Kudaku's page

I think the problem with simply eliminating the MAD aspect of the Solarian is that the class gets a lot of class features specifically to make up for being MAD. Solar Armor and Graviton Mode offsets having a lower dex, Photon Mode (and plasma sheath) offsets having a lower str, Sidereal Influence and free class skills offsets having no real points to invest in INT.

If you redesign the Solarian so that it can be built in the same way as a soldier (pump str&dex and ignore charisma at level 1, boost str/dex/con/wis every level boost) then you're making it a class that gets essentially everything melee soldiers get with free damage/save/skill boosts on top.

I'd rather go the other way by making charisma a more interesting stat for Solarians. Right now it feels like a tax since the most popular revelations are charisma agnostic and apart from resolve there's not many things really encouraging you to invest in charisma.

Except that, in this game, it appears that vision options like darkvision and low-light vision are essentially 'free' in the balance calculation for whether a not a race is balanced. You can see it in the monster creation rules, explicitly spelled out, and it seems to also be the case when you reverse engineer the race points of the various extant races. Take away the Drow's Light Blindness penalty and they're still essentially a glomming of Androids and Lashuntas and sit pretty on par balance wise with either race.

I think trying to extrapolate race balance from the monster creation rules is a dead end, PC races and monsters have vastly different checks and counters.

I don't see environmental protection or a cheap item as not at least alleviating the effect.

Oh, I'm not suggesting such an item shouldn't exist period. I think it makes perfect sense for drow to develop technology that allows them to (more or less) comfortably exist in other races natural habitat. My concern is simply that if such an item exists and has zero downsides, why would you ever see a drow not wearing it? Why would drow thrive underground and shun existence on the surface? Drow's aversion to bright light is one of the most defining traits of the race, I'd be careful to include a trivially cheap item that lets them as a race completely ignore that problem.

In my mind, the 5cr "sunglasses" a drow would need would be more like welders goggles than human sunglasses, but frankly, that seems about on point credit wise for what those would cost. I might increase it to 10 or 20 credits (to match the cost of a tool kit or environmental clothing, some of which would likely include welder's goggles), but any higher than that seems unrealistic.

If a player came to me asking for some kind of anti-blindness device, I'd happily agree that such an item should exist. However I think spending 1-5 credits to completely ignore a racial drawback is a bit too strong, and I'm not in love with the idea that every drow in Starfinder is going to be walking around sporting sunglasses Matrix-style. so I'd instead come up with a few different items.

Item 1 is the cheapo 1 credit option that most common drow laborers unfortunate enough to have to work in direct sunlight would use. My first thought is that wearing these should be the equivalent to wearing a gas mask in our world - you use it when you have to and you're happy you have one on hand when you need it, but you feel sweaty and uncomfortable while wearing it and it's a relief when you can take the damn thing off. Your example of welder's goggles fits well here, let's call them Darkshade Glasses. Darkshade Glasses are cheap, counter the drawbacks of Light Sensitivity, but need a minor drawback so that all drow don't permanently wear them. A -1 penalty to perception checks while wearing them due to the dimming effect seems like a decent compromise. The naturally keen-sensed drow would likely come to resent wearing goggles that leaves their keen eyesight blurred, and wearing such glasses would be a sure sign that you belonged in the lower classes.

Item 2 is the compromise option. We'll call it the Darkshade Visor. Darkshade Visor is a level 1 armor upgrade that costs 100 credits. Advanced technology lets the visor continually adjust the lighting level to a comfortable level for drow retina, as a result it lets you ignore the penalties of Light Sensitivity and has no drawback other than taking up an upgrade slot and the slight cost. This should be cheap enough that it's a viable purchase for a level 1 drow that starts a campaign where he'll be spending a decent amount of time in bright light, but expensive enough that most common drow wouldn't want to spring for it.

Item 3 is the Deluxe option. We'll call it the Darkshade Implants. The Darkshade Implant is a level 3 eye-slot biotech augment that costs 1250 credits. By attaching a translucent microfilm that automatically focuses and disperses the light as needed, it fully negates the penalties of Light Sensitivity and grants a +2 circumstance bonus against visual-based blinding effects such as flash grenades. Unlike other augments, the Darkshade Implants can be combined with other augments that occupy the eye slot.

So if you're a level 1 drow commoner, you use the darkshade glasses (and probably resent it).

If you're a low level drow PC or a reasonably affluent drow NPC you'd use the Darkshade Visor. I'd imagine these would be standard issue for drow infantry, much the same way modern armies issue nightvision goggles.

If you're a mid-level drow PC or a drow infiltrator/agent/executive etc you could consider springing for the augments.

How does that sound to you?

Why not? Light Sensitivity is defined in its mechanical effects. Why exactly would an item that specifically deals with those mechanical effects, not help with said weakness? Is there something special about the "low light level" produced by a pair of sun glasses that somehow drow eyes "magically" respond to it differently than any other low light level?

I think you're coming at this from different angles.

Your argument goes: "Light Blindness" is like human light sensitivity, which can be countered by sunglasses. Sunglasses exist, are effective and cheap to make in our world, so they should exist and be cheap to make in Starfinder.

His argument goes: Drow have Light Blindness as a racial trait, the race is balanced around having that drawback. If I introduce a 5 credit item that's not in the game that negates that drawback, it's not a real drawback - all drow will buy sunglasses and forget about the penalty. If that drawback disappears, the race is imbalanced. I don't want the race to be imbalanced, so I don't want to introduce the glasses.

Think of it like this: Humans have a (hidden) racial drawback in that they are unable to see in the dark. Nightvision goggles exist in real life, and allow humans to see very well in the dark. Should I allow a 5 credit item that gives a human darkvision 60'? No, because similar items already exist (Infrared Sensors armor upgrade/Darkvision Capacitors implant), take up armor/augment slots and are priced at 200 and 1750 credits, respectively.

I'd probably use the Darkvision options as an analogue for Light Blindness and design low-level armor upgrades and augment options to counter it. They shouldn't be too hard to get, but they shouldn't be free either. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an item like this in the upcoming Armory book.

I think it's important to be able to have a dialogue in paladins - a minority of posters (some of which I suspect have been banned?) has tended to drag these discussions into arguments in the past, but our goal is to make PF2 the best game it can be and the best way to reach that goal is to keep the conversation going. Each and every one of us have to do our best to keep the boards positive and productive, and trust Paizo to do their part by removing any overly argumentative elements. :)

As for the topic... I think some kind of alignment restriction is pretty much unavoidable, it's too heavily tied to the class identity to be removed. That said, it feels strange that a class that's presented as "the armor master" has such a specific flavor and concept, and that "the divine champion" can only champion about a third of Golarion's pantheon. That the god of farming has a martial divine champion and the god of battle does not seems a self-contradiction. I hope that they include a martial divine champion in Pathfinder 2's CRB* that offers more alignment options than just LG, one that can represent all the gods in Golarion. That said, I'd be perfectly happy if they break the class down into alignment-restricted sections and call the LG version Paladin. That seems the best compromise to me. :)

I think part of the problem with having massive hangar bays is that the Starship combat rules really struggle with fights that have more than a half-dozen ships in them. Starship Combat shines when it's dealing with fighter-on-fighter or cap-on-cap combat, and works okay but can get slow when there's more than a few enemies involved.

