug is the most powerful god there is. So is it unreasonable to believe that he manipulated Saranrae into making the Pit?

This is pretty explicitly canonical, having been stated outright a few places.

Hmm, I think Jacobs has said Pharasma is the most powerful with Rova being numero dos.

Where does it say he manipulated Sarenrae. Also Sarenrae has a temper doesn't make here evil.

A couple of points from the lore:

1) The KOG is mainly concerned with protecting the endangered species of Old Golarion and therefore it is implied that their focus is further out in space.

2) The Hellknights are brutally committed to Order and thus would loathe the Free Captains...they would also loathe breaking the law and as far as we can see, the Pact Worlds are the direct jurisdiction of the Stewards.

3) Based on what I remember from the Starfinder Wednesday briefings by the developers: both the Hellknights and the KoG have "client" worlds in Near Space who support them. For the KoG, these are friendly caretaker style relationships. For the Hellknights, it is a brutally well enforced contractual obligation (like the Peacekeepers in Farscape). This means that both organizations have bigger fish to fry.

4) The Stewards are a well funded but relatively small paramilitary-style law enforcement organization and are probably not prepared to untangle the rat's nest that is the Diaspora.

5) The people in the Pact Worlds who would like to show up to stop the Free Captains are the Pact Worlds Military which is made up of fleets that are in service to their homeworlds but gather together to defend the Pact. The PWM probably includes ships from Eox.

6) There are many, many, many, many, many, many good reasons why certain sovereign races in the Diaspora would very much like to not see a fleet that includes Eoxian military vessels showing up with their guns drawn.

1) KoG is about spreading justice anf fighting evil. And they also protect the defenseless or innocent all over. Specifically in the Pact Worlds. So kickinh pirate-ass is defintely on their agenda

2) Attacking the Pirates holds in the Diaspora is hardly a crime. The Stewards literally put bounties on pirates and criminals so why would they object against the HK ?

3) The bigger fish might as well be their homesystem. Thats why they fought against the Swarm, Veskarium etc

4) We don't really know how large the Stewards are but I can't see why the would have resources or the inclination to deal with the HQ of the systems Pirates. Especially since they if any could convince the Pact world planets to muster their armies and deal the deathblow to the Pirates.

On top of that, the Vesk would not obliterate a civilian population no matter how many pirates they could eliminate. That wouldn't be honorable. And the Stewards, well, like the UN peacekeeping forces, they do condemn piracy, and they probably help fight piracy in specific locations (just like UN Resolution 2442), but to eliminate piracy completely is not within the scope of their power to do so (they don't have that many Stewards or resources at their disposal with everything else they do).

So as you can see, there's lots of reasons why Broken Rock still exists even if it is well-known.

The Vesk have conducted Genocide at least twice and some of commanders are more than willing to kill civilians. After all whats honorable is debatable.

The Stewards deal harshly with the most bloodthirsty Pirates according to sourcebooks as an example for others, this might mean that they accept some piracy given that its not cruel or overly violent. They probably do have resources and power for it though. They have huge net of allies that could aid them in attacking the Pirates. It might thus be that they allow the existance of it because they can monitor and survey it as well gather all the scum of the galaxy in one place.

But it does not make sense that KoG, Hellknights, Stewards and others know the location yet don't blow it to hell/heaven. I always playes it as them NOT knowing where it is. Or that HQ is like a town of ships that move every now and then.

Erk Ander wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

For one thing, if Cheliax and Andoran do go to war, Ravounel is treaty-bound to come to the aid of Cheliax- something neither Eagle Knights nor Firebrands want.

This is not necessarily true, we don't know what detail is peace agreement. It was possible that some countries were exempt, meaning Cheliax would need to fight them alone. In fact I think Andoran and Taldor was used as examples of such exceptions.

Nope. Most Ravounel can get is a time limit when they can't be called to war. Eventually, if the war goes on long enough, they will be a co-belligerent with Cheliax.

I am simply going to the quote the part from the Adventure path and the arguement with that

"Nereza agrees to place limits on the nations against
which Ravounel will assist Cheliax. For example, the
PCs may ask for an exemption on warring against
Andoran or Taldor."

Do you see now ? Depending on the success of the negotiations there might be exceptions. Just like I said. We don't know how well it went only that they succeded to negotiate. To what extent is unknown.

This.IS.Good. Nuff said.

Really I like where this is going. Or went. Thank you for sharing

He literally said as such a few posts before the one you quoted.