Say we use the modern carrier as a baseline but double the fighter capacity since the smallest possible gargantuan carrier would be roughly twice as big (~600m) - it would be able to carry 180 fighters. Assuming it launches every fighter it has, the fight would look a bit like this. There is no way in hell that encounter could work with the starship combat rules as they are today.

Massive Sci-fi ships is a huge trope. Plane-size space fighters is a massive trope. Releasing a space combat system that doesn't cover these bases would be a massive hole. So instead we get some curiously undersized hangars to keep the numbers somewhat manageable.

I fully expect to see these rules revised and expanded upon, either in the Armory or in a book devoted exclusively to space combat. Personally I'd consider some kind of "swarm"-type mechanic to let larger fighter wings fight as a single entity.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

The thing is: honour comes up constantly under the portfolio of lawful gods (even evil ones, sometimes), and never under the portfolio of neutral/chaotic gods.

Last I checked, his areas of concern were:

Areas of Concern Battle, strength, weapons
Domains Chaos, Destruction, Glory, Strength, War
Subdomains Blood, Duels, Ferocity, Fist, Legend, Protean, Rage, Resolve, Tactics

Honour is neither an area of concern nor a subdomain for him.

Inner Sea Gods has a comprehensive writeup for each of the gods, you should check it out - it's a really good read! Here's the text Cyouni references:

When several leaders come together, there is usually some gruff posturing and a few brawls until a hierarchy is established. Underhanded tactics such as poison are considered dishonorable in these bouts, though spells that enhance the priest, his weapons, or armor are considered fair.

Gorum's philosophy is actually a really good example of how different cultures will have different definitions of what is and is not honorable. Gorum considers using poison in duels dishonorable, but surrendering to a superior foe is honorable and he expects surrendering foes to be spared:

Better to Die a Warrior Than Live a Coward: While Gorum doesn’t believe his followers should recklessly throw away their lives in battles they cannot win, agreeing to a fight and then fleeing a battle is the act of an unworthy cur. Surrender is honorable, for those who surrender may have a chance to redeem themselves in a later battle, but those who flee are best cut down before they shame themselves again.

Compare that to Torag's paladin code:

Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

Accepting an opponent's surrender is honorable for the CN God of War and dishonorable (to the point of a paladin falling if he does) for the LG God of Protection & Strategy.

Composite Bows are the master race of ranged weapons, and it has always been this way since the original 1st Edition D&D. There's no reason to change that paradigm now, especially because there's no new fad to make them less appealing.

You're a vocal minority in regards to crossbows being cool to use. That taste is easily changed for others due to bad mechanics. I really only played a crossbow character just because it was different, and something never played at a table before, not because it was cool or anything else like that; I dislike the mainstream. If I could go back and change to using a bow (or even throwing weapons), I would due to the simply horrible mechanics of Crossbows, and how suboptimal they are in the face of high HP, high A.C. enemies, which are practically every boss fight at my table.

On top of that, being linked with a minority means there is an uphill battle for change, not to mention there being other big topics up to bat, like vancian casting, resonance, paladins, and goblins and alchemists being a part of core. The fact of the matter is, compared to those topics, crossbows is very low in priority in regards to being changed or even discussed, meaning any hope for crossbows is drowning in the topical mainstream.

Darksol, let me see if I understand your argument correctly: In Pathfinder 1.0 (as well as in previous versions of D&D) bows are much, much better weapons than crossbows. A character you deliberately designed to use crossbows would still swap to a longbow in hard encounters, since the crossbow couldn't keep up in high HP & high AC fights. You consider this a good thing, because crossbows are unpopular compared to bows and thus crossbows should be an objectively bad option.

Is that accurate?

I've seen way too many newbie players grab a crossbow at level 1 because they think crossbows are awesome and then flounder for five+ levels trying to make the concept work because crossbows are mechanically awful. Very frequently these are characters that have longbow proficiency but simply like crossbows more.

I would greatly appreciate it if crossbows could be a viable combat style in Pathfinder 2.

I always found it strange that Barbarians and primitive cultures tend to be Chaotic in RPGs. Normally a primitive hunter-gather society is going to be strongly collectivistic (which I'd argue is a lawful trait) because they rely on everybody contributing to stay alive. Your value as an individual is primarily measured in the contributions you can make to your tribe. The best hunter, the best fisher, the strongest warrior, and the one who knows the best places to collect berries are all important figures because they are best able to support their clan. There's not much room for individualism or self-actualization when everybody's pulls together on the great mammoth hunt or else everybody starves to death. When your ability to contribute is sufficiently diminished or reaches a negative value (say from suffering a crippling injury or becoming elderly), you'd might even be encouraged to wander off into the wilderness to die since the tribe can't afford to feed you.

SF Debris goes into this pretty well, actually. You're primarily discussing external honor--an honor defined by your accomplishments, your standing, your adherence to standards set by the group. Most traditionally, these standards are Klingon/Gorumite warrior values, but one could just as plausibly posit, say, a society of assassins which derives honor from always completing contracts, remaining unseen, raising no alarms, causing no collateral damage, making it look like an accident--or contrariwise, leaving a prominent calling card.

Internal honor is a matter of integrity, of having a code of right and wrong which you stick to. This you could absolutely 'have all by yourself on a desert island', though admittedly there probably wouldn't be much *challenge* to it there unless your code had spcific prohibitions that would make wilderness survival more difficult.

Chivalric codes were essentially a blending of the two, attempting to use the social pressures of external honor to inculcate the internal honor of morality in knights.

That's a really interesting take on it! The difference you outline between external and internal honor helps me understand why some people struggle with chaotic characters that act "honorable". If we use the different kinds of honor you outline and I understand you correctly, Robin Hood (posterboy of CG) routinely disregards (or even mocks) external honor but values his internal honor very highly. He'll happily rob a corrupt bishop or ambush a tax man collecting illegitimate claims but wouldn't dream of stealing from the little man.

bookrat wrote:

Pretty much this. There's lots of uses for poisons that aren't dishonorable.

Heck, from a Toxicologist's point of view, there's plenty of things that *are* poisons that are used all the time by paladins.

No way. Poison use on anything above vermin level is completely dishonorable.

Whoa now, hang on. Would you be okay with a paladin using a Cloud Kill scroll to clear out a rat infection?

Telling your old grandma who is in a hospital with a terminal ill that his little cat is OK, when truth is his cat died of sadness should not be an evil act. Or a chaotic one, for that matter. Should a paladin fall for this?