James Jacobs wrote:

One SIGNIFICANT thing we'll be more obvious and clear about when and if we do more rules for Azlantis is to treat them more responsibly. Just as how there are numerous Tien ethnicities representing a wide range of cultures on Tian Xia, there's numerous Azlanti ethnicities representing a wide range of cultures on Azlant back in the pre-Earthfall days. AKA there's a lot of diversity among them.

I can't remember writing to you, but sure feel free to chime in wherever. I wanted elaborate than there have rarely been any Azlanti that look differently than those described in 1e, hence this is pretty much a retcon. Not that it matters greatly. It is however interesting.

The people of Azlant, collectively known as the Azlanti, comprised a wide range of skin colors and hair colors and eye colors, yes.

I notices you changed that in the latest 2e sourvebook. In 1e they were bronzed-colouzed in skin, dark hair and purple eyes.

I thought Sarenrae started as an angel and got upgraded to deity for leading her fellows in the fight against Rovagug.

The same could be said of Asmodeus and devils. I assume Angel/Devil might be considered a sort of a "divine race" and Sarenrae and Asm are the first (and greatest) of their kinds.

The so called Fall from "heaven" that Asmo led Dispaters, Moloch and the and others on could be a sort of rebellion from the other First. One being based on a lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil perspective. OR just Free will.

Bartram wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

That's all really awesome.

The listed deities of the 'First 8' are Pharasma, Desna, Sarenrae, Achaekek, Rovagug, Ihys, Asmodeus, and a nameless God bound to Pharasma's throne.

The Speakers of the Depths are probably the Proteans.

I'm not sure that Pharasma counts as one of the first eight. The way I see it is that each of the eight sides of the seal is one of the outside alignments (with Neutral being the center)

I would interpret it as

LG: Ihys
NG: Sarenrae
CG: Desna

LN: Achaekek (before he descended into savagery apparently)
N: Pharasma (Not counted among the eight)
CN: Speaker of the Depths

LE: Asmodeus
NE: Throne dude
CE: The guy that stepped off and got eaten by Rovagug (or just Rovy)

Yup! (Throne dude is not associated with Pharasma's throne, though. It's a different throne.)

So Ihys was LG God of Free will ?

Zapp wrote:

Erk Ander wrote:

Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well

Have you counted the number of new feats in the two Lost Omens guides?

Feat bloat is definitely a thing in this edition. Not only a thing - the game is clearly and intentionally constructed to permit easy publication of HUGE and HUGE amounts of feats.

Moreover, that a feat is "situational" doesn't mean it should be fixed, or that it is useless.

I didn't say merely situational, I said REALLY situational. The really part matters.

Here is the thing. PAthfinder first edition had a ton of useless and very situational feats. This edition should imo aspire to avoid that. From the very start.

I apt to agree with you about this. I personally find it weird that the alignment damage is so bland in nature. I'd rather see it more nuanced.

The nature of evil and in particular fiends is that harmful to all, even itself. Evil feads at evil as well. As such I think evil damage should be equally deadly towards good, neutral AND evil. As it is now the evil is deadly only towards good and vice versa. It's fairly boring and not at all thematic in the way evil works (IMO).

In AP Hells Vengeance we see again and again how evil hits back at itself (and good of course) through for example the harmful and cruel infighting. The reason that people turn towards evil is that's its more accessible and easy to procure. People make pacts and sacrifices with evil entities to gain power rather than go the long hard road of righteousness (where you must prove yourself through good deeds before getting a modicum of power).

I would change aligment damage (Evil) so that it can hurt good, evil- and neutral-aligned. Good damage still only targets evil. Because good is considerate and precise and will not harm the innocent (good and neutral in this case). Evil is equal opportunity in terms of who it affects. Hellfire is as deadly to devil as the demon (and others ofc).

This of course makes evil weapons and spells far more efficient since they can harm anybody. As such I would consider decreasing evil damage to 50% or decrease the hit-die on step. From 1d6 for unholy weapons to 1d4. Maybe 1d3.

I would also take away evil vulnerability on celestials (fiends still have their vulnerability). The attribute evil has over good is its total ruthlessness. An evil fiend can save an orphanage full of children if it suits the purposes of evil or itself, that is a fiend will do good deeds even if its against its nature. A celestial will not slaughter children of an orphanage even if it would suite purposes of good or itself (don't ask how). A celestial will not commit evil deeds due to its nature. Hence some kind RP rules (like those of demons, I love those) can replace they fact that Celestials will hit fiends harder than fiends hit Celestials. On the other had fiends will damage everything harder than Celestials will since evil damage is harmful to all.