I've lived that. In her later years my grandmother had severe dementia, to the point where she could barely recognize her husband or her own daughter. Every visit was heartbreaking but I like to think that I could just brighten up her day just a little bit it was worth it. Every 5 to 10 minutes I'd have to gently reintroduce myself as her grandson so she wouldn't be alarmed that there was a stranger in her room.

Every visit, without fail, she'd ask me something that presented me with this exact dilemma.

Have you seen my terrier? He was around here a minute ago. (her dog died fifteen years ago)
How is my brother Tom doing? (Tom was the youngest in a sibling pack of 8. He died in a fire at age 5 more than 80 years ago)
Where is my Henry? I miss him so (Her husband, who had always been an outdoorsy man and worked at a lumber mill for well over forty years, had developed COPD in his later years. He needed an oxygen tank to breathe and was confined to a wheelchair. Because of his medical issues he couldn't stay with my grandmother at the secure unit in their nursing home, but he visited her every day)

At first I tried to gently remind her of the truth: "I'm terribly sorry grandma, but Tom isn't with us anymore - he died a long time ago, remember?" and then I'd watch her relive the sorrow and los and anguish all over again - until she forgot. Every time I'd just put her through lots of pain that was, essentially, meaningless. I got to tell the truth, but I put her through five minutes of pure hell.

Then I'd try to evade or dance around the truth: "I don't know where your dog is right now but I'm sure he's doing just fine. Now who's that in this wedding photo?". This would occasionally work, sometimes she'd be distracted or content with whatever I could come up with, other times this would just make her agitated. "You don't know where my dog is? We have to go find him! Why is this door locked? We have to get outside, my dog is missing!"

Finally I learned to embrace the gentle lie. "I just talked to Henry on the phone, he's doing just fine and he said to remind you that he loves you. He's out fishing today but should be home any minute now". I'm not gonna say it felt great to lie to her but it meant I could make her next five minutes a little happier and a little more comfortable and I'd do it again everty single time. If anyone wants to say to my face that by telling her that lie I was acting dishonorably or doing the wrong thing I'll happily punch them in the nose.

dragonhunterq wrote:

But this is exactly what take 10 is for! what is the issue with taking 10 that you don't want to see it?

Okay what if the DC was 20?

Then the player needs to weigh his odds. If he climbs 10 feet per check and he needs to climb 30 feet, he has a ~20% chance of making it without failing a check. He has to fail it by 5 or more to actually fall down, so he still has a decent chance of making it up there.

As a trained climber he should likely be made aware that after surveying the wall he thinks it's not impossible but likely a challenge for his skill. He could try it (but with the risk of falling) or he could try to find some other way to ascend it - buy a climbing kit, look for vines or a more favorable cliff facing, or get a buff spell to improve his climb skill.

Ultimate Intrigue has some optional rules to help solve the "the 150 orcs in the tribe all roll perception checks. 21 of them got a natural 20, spotting you" -problem, it's called "Replacing Opposed Rolls" and can be found on p. 189. It doesn't help with the climb example but it may be worth taking a look at anyway.

Edit: Come to think of it, maybe Ultimate Wilderness has something on climb rules? I never bought it so I wouldn't know, just glanced over a friend's copy.

I've never been comfortable with paladins using things like flaming weapons, corrosive weapons, et cetera. Playing a paladin, I'd personally look askance at a weapon like that, only comfortable with using a flame tongue against regenerating creatures or malevolent ice elementals and such.

How do you feel about the fact that the standard pathfinder paladin gets a class feature on level 5 that lets him summon a celestial spirit to turn any weapon into a flaming weapon as a standard action?

I'm not trying to outmaneuver you or put you in an awkward position or anything, but I honestly feel that you're holding the paladin to a much higher standard than the book itself - which is quite unusual. It's an interesting take on the class, but I don't think I'd enjoy playing it that way for very long.

Kudaku wrote:

One thing just occured to me. If we assume that CG paladins follow the same tenets as LG paladins in regards to deity worship (worship a deity within one step of your own alignment) it would mean that we could have both LG and CG paladins of a NG god like Sarenrae or Shelyn. Two groups that both seek to advance the same causes and reach the same goals but do so using radically different approaches, potentially butting heads in the process. I think that could be a springboard for some really interesting adventures!

This is one of the things that most intrigues me about the possibility of a CG paladin. We can see how a paladin might conflict with a CG cleric of either goddess, but a conflict between paladins would have a very different feel.

I'm actually playing around with a short adventure based around this now!

A small LG country in the River Kingdoms where the color purple is reserved for royalty and his personal guard as a memento of a long-dead king, and it's a crime to wear or use the color without cause. Since the king is a popular historical figure and an anchoring point for the tiny kingdom's sense of self the more recent government, eager to promote their patriotism, have been expanding the law to also include magenta and violet. Some radical politicians even call for the ban of blue and red, since they're the primary colors that form purple. LG Paladins of Shelyn respect this law as best they can so they make a point of not using the prohibited colors in their public art pieces, remove purple dye when they hand out free paint kits on feast days etc. On the other hand CG Paladins of Shelyn find the law ridiculous and needlessly oppressive and see no point in limiting the expression of their art, so they flat out ignore it.

Local governance puts pressure on the church of Shelyn to straighten things out, who are caught between a rock and a hard place. They turn to the PCs - in a conflict where both sides are Good with a capital G and oathbound not to back down, how can they resolve the conflict?

The color thing is a bit silly and I'll probably swap it to something a bit more relevant (depicting a holy person? Reclaiming a controversial symbol?) but I think it has some potential. :)

Kudaku wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Kudaku wrote:

For what it's worth I agree with other posters in that I don't really see honesty as a "Good" alignment trait but rather a Lawful one. Truth and lies are tools that can easily be wielded for both Good and Evil. Obfuscation is needed to bring Milani's rose into Cheliax, and brutal honesty is easily used to goad the rash into eternal damnation.

who would you trust as honest, an Azata or a Devil?

With zero context (including who I am) and no idea what they're even saying? I have no idea. I'd probably trust both the devil and the azata to be advancing their own agenda?

^Devils revel in deceit, and although I get the impression that they prefer deceit by way of misleading presentation of the truth and/or by way of omission, they certainly aren't above disinformation and outright misinformation, and clouding of judgment.

An Azata's judgment might be a bit shaky, but at least they have their heart in the right place.

I think that's a fair assessment. I may be biased, but I've found that devils are overall surprisingly honest and forthcoming in Paizo APs. At least the devils the AP expects you to talk to rather than, y'know, put down with extreme prejudice.

Who would you rather trust to be truthful: a CG faerie dragon or a LE Hellknight from the Order of the Scourge? Again, it depends on the context. Will the faerie dragon tell you a tall tale to set up his next glitterbomb prank? Absolutely! Will he lie and tell you the rickety rope bridge he sabotaged to keep bandits away is perfectly safe, leading to you dashing your brains out on the improbably sharp rocks below? Probably not.

Similarly the Hellknight would probably tell the truth if you ask him for directions to the nearest constabulary but will happily lie through his teeth if he thinks it'll help him track down his next conspiracy plot.