Erk Ander wrote:

Easily Andoran, mostly because they tend to be far less conservative in adopting new tech. For instance inAbsalom the First Guard is VERY conservative where as those member from Andoran tend to want to experiment and progress.

Also pseudo-America.

Andoran has neither the know-how nor the plant to produce firearms, and no means to gain either. They could always import them, though.

Ehm, only 1 nation has the know-how and and ability to produce fireams (Alkenstar) so thats hardly a legitimate argument. Andoran has a educated population (school is free) no other nation has that level of literacy. Also Andoran smiths are known as being less conservative and more interested in experimenting and developing news arms and tech.

Wow the details on the art. The holster of firearms has the symbol of Ioemedae

The Knights of Lastwall turned out to be pretty cool sure they got nuked and driven out but they are stilll fighting. Really like it.

Holomog plz !A celestial nation that doesnt suffer from "Good is dumb", not counting the war on Geb.

also, no need to put frighten on it.

it already is an attack which is about equal to paladin getting an attack, no more riders needed.

Or, in fact, you could simply NOT have it do an attack, and only get the resistance and the Frighten.

Also:
"You must drive for power and be cunning whenever it advances your cause, harm or undermine those who seek to wrong you and value your life above others when it needed."

that's not "evil" imo. That's like the definition of neutral "don't care about others, just you survive, also punish those who are against you"

A tenet for Evil needs to promote evil, not to promote self-preservation and defense.

i'd put in something more drastic in its place, like:
"You must strive to undo good acts done by others"
or
"You must strive to accomplish your deeds in a way that brings harm to another"

or something along those lines

I would not add those lines into the tenets. Here is why, evil characters do whats in their interest or those of other evil interests. If doing good is in their interest thats what they are possibly going to do. They don't have oppose good specfically it comes with the territory since they do what the want regardless of who suffers (with some possile boundaries if lawful evil for examaple)

I can already say that the Tyrant reaction is WAY better than its LG version. Even if you ditch the resistance its still much much better

So are ThiCC Tengu going to be a thing now ?

Easily Andoran, mostly because they tend to be far less conservative in adopting new tech. For instance inAbsalom the First Guard is VERY conservative where as those member from Andoran tend to want to experiment and progress.

Also pseudo-America.

This is why Liane is among the very best. First of all, damn that Dragon was evil. Seriously evil. Also love how you made us feel just how dangerous it a dragon really. All in all, I loved it.

@Erk

I didn’t miss Bravery at all, I went and read it when you brought it up, it’s great for for the Fighter, Aura of Courage is good for the Paladin and their party (15ft btw). So if you deal with fear effects often it is very much worth it.

It’s precisely because you don’t have the books that the snark is warranted, you’re writing it all off based just on tidbits without seeing everything.

If the three feats are EXACTLY like the playtest why does it then matter if I have the book ? I wanted info on those three feats alone. I neither want nor need to see more, since that all I wanted. My disappointment was of these three feats and these alone. I have said nothing about other feats. You are now willfully missing the point, Aura of Courage does LESS for the PAladin than Bravery does for the Fighter. Which is why its a disappointment. The Paladin used to be immune and then granted resistance to fear. Now he merely reduces the value by 1 for any within 15 feet. And he has to use a valuable featslot for whats been an iconic abliity.

The snark is not warranted and you would do well to realise that. Its not even your thread, so why the need to be rude. Take it elsewhere.

Ok, some Paladin/champion questions. Is Aura of courage, Divine GRACE, Sense Evil still feats. I saw these as iconic abilities (class features) yet they were feats in the playtest. So what are they about now ? The fighter got Bravery as class feature and it was way more useful than Aura of Courage (a feat ) was. Divine Grace was a feat that used your reaction to gain a bonus to saves (as such competed with AoO and Paladins Action reaction). Sense Evil was just plain weak in the playtest, what does it do now ? Also What happened to Instrument of Zeal feat as well as the lvl 12 Smite evil (power attack on evil foes basically) ? Instrument of Zeal was highly situational in the playtest how is it now ?

Thanks and btw you can only describe in vague terms if it feels better.