Ultimately, it just isn't quite so black & white. As always, context is king.

This is really interesting. Thank you so much. Would you be willing to share your ideas in the new thread?

Thank you for your kind words, and sure thing! :)

I posted this in the original CG paladin code thread and Evan encouraged me to share it here as well, so here goes:

With all paladins now being a champion with a divine sponsor, I think it's important to consider that there are two parties to the "paladin contract". It's not just the paladin that agrees to a code, you gotta think about the deity that's offering one as well. Let's consider some differences in how Iomedae and Desna might approach paladin orders:

Iomedae
I can definitely picture Iomedae descending from the heavens with a code of conduct (potentially literally) carved in stone that all her paladins take to heart. Iomedae seems like the kind of deity that favors a top down authority structure whereby accepting the power she offers you take up her cause, with all that that entails. Paladins, clerics, warpriests and inquisitors of Iomedae would be organized in a military organisation with a strong hierarchy and clearly defined areas of responsibility. Paladins that have questions or doubts about their code have councilors and priests made available to provide guidance. If a champion runs into a challenge that seems impossible for him to overcome on his own, he can call on the church to provide assistance (assuming his superiors agree that the cause is just and the need is sufficiently urgent). Iomedae's code would typically start with "you must/you must not":

1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

Desna
Rather than having a universal code of conduct and an organized church I could envision Desna seeking out worthy individuals and working out a unique code of conduct with each of her champions (typically appearing in a series of dreams or visions, either directly or via an avatar) that will both champion Desna's goals and appeal to the nature and personal priorities of each individual. Paladins of Desna would all first agree to follow some broad rules (similar to the "good"-focused parts of the LG code). Each code will typically start with "I will" or "I will not":

1) I will never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) I will not take actions that I know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when I knew my action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force me to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice my life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

Beyond that the code could be customized to fit each champion's personality and priorities. One champion of Desna could take up the cause of protecting traveling musicians and pilgrims, another would harry those who prey on people via rigged games of chance, a third would safeguard people's dreams by striking down monsters like night hags and Painajais. Since the goals of Desna's champions will differ, they'd be much more loosely organized. Each paladin would treat his code as a personal agreement between himself and his deity, and not something that's a concern to anyone else.

One thing just occured to me. If we assume that CG paladins follow the same tenets as LG paladins in regards to deity worship (worship a deity within one step of your own alignment) it would mean that we could have both LG and CG paladins of a NG god like Sarenrae or Shelyn. Two groups that both seek to advance the same causes and reach the same goals but do so using radically different approaches, potentially butting heads in the process. I think that could be a springboard for some really interesting adventures!

I think a decent litmus test for a CG paladin code would be to see if your theoretical CG paladin could make it through the first three books of Hell's Rebels without breaking it. :)

For what it's worth I agree with other posters in that I don't really see honesty as a "Good" alignment trait but rather a Lawful one. Truth and lies are tools that can easily be wielded for both Good and Evil. Obfuscation is needed to bring Milani's rose into Cheliax, and brutal honesty is easily used to goad the rash into eternal damnation.

Anyway, let's talk about CG Paladins codes. With all paladins now being a champion with a divine sponsor, I think it's important to consider that there are two parties to the "paladin contract". It's not just the paladin that agrees to a code, you gotta think about the deity that's offering one as well. Let's consider some differences in how Iomedae and Desna might approach paladin orders:

Iomedae
I can definitely picture Iomedae descending from the heavens with a code of conduct (potentially literally) carved in stone that all her paladins take to heart. Iomedae seems like the kind of deity that favors a top down authority structure whereby accepting the power she offers you take up her cause, with all that that entails. Paladins, clerics, warpriests and inquisitors of Iomedae would be organized in a military organisation with a strong hierarchy and clearly defined areas of responsibility. Paladins that have questions or doubts about their code have councilors and priests made available to provide guidance. If a champion runs into a challenge that seems impossible for him to overcome on his own, he can call on the church to provide assistance (assuming his superiors agree that the cause is just and the need is sufficiently urgent). Iomedae's code would typically start with "you must/you must not":

1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

Desna
Rather than having a universal code of conduct and an organized church I could envision Desna seeking out worthy individuals and working out a unique code of conduct with each of her champions (typically appearing in a series of dreams or visions, either directly or via an avatar) that will both champion Desna's goals and appeal to the nature and personal priorities of each individual. Paladins of Desna would all first agree to follow some broad rules (similar to the "good"-focused parts of the LG code). Each code will typically start with "I will" or "I will not":

1) I will never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) I will not take actions that I know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when I knew my action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force me to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice my life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

Beyond that the code could be customized to fit each champion's personality and priorities. One champion of Desna could take up the cause of protecting traveling musicians and pilgrims, another would harry those who prey on people via rigged games of chance, a third would safeguard people's dreams by striking down monsters like night hags and Painajais. Since the goals of Desna's champions will differ, they'd be much more loosely organized. Each paladin would treat his code as a personal agreement between himself and his deity, and not something that's a concern to anyone else.

Well, let's see...

The character has 18 STR, combat maneuver focus (grapple) and +1 BAB. I'll assume he's level 1. His grapple bonus is +9.
Grapple AC on CR 1/3 to CR 2 creatures ranges from 18 (CR 1/2 caster) to 23 (CR 2 Combatant). Typically Combatants will be roughly AC CR+2, Experts CR+1, and Spellcasters CR+0.

To grapple a CR 1/2 caster he'll need to roll a 9, meaning he succeeds 55% of the time.
To grapple a CR 2 combatant he needs to roll a 14, meaning he succeeds 35% of the time.
These modifiers can be affected by external factors. Flanked, prone, entangled, fatigued or flat-footed targets are all considerably easier to grapple. He could also consider picking a race with a +2 grapple modifier, like Skittermanders.

If you're up against a caster, go to town. Pin him and steal his lunch money. If you're up against something big and burly that seems just as eager as you to get into melee, odds are you shouldn't try to grab him.

So grappling is situational. That's fine. The main thing (for me) is that the character has only spent one feat on grappling. He's still got 18 STR and full BAB progression. In those situations where grappling isn't a feasible option, he can still whip out a longsword or a doshko and be a perfectly viable melee combatant. Grappling is a useful tool in his work kit, but it's not the only tool there.

Hiruma Kai wrote:

Note if you have the quickdraw feat, drawing a thrown weapon you attack with immediately is a part of the attack action or the full attack action. This allows you to full attack with a free hand and multiple starknives. Two returning starknives thrown will both return to you as a non-action, and can be thrown again, assuming you have two hands to catch them both.

So, Full attacks now eat your swift action, so you'd have to have them out ahead of time (Quick draw is a swift action), but yes, you are right, if you had two returning starknives you could full attack with them. Little expensive, but totally doable.

You're both right. Quick Draw is normally a swift action (And thus incompatible with full attacks) but Quick Draw states: "When making an attack using a thrown weapon as an attack or full attack action, you can draw a weapon as part of the action of making a thrown attack with it".

if you have Quick Draw, you can make full attacks with with multiple sheathed throwing weapons.

I couldn't find any earrings in DS2 either, but there is one NPC that offers a reward in the form of earnings. Based on the description of the professor NPC I'm pretty sure Pax misread "earnings" as "earrings". :)

Do vesk have bellybuttons?

My only regret is that this wasn't posted on the rules questions forum so we could get the entire design team to weigh in. :D

Yeah I just got schooled about operatives in another thread, I hadn't realized they were all classed as insight bonuses. Honestly has me a little miffed, I'd understand it being Skill Focus and Skill Synergy are both insight bonuses as they are both feats and skill synergy has the additional utility of making a skill a class skill instead, but I don't understand why they're going to give you both Operative's Edge and SKill Focus if they don't work in tandem. Now I have to come up with a different feat for my operative...

The insight thing could really do with a callout in the class writeup or something. I 100% agree it's counter-intuitive but it's actually a pretty nice solution to skill bonuses scaling out of control.

Basically every class in Starfinder that gets a class-specific skill bonus (mechanic's Bypass, Technomancer's Techlore, Envoy's expertise etc) are all insight-type and so don't stack with Skill Focus or Skill Synergy. The upside of this is that a class that doesn't get such a skill bonus (like a soldier) can partially keep up by investing a feat in the skill. The soldier will probably never be quite as good at engineering as a mechanic or hacker operative, but he's at least in the running. It also keeps the expected skill checks within a closer range, mostly avoiding the Pathfinder problem with skill checks where players with some system mastery could dip many different types of bonuses to boost their skill bonus into the stratosphere.

As for the operative specifically, gaining Skill Focus at level 1 gives operatives a good skill boost in their niche area at low levels when they need it to to justify being "the skills guy" and land Trick Attacks, but since Skill Focus doesn't stack with Operative's Edge it keeps them from being all-dominant skill monsters down the line. When you reach level 7 and Operative's Edge first overlaps with the skill focus bonus you gain Skill Mastery. Skill Mastery allows you to T10 on any skills you have Skill Focus in, even in combat. This is a really useful ability in its own right. Right out of the gate it means you will always succeed on Trick Attack skill checks, and it also opens up new opportunities down the line. Skill Focus: Piloting is a great option for operative pilots since it means they'll almost never fail a stunt check in Starship Combat, for example.

As Castor points out you're stacking insight bonuses - it's a very common mistake for operative players and I wonder if it's not a big part of why some people think operatives are too strong. Your computer trick attack skill check is actually 1 (rank) +3 (trained) +3 (skill focus) +2 (ability score) +4 (specialization) for a total of +13. VS a CR 1/2/3 enemy you have a 60%/55%/50% chance of making the trick attack skill check stick.

Other than that I refer you to my previous post, just replace "detective" with "hacker" and "wisdom" with "intelligence". The extra +1 from 14 INT means the hacker will be +1 ahead levels 1-2, they'll be even levels 3-4, then the hacker will be +1 ahead again levels 5-6 and beyond that it doesn't matter since TA will never fail past level 7. If the hacker had 12 INT (or if we implement your suggestion to up the Ghost spec to +2) the hacker would be even levels 1-2, behind one point levels 3-4, and even levels 5-6. IE we're talking about less than a single point of skill bonus overall.

The main draw of Ghost (and the other dex-based operative specializations) is that they're Single Attribute Dependent - they can spring for 18 dex baseline with minimal downsides, will benefit more from picking up ability score boosters and can pick whatever secondary they want - among other things, it's a good specialization for bruiser operatives.

The ghost operative has no real secondary stat, all he cares about is dexterity. Most ghosts will start with a dexterity of 18 whereas for a detective that's a hard buy-in that means either limiting his TA modifier or hurting his fortitude saves. Every time the ghost buys a Dexterity personal upgrade he improves every aspect of his character (attack, AC, (reflex) saves, resolve points, Trick Attack) whereas the Detective has to choose between TA/will save (Wisdom boost) and everything else (dexterity boost).

Since you assume a wis of 12 on the Detective I'll give both operatives 18 dex baseline, and run comparisons at levels 1, 3, and 5.

Level 1 Ghost Dex 18
Stealth TA +12 (+4 dex, +3 class skill, +3 skill focus, +1 rank, +1 ghost bonus).

Level 1 Detective Wis 12
Sense Motive TA +12 (+1 wis, +3 class, +3 skill focus, +1 rank, +4 detective bonus).

On level 3 they buy a personal upgrade. I'll assume they both get a dex implant since (in my opinion) it is by far the better option also for the detective.

Level 3 Ghost Dex 20
Stealth TA +15 (+5 dex, +3 class skill, +3 skill focus, +3 rank, +1 ghost bonus).

Level 3 Detective Wis 12
Sense Motive TA +14 (+1 wis, +3 class, +3 skill focus, +3 rank, +4 detective bonus).

On level 5 they both get an ability score upgrade from leveling. Both operatives upgrade Dex and Wis as well as two other ability scores. The detective's TA improves by 1 as his wisdom increases to 14, the Ghost's TA is unchanged.

Level 5
Level 5 Ghost Dex 21
Stealth TA +17 (+5 dex, +3 class skill, +3 skill focus, +5 rank, +1 ghost bonus).

Level 5 Detective Wis 14
Sense Motive TA +17 (+2 wis, +3 class, +3 skill focus, +5 rank, +4 detective bonus).

Past level 6 it doesn't really matter since TA can be assumed to automatically succeed at levels 7 and higher. The level 7 TA would have a modifier of ~+20 (+6 dex/+3 Wis, +3 class skill, +3 edge, +7 ranks, +1/+4 ghost/detective), allowing him to T10 and successfully TA enemies that are up to APL+3 (an epic difficulty encounter).

The Detective could opt to put his first ability score booster in Wisdom or lower his starting Dex to 16 and start with 14 Wis, but both of these options will hurt his resolve, initiative, attack bonus and armor class.

On the whole, they're fairly well balanced. Assuming equal dexterity they'll remain within +1 modifier of one another which, in the grand scheme of things, is a very small gap. By that point it's more interesting to consider what your specialization exploit is going to be and what skills you really want to be able to T10 at all times.

Note that we haven't considered race options in the comparisons so far, which can throw this out of whack. If one operative picks a race with a +2 TA skill modifier (ysoki springs to mind for the ghost) and the other one does not, it'll affect the balance. Conversely if the Detective picks a race with his ideal ability score boosts (+dex, +wis, -int or -cha) to get 18 dex/14 wis baseline the point buy difference will be less pronounced.

Horror sci-fi!?! Sign me up! :D

I've had the Pact Worlds book for less than five minutes and I already have an idea for an astrazoan clinical psychologist who's taking a truly radical approach to curing phobias via exposure therapy. I am loving this book! :D

Your posts are phenomally fun to read, Kudaku.