You ignored the bold bit there. That composite longbow required significant gold investment to upgrade to that point. Cantrips are free. A caster shouldn't be able to do comparable damage at will for free, especially when you consider at will damage tends to be biggest contribution a martial character can make while the caster...

Yes you make a good point., but the cantrip is also 2 actions as opposed to the weapons 1, plus range, and a bunch of other things. I'd suggest increasing the range at the very least. maybe adding a mid-level feat that makes cantrip attacks 1 action instead of 2. Due to overall weakening of casters cantrips are going to be way more important.

With striking taking up a rune slot and only going to three bonus dice won't max Longbow damage be more like: 4d8+3 Str+2d6 Other runes or ~28

Compared to 9d4+7 ~29.5

You get two shots with the bow which does make it more damaging for the action economy but it probably should be if it is a primary weapon.

I'd argue that cantrips should start off closer to weapon damage and then fall behind because as the caster level ups it's more likely that they are going to use a slotted spell or power so cantrips move from primary combat position for a low level caster to a backup option for a high level caster

Striking grants 4 dice (5 in playtest).

Divine Lance bodes well for cantrip damage in general. 9d4+Casting Stat is respectable high level damage for something free, and I doubt Arcane cantrips are too much worse.

I am not so sure. Comparte it with a composite longbow at that lvl it 5d8+dex+0.5 Str+Runes (fire, holy etc). Given all that its likely the ranged weapon deals at the very least twice as much damage .Plus the bow has FAR longer range (divine lance should have at least 120). The one downside a ranged weapon has is...ammo.

On the caster lvl issue. I understand how its meant to solve a issue, but they also halved the amount of spells you can get. This AND the heightening mechanic is a harsh. Maybe increase the amount of spells u gain.

You could also give spontaenous casters, the spell-point/mana system. And prepared casters the Arcanist. Given that spellcasters are greatly weakened already I fail to see the issue. Is it really that bad a suggestion ?

Also I think the caster vs martial disparity is something that can be partially fixed by giving martials something else to do or contribute.

This is pretty cool. Radiant blast isn't very damaging though.

Might be a little controversial but a better spellcastiong method ? Spellpoint or Arcanist spellcasting for clerics. Also a CANTRIP with long range that deals damage, preferbly alignment damage.

Also if the clerics spells had a niche. For instance the few offensive clerics spells could for instance be partyfriendly (the Divine know their own) up to say Cha-modifier targets. Or they could have other cool features, like Flame strike. Which currently halves flame-resistance but IMO should completely ignore fire-resistance. But fire-immunity should lead to a higher save succes (as it is now). The Divine spell list is pretty much the worst so improving the spell quality and spell-casting method (arcanist or spellpoint/mana) would do wonders.

Hollywood fight-scenes have never accurately depicted technique with a longsword; they are always shown as cumbersome bashers even though historical examples seldom weighed over 3 lbs and were frighteningly nimble. The so-called German school of fencing ("Deutsche Schule; Kunst des Fechtens") specialized in longsword and trained to defeat armored adversaries. In the Orient, the spear was considered superior to the sword on the battlefield; in the West, the longsword was superior to the spear.

Never ever heard that the longsword was superior to the the spear in Europe. Sure it was a nobles weapon and at least one Master said it was the weapon to start with (due to complexity). But its actual superiority to the spear is very questionable.

No culture without longswords developed fully-enclosed, articulated plate armor, and no such culture's best lesser armor would have stopped a longsword whose point was designed to be levered into joints. But to this day, games treat it as a cheap "starter" sword that your hero almost immediately throws away upon acquiring a better weapon, when in actuality they were the top-shelf and far beyond the monetary means of the commoner. They were the apex European war sword for over 400 years.

This is also a very questionable claim. The emergeance of plate armour has less to do with longswords. A maiille or even gambeson can stop the cuts of a longsword. Let alone plate, which is barely scratched. Yes you can thrust with the point but you can do that with a LARGE variety of weapons just as well. And thursting through the mail and gambeson in joints, armspits of plate (because you can't thrust through plate) is very hard. Even if you half-sword. Swords (longsword. katana) as a weapon are not very good against maille or better. Yes you can strike with hilt, pommel etc. But you can also just use a mace, warhammer. LongsSwords were secondary weapons and were good SECONDARY because of the versatility, since in a pinch they can do alot of different things, but you don't start with it. As main weapons they are not super good if the opponent is wearing more than maille. The Poleaxe is however. Thats why knights usually had swords as secondary weapons.