Thanks! I just hope you're enjoying the (mis)adventures of Eddie the Envoy and not just finding my argument ridiculous! :D

My point wasn't really that stealth is the only way to surprise someone, but that the key to surprise rounds is that the target is "unaware of you being an opponent". Normally you can create surprise rounds in two ways - if the opponent is unaware of you period (typically stealth) or if the opponent is unaware that you are hostile (typically bluff/disguise). Fast Talk lets you add a third option - if the opponent is willing to exchange words with you. Any time you can have a conversation with a person, including an openly antagonistic person, you have the potential to get a surprise round.

Scene 1: The party just flubbed a perception check to notice a pit trap, and have landed in the figurative villain's evil lair.
GM narrating Vince the Villain: Ahaha! I have you now! Nothing will stop me from performing my villainous plan.
*GM pulls out cue cards. There are a lot of them.*
Eddie: Wow, villain monologue!
Olivia, Sam, Theodora: *groans*
Vince the villain: It all started four score and seven years ago, after partaking a large helping of Kraft Cheese Mix Nr. 4 I realized I had become lactose intolerant... Society had failed me. Needless to say I needed to take revenge... If I couldn't partake in cheesy goodness then nobody should! It was child's play to infuse the water supply with lactose-intolerant bacteria bla bla bla...
Sam: This is literally the cheesiest thing I've heard in my life. Screw this, I call my starknife and activate Photon Mode.
GM: *Sighs and puts away notes* All right, roll initiative.
Eddie: Rightyo, one surprise round coming up.
GM: Wait, what? How is he surprised?
Eddie: *rolls bluff* LOUD NOISES
Vincent: Vuh, wha, what's going on?
Eddie: Shut up nerd.
*Party spends surprise round flying out of the comically oversized fondue pot the trapdoor had dropped them into*

It's been my experience that Starfinder humanoids tend to be at least mildly civilized compared to Pathfinder. A good portion of the time you should be able to initiate dialogue with an enemy, even if it starts off with some variation of: "Please don't shoot!". That certainly won't make them stop seeing you as a trespasser and opponent, but it has a good chance of making them hesitate long enough for you to strike up a conversation. And anyone who doesn't attack on sight is a viable target for Fast Talker.

Alternate scene: Party's infiltrating a secure facility, and have to sneak by a bored-looking guard in the lobby.
GM: All right, stealth checks please.
Eddie: 17.
Theodora: I got a 19.
Oscar: *whispers* 26.
Sam: I GOT A FOUR
GM: The facility is cold, and sterile, with bare whitewashed walls that give off a strong scent of ammonia. Clearly it has been furnished with minimal clutter to keep it tidy and clean. It's therefore quite surprising when Sam finds and then accidentally kicks over a wind chime stand. It crashes to the floor with a deafening, well, chime. The security guard spins around, bringing his laser rifle up. He flicks off the safety.
Security Guard: Hey! Stop right there!
Eddie: Don't shoot! We surrender! We were just looking for the bathroom!
Security Guard: In the secure wing of the Eoxian National Archive? Not bloody likely, now get on the floor!
Theodora: We ain't got time for this. I cast Magic Missile!
GM: Right, roll initiative please.
Eddie: *rolls bluff* I DONT KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT
Security Guard: Bluh?
*Party dismembers security guard before he can raise the alarm*
GM: *Sighs*

Being able to strike up a conversation and then subsequently ambush people mid-conversation is actually a pretty useful tool. That said, I'm not loving the DC scaling (Feint's 15+ 1.5 CR is hard enough, 20 is overkill) and I think it's a shame it's limited to a single target.

Interesting... I interpret it differently from you. The way I've understood it, surprise is defined by whether or not you are aware of your opponent. If Ned the NPC's stealth check beats Eddy the Envoy's perception check, Ned gets a surprise round when he shoots Eddie from the bush he's hiding behind. However, Ned doesn't get a surprise round if he pulls a gun on Eddie mid-conversation, since Eddie was already aware of Ned. Instead you'd go straight to normal combat.

Conversely if Eddie had this feat and he nails the bluff check, Eddie, Sam the Solarian, Theodora the Technomancer and Olivia the Operative all get to wail on Ned for a free surprise round even though Ned was aware of them all well before combat started.

I would like to see some solarion feats in later books that modify your weapon and armor.

I love the idea of adding in options to modify your solar weapons and armor, but personally I'd be much more interested in expanding the crystal options and going the equipment route to modify Solar weapons and armor.

Pathfinder has a "there's a feat for that"-problem where almost anything you want is available as a feat, but you only get so many feats and each "Must-Have" feat delays the rest of your character concept. I'd hate to be in a position where every solarian is going to take "Solar Armor, Improved" at level 1, "Solar Weapon, Improved" at level 3, "Solar Armor, Greater" at level 7 and so on. It really sucks when you need to lock down your first three feats just to get your basic combat style online (Dervish Dance/Slashing Grace/Two-Weapon Fighting/thrown weapons etc), especially when you're playing a class with no bonus feats.

I can very easily imagine Solarian weapon crystals that give a (slightly lower) damage bonus but also change your weapon attributes (reach weapon, energy weapon, combat maneuver weapon, thrown weapon) and Solarian Armor crystals that change your Solar Armor (Save Bonus Crystal, Speed Bonus Crystal, Heavy Armor Crystal, Stealth Bonus Crystal) etc.

Edit:

I think having both might fall into a revelation territory. Otherwise it seems like a no duh feat for every solarion. Then if its a no duh feat people start complaining about feat taxes. (not me but others I imagine)

Replied to your post, then read this immediately underneath it. Guilty as charged for complaining about feat taxes, but I still think it's worth noting that they suck! ;)

Having tried to discuss the Solarian with Hwalsh in the past, I can only say that I've found the Starfinder boards much more enjoyable after choosing to not engage with him. It's not that I can't find flaws in his arguments (imo there are plenty) but frankly, it's not worth the frustration. His debate style is exhausting.

That said, we share some common ground. I don't think the Solarian is underpowered or "gimped" per se, but I think it's less intuitive to put together than most of the other classes, and it can have a rough early game until all the pieces fall into place. If I had to pick one class in Starfinder that could do with some extra developer attention, I'd probably pick Solarian. I trust the designers are aware of the Solarian's standing and are working on adding options that help round out the class in upcoming books.

I don't think Solarians are underpowered. I do however think they're a bit counter-intuitive to build compared to other classes and that they can have a slow early game, assuming you don't go for the Blitz dip.

I do think they could greatly benefit from more variety in the Revelation selection. I really like the synergy between Black Hole and Blazing Orbit, I'd love to see more revelations that reward interaction between Photon and Graviton abilities. So far most solarians I've seen are shackled to Photon Mode because of Plasma Sheath and are rarely if ever not going to choose Photon mode.

Kudaku wrote:

Hi Mark!

I haven't been browsing these these boards much lately, but Starfinder has really reinvigorated my enthusiasm for TTRPGs! We recently finished our Hell's Rebels campaign (fantastic villain by the way) and have just started Dead Suns.

In that vein, I have a few questions for you:

1. Have you been playing any Starfinder lately? What's some things you really like about the system but might not be obvious?

2. Do you use any house rules or modifications in your Starfinder games?

3. A slightly more technical question - Heavy Armor in Starfinder affects your Speed. Does this only modify base speed (ie ground movement) or does it also affect other kinds of speed, like the one offered by Jump Jets (CRB p. 206-207) or the Flight spell (p. 355)?

1) I haven't played very much since the playtest but my playtesters set a grueling pace, playing five days a week throughout the primary playtest period, so we got a lot done at that point. There are a lot of subtle points I really like, but my favorite is how we actually managed to solve the seemingly contradictory directives that forced us to totally redo the math but then somehow have it still work seamlessly mathematically with all old PF monsters (a huge constraint!) The fact that we barely managed to squeeze that out was pretty darn cool.

2) I'm probably going to mainly just put in things that were lost in translation to the final book, like removing the Ghost operative's extraneous +4 bonus that makes it better than all other choices level 1-6 and fixing the issue with Enhanced Resilience where it didn't receive the halving that most physical damage resistance did when they all came to include all three physical damage types (I will likely do this by reverting to the version where you pick one of bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing and get full level).

3) It should affect all of them, otherwise it just stops mattering really fast, since SF gives you all kinds of other speeds at low levels. That said, that's merely what it should be to retain value to that balancing factor for armor; I'm not on the SF team moving forward so my unofficial comments are even more so here than in PF.

Hi,

just wanted to pop in and say thank you very much for answering my post! I'm guessing you already have a very busy schedule and finding the time to answer what can be rather technical and convoluted questions can't be easy. We really appreciate the effort you put in! :)

I'm gonna go ahead and quote myself from the last thread I participated in where the Ghost specialization came up:

There is an unofficial post from Mark Seifter that the +4 Stealth bonus Ghosts get should probably have been removed from the rules text, but got left behind by accident. It's important that we don't necessarily treat this like gospel or try to implement it in SFS etc, since arguments or confusion around statements like these make it much less likely that designers and writers are willing to offer insights in the future. You can of course still use this ruling in your home games, like I do. :)

Ghost was not supposed to get a +4. QuidEst is correct that the +4 is to make up for not using a Dex-based skill, so that Ghosts wouldn't be better than every other choice, but it looks like an extraneous +4 slipped into ghosts (this is something that I noticed at Paizocon because the pregen is a ghost).

pixierose wrote:

It was supposed to boost non-dex based skills that can be used for trick attacks. The ghost wasn't suppoused to get it but ended up not being removed

This is close. In fact, initially in the very beginning, nobody had any of these trick attack flourishes (added trick attack skills or +4), so the ghost was the best choice because your specialization covered a trick attack skill and it was Dex-based, with honorable mentions to specializations with Bluff and Intimidate or that were Dex-based. After playtest feedback that I brought back to the "Star Chamber," we agreed to change it to add one of your specialization skills to the trick attack skills if you didn't have one already, and to add +4 if your specialization trick attack skill wasn't Dex-based (as QuidEst says, you lose out on Con if you take your specialization trick attack ability score as secondary compared to a Dex-er). Later, it seems that Ghost wound up with a +4; this must have been an accident based on the relatively-lengthy discussion we had about the specializations and the fact that those changes were specifically made to prevent the ghost from being better than all the other specializations at trick attack and to level the playing field.

While I am the preliminary designer of the operative, commentary from forum posts by staff members are not official rules sources (and particularly not from me, since I'm not on the Starfinder team beyond the Starfinder CRB).

(quote ends)

I agree that it's not an official errata and that PFS has to play by rules as written (much to the dismay of many PFS players), but I don't think "speculation" is quite the right word.

Assuming you don't use the Ghost specialization you can expect Trick Attack to have a success rate around ~55% (dex-specialization, 18 dex, +11 trick attack mod at level 1) to ~65% (INT/WIS/CHA specialization, 14 stat, +13 trick attack mod at level 1) depending on what specialization you pick. These percentages will improve as you progress through the low levels, primarily from personal upgrade augments and the level 5 ability boost.

Then at level 7 you can use the new Take 10 rules to reliably land trick attacks, where they're a staple of your damage and can be used 100% of the time. Incidentally, level 7 is roughly the second tier of weapons become widely available and the gap between baseline small arms and longarms/heavy weapons really becomes significant. At this point a laser pistol is hitting for 2d4+3 for an average of 8 damage and an artillery laser is hitting for 2d8+7 for an average of 16 damage.

Finally, Trick Attack starts to fall behind significantly when you level into the low teens, since weapon math scales quadratically and Trick Attack scales linearly. This is why Operatives get to make multiple attacks with full attacks at level 8 and level 13 - a high level operative will do significantly more damage making full attacks than trick attack. At this point you have to decide if you'd rather move and/or apply a debilitation, or make full attacks for maximum damage.

Operatives are a well balanced class. They are incredibly easy to build well, to the point where they damn near build themselves, but they are nowhere near overpowered. The only thing I dislike about them is the Ghost specialization issue (why have one specialization that is blatantly superior to all the other ones?) and it's a little counter-intuitive that skill focus and operative's edge doesn't stack - a lot of people get this wrong.

This is covered on p. 233 and p. 235 of the CRB.

To create an item, you must have UPBs with a total value equal to the price of the item to be created.

The value of the Pact Worlds’ credit is based on the economic utility of a single UPB.

As you can see from table 7-35, 1 unit of Universal Polymer Base (UPB) costs 1 credit, so crafting an item with a cost of 132 credits would use up 132 credits worth of UPB. :)

1. Deadly Agility is a straight replacement for STR to DEX on damage rolls when using the weapons outlined in the feat.

is 100% the correct reading of Deadly Agility.

(...) from the balance approach of the game I could see it meaning specific instances of *additional damage* because it would otherwise make things like slashing grace/fencing grace/ agile weapon enchants obsolete.

Many of the classes, archetypes and feats offered by PoW are objectively better than similar options found in Pathfinder, and will leave some things more or less obsolete, like the baseline fighter or Slashing Grace. This is an intended effect, since one of the design goals for Path of War was to give martial characters better tools to be more competitive with spellcasters.

Could you elaborate on your argument?

Ah, very true.

It is indeed not official (yet ? Hopefully ?) , but I'd still houserule it : the Ghost having it when Daredevil and Spy don't doesn't feel right to me.

Agreed! Sorry if I was coming across to heavy on the "unofficial" thing but I consider the developer input like Mark's posts incredibly handy. I'd much rather take an unofficial fix today than an official one nine months down the line. If they feel that input like that is adding confusion or conflict to the boards then they're more likely to only communicate via FAQs and errata - personally I'd much rather have an unofficial fix today than an official one nine months down the line.