You might think that a rapier's hand-protecting hilt cups and/or basket-work were innovations over the longsword; actually they are not, because you can't spin a sword with a round guard (or tsuba). Rapiers, and their ever more diminutive "smallsword" descendants, flourished in "polite society" because they were less deadly and therefore suitable for use in affairs-of-honor, which, despite depiction of duels in movies, were usually fought "to the blood" (or first scratch, hopefully something that would heal to leave a handsome scar on the forehead or cheek; the Prussians in particular were really into that sort of thing, and students at military academies were accounted cowards if they did not duel). Longswords were not designed for such niceties; they were made for expediently putting the enemy down permanently.

When you say spin, do you mean "winding" in the "bind" ? Also there were plenty of longswords that had complex hilts, they are absolutely beautiful and they protect you hands. If anything the complex hilt longswords were the apex of swords. Google Swiss sabers (technically not "longswords") or complex hilt longswords. Also longswords were used to duel sometimes to first blood. Sometimes to death, I think talhoffer or some such guy was a "champion" who fought duels on behalf of people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer

The Operative is not OP at all. He is sort nmbr 2 at all skills that are not Dexcbased.

In terms of damage the Soldier and the Solarion both outdamage him. But so do both the mechanics as well. I have spredsheet modfied by another poster with all the roundsdown.

Hmm

You can put it this way. The classes Soldier and Solarian outdamage the Operative greatly (between 2-3 times the DPR). The Mechanic also outdamages the Operative, doesn't matter which type they both do. The Drone does it surprisingly well if it takes the longarm feat (90 dpr vs Operatives 60).

So the classes left are the Casters and the Envoy. Assuming they use small arms the Operative is better. But if you add longarms its somewhat equal. However the casters shouldn't really be compared unless you include their spell-casting abilities. It becomes too much of a apples and oranges situation.

Make no mistake the Operative is a cool class. But if any class takes longarms/heavy arms (and they will) then the Operative will deal the least damage. Even if you add full spec you only increase the DPR by 10 or so. The classes that outdamage the Operative (assuming they use longarms) will still do it. Full spec or not.

Soldiers vs Sol

Operative damage

A system where your damage capability increased per YOUR level instead of the weapons could have partially solved this.

Imagine you lvl, feat etc determined the damage of your pistol and not the lvl of the actual pistol. Imagine then that you still bought a pistols but these had different properties such as plasma, Fire, line arc etc etc. That way you could buy different guns for the properties (of course some properties would result in slightly less/more damage) but essentially the damage of guns are the same.

The general idea is that you should be able to carry the same semi-auto throughout all your carrier and become more deadly with it as you lvl. You shouldn't need to buy a new version because your damage capability is dependent on YOUR lvl.

This system would result in cheaper weapons since YOUR lvl dictates the damage not the weapons itself, no reason for expensice weapons, they won't matter if your lvl 1. For instance imagine a simple gun in the hands of a lvl 20 soldier compared to lvl 10 Soldier with the exakt same simply gun. The lvl 20 Soldier would be VASTLY more dangerous than the lvl 10 soldier. Because weapon damage scaled with character lvl, Thats the system I would love to see.

Hope I make some sense.

Tigrean wrote:

So far from what I'm reading here in the post, I really like the Drow. I see nothing wrong with have one of the few remaining Matriarchal societies still existing in this setting. Beside some inetersting things can happen when females have such power. Now if you excuse me my Drow Mistress requests me to return to bed.

It's not that they are matriarchal so much as there are no truly patriarchal societies. We have matriarchies and then equal societies. I just dislike the double standard.

In a world with thousands of races, its shouldn't be weird if at least one race/culture is matriarchal/Patriarchal. And that brings me to the issue of the Lashunta uniqueness that was taken away was taken away. Though I both understand and agree with Paizos choice since they are now a Core race.

My biggest gripe with Drow is the fact that their society makes no sense. Why would anybody trust a bunch of extremely treacherous CE demon-worshippers. They might not deliver the goods after all its in their nature/culture. They would have made more sense as pirates or outlaws rather than arms-dealers or even "regular pact members.

Our bodies and minds are ready :D

Maybe the reason for the stat change was that there were already too many core races with INT as racial stat (Android, Ysoki). Now Cha is the main stat for LAshunta with Int being a choice rather mandatory.

I do wonder how often you will end up making a full attack versus moving and a single attack (which the Trick obviously incentivizes).

Pretty much what deadman says. Compared to Trick attack Full attack is almost twice at good max lvl. However TA is more accurate so against a single foe TA is good. There is also the debuffs. Though A full attacker can get the debuffs via exploits. So I guess its a wash.

However with TA you can do stuff like hide behind cover after shooting, fall prone attack etc. It's very versatile. Damage isn't everything. For instance TA can cause the condition flatfooted. Thats effectively a +2 to hit for the entire party. In Starfinder thats significant. At high lvs you can several debuffs. So

Erk Ander wrote:

Didn't know the potential damage difference between the classes was that high. Nice example.

Thanks. :)

Most of it is just the third attack on Soldiers and Solarians (though both do also have class-exclusive damage bonuses), and the lower damage of Operative weapons for the Operatives (which the extra attacks make up for, mostly anyway).

Your welcome. Yeah unless I am wrong the Soldier for instance have some abilities that increase damage, for instance the Gear boost melee strike.

On another note I do think ALL of us should be careful with labels such as underpowered or overpowered etc. The game just came out. While numbers are important and useful (you proves that previosuly) its not the everything.

Okay, I recently did a Solarian and Soldier damage comparison (in melee). Let's add Operative (also melee, for simplicity).

A 20th level Operative does maybe 8d6+14 damage (average 42 points), with a +26 to hit w/Weapon Focus (or +23/+23/+23/+23 at best in a Full Attack). A Trick Attack adds a debuff and adds 10d8 damage (average 45 points), but that's mutually exclusive with the full attack option.

So that's 168 if all four attacks hit, or 87 on a Trick Attack.

A Soldier, meanwhile, hits for 12d10+33 damage (average 99 points) with a +30 to hit with Weapon Focus (+24/+24/+24 in a Full Attack).

So that's 297 if all three attacks hit, 99 on a single attack.

A Solarian, meanwhile, hits for 18d6+42 damage (average 105 points) with a +29 to hit with Weapon Focus (due to being MAD, +24/+24/+24 on a full attack)

That's 315 damage if all attacks hit, 105 on a single attack.

That comparison is pretty clearly not in the favor of the Operative, especially with the lower attack bonus.

Any other Class, absent Class abilities, but with Weapon Focus and Advanced Melee Weapon Proficiency and Specialization and with Solarian-equivalent Str does 12d10+28 damage (average 94 points) but with only +25 to hit (or +21/+21 on a full attack).

That's 188 damage if all attacks hit, 94 on a single attack. But, of course, with lower to-hit than the Operative and no debuff.

Didn't know the potential damage difference between the classes was that high. Nice example.

I must admit, I do think the operative IS very much overtuned with it's skill monkeying. It's a bit too good at everything, to the point it easily overshadows other classes. I'd have preferred if all classes were good at skill monkeying in their own areas.

They are.The Mechanic, Mystic And Technomancer get the same insight bonus as the Operator to their areas of expertise (Computers, engineering, mysticism etc) and they are also Int/Wis-focused. Not to mention they get extra abilities to these very skills that the Operator cannot get. So if a Mechanic pushes increases Int the same manner as a Operative increases Dex, the Mechanic will always be better at Int skills such Computers and Engineering.

The Operative is second best at skills that are not Dex-focused. But is plainly beaten in other cases

If I may. Another poster has done some very good calculations.

Lets assume that you can use Trick Attack movement to "aim" the sniper rifle. Which btw is a very good rule imo.

The links below compare Smalls arms vs Sniper with and without TA
The second link is Smalls arms full attack vs Smalls TA

I feel like Operatives should be able to use their weapons with their inherent class features automatically. Including damage. But I understand Paizo, they have made some calculations and have reasons for the path they choose. But Sniper rifles are not so useful. Right now Full attacks is way more efficient and TA (with small arms as well) as well. Even if you allow TA with Sniper Rifles full attacks are better at lv 12 or so I think. Unless the target has very high AC, maybe. Only between 5-12 or so is sniper Rifles with TA better.

Also TA with small arms is way more efficient than Sniper rifles from lvl 1-20. Full attack at lv 5 is pretty much equal with Sniper rifle without TA and after that way way better. All this is true unless we engage at extreme ranges.

The links don't work but the poster is called Sundered Hero in this thread. Search for his name and post.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uic2?What-if-sniper-rifles-had-Trick-Attack