Back on track, the best argument I've heard for why Ghosts should keep the bonus is that Spies and Daredevils get to use Trick Attack with one new skill, whereas Ghosts are "stuck" with the default options.

IMO a better solution to that problem is to remove Ghost's +4 bonus, but let Ghosts add their second focused skill (Acrobatics) as a valid skill to use with Trick Attack. That way they're on an equal footing with the other dex-based specializations.

I've seen it with Path of War and it only exacerbates the problem of martials in that they are still mostly good at one thing and that one thing is combat. Congratulations you hit things more often and/or harder. Anything else you want to share with the class? No? Then your attempt was good but extremely flawed. As I've had quite a bit of chatting with experienced GMs that used PoW and they tend to tell me that outside of combat, martials usually face the same problems as they do in first party material.

In my limited experience (I played a warlord in Mummy's Mask, levels 1-16, over about a year) Path of War does actually offer a decentish amount of utility, but it's not necessarily obvious.

All of the PoW classes I've seen to date get at least four skills/level, a robust class skill list, and are encouraged to invest in at least one mental stat. Since most (all?) disciplines have an associated skill you're also really strongly incentivized to invest in a skill, most of which are quite good in their own right. As a result Golden Lion Warlords make fantastic faces, for instance. They're like competent paladins without the alignment baggage and pitiful skill ranks.

As far as the disciplines go, there are some utility gems but you have to sift for them. Veiled Moon gives you various short-range teleportation maneuvers, which has all kinds of utility included. Silver Crane and Black Seraph both give all-day flight, Silver Crane also gives numerous healing options. Primal Fury gives Scent. Elemental Flux gives you energy resistances and swim/burrow/fly speed, based on your element.

It's a very small section of the rules overall though, boosts and "you deal damage and X"-strikes has a much higher focus. My main concern was that while I played a POW Warlord with focus on Golden Lion/Silver Crane/Veiled Moon and felt that granted me a great deal of utility, I'd be very hard-pressed to play another POW character without picking many of the same disciplines and utility powers again. A lot of the available disciplines are "pure" combat, which I personally find a bit dull.

I'll ignore the sarcasm for now and take you at face value. Clearly you made this thread because you're not entirely opposed to the idea that there might be an imbalance between casters and martials, and I can respect your concerns that empowering martials will dilute class uniqueness.

Let's try some examples:

Swimming Master
Prerequisites: Str 18, 5 ranks in Swim.
You gain a swim speed equal to your base land speed and a +8 racial bonus on Swim checks. You can hold your breath for a number of minutes equal to 10 × your Constitution score, but afterward you must succeed at checks as normal to avoid drowning.

Climbing Master
Prerequisites: Str 18, 5 ranks in Climb.
You gain a climb speed equal to your base land speed and a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks. In addition, you retain your Dexterity bonus to AC while climbing. You can climb perfectly flat or smooth surfaces, treating them as if they had a Climb DC of 40.

Seven-league leap
Prerequisites: Str 24, 12 ranks in Acrobatics.
In order to use this ability, you must be able to run in a straight line for 1 minute. Any obstacles or impediments that prevent you from completing this sprint uninterrupted prevent you from being able to use this ability. At the end of your 1-minute sprint, you attempt an Acrobatics check and leap a distance up to half the check’s result in miles, rounded down to the nearest mile (for example, an Acrobatics check result of 29 would allow you to jump 14 miles). This trip takes 1 round per mile, and you reach a maximum height at the apex of your arc equal to half the distance traveled. You do not take falling damage from using this ability. You must have a clear arc of travel to complete this jump; if you strike an obstacle mid-jump, you and the obstacle each take a number of points of damage equal to 1d8 × the number of miles you have left to travel. If this damage destroys the obstacle, you continue your jump; otherwise, your jump comes to an end and you fall, taking falling damage as appropriate. You cannot aim this leap accurately, and always land 50 to 5,000 feet (5d%) from your intended destination.

Does a fighter using these feats strike you as totally similar to a wizard using spells?

Dastis wrote:

@OP sorry but you did ask our opinions :)

Yes, much of this is my fault. I wanted to discuss balancing and instead seem to have initiated a thread on destroying the class system altogether.

It sounds like you wanted to post in the homebrew forum, where people will usually let you tinker in peace. The advice forum, by contrast, is filled with people that want nothing more than to offer you suggestions and insights to give you a better handle on whatever situation you find yourself in - in this case, to better understand what the caster martial disparity is all about and how better numbers is quite possibly the last thing fighters need to keep up with casters.

Let's ban wizards and change fighters into ... umm... wizards.

Speaking of which...

Myth #5: The people talking about Caster-Martial Disparity want all the classes to be the same.

Also showing up in broader discussions about class balance, this myth is basically the idea that what the people complaining about C/MD are asking for is for all the classes to be essentially the same, with labels of "magical" and "nonmagical" slapped onto near-identical abilities. This one's slightly more complex than some others, as it can sprout from different stalks, so to speak. Let's try to unpack it.

Sometimes, this myth arises when somebody first hears about the concept of C/MD and sees someone say that a high level martial should be able to duplicate plane shift or dimension door by (nonmagically) cutting open a hole in reality. The listener then understands C/MD to refer simply to classes having different abilities from each other, but doesn't see any real "disparity". In this case, this myth is a simple matter of the listener's first impression coming from a non-representative sample. Yeah, there are some folks out there who would like classes who are functionally near-identical. However, most people who complain about the C/MD want their classes to still be functionally different from each other, just brought closer in power.

Other times, this myth comes from a faulty mindset about the nature of balance. Many people wisely acknowledge that total balance among various game options is not possible (or even necessarily desirable). In fact, I think most people would agree to that. However, some folks seem to make one of two logical leaps: (1) believing that since perfect balance isn't a goal, improved balance shouldn't be a goal either; or (2) believing that the people who are complaining about C/MD are themselves striving for perfect balance. Please believe me when I say that neither of these is the case. While there might be a few outliers out there who wish for perfect balance, the bulk of C/MD discussion centers around simply improving balance, not smoothing everything into a homogeneous blur of nothingness.

Regardless of how one may have come to believe this myth of the desire for same-ness, please recognize that it is just that: a myth. The C/MD discussion is not about trying to make all the classes the same.

If you'd like to read the rest of Jiggy's C/MD myths (perhaps to help you avoid propagating them in the future), Jiggy offers a comprehensive writeup in the thread found here. 130 favorites so far, and that number tends to go up a bit every time I reference the post. :)

Bluenose wrote:

Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...

Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

I like "awesome fighters" myself. :)

I kinda see the Small Arms/Longarms disparity in Starfinder as a parable to how crossbows and longbows worked in Pathfinder pre-ACG, and to some degree still works today.

A lot of people like the crossbow theme and want to make them work for their character even though baseline longbows are much better weapons. Then they're more or less inevitably disappointed to find that even after sinking multiple feats into them (Rapid Reload, Crossbow Mastery etc) they're still a much worse alternative to bows: You can't use Manyshot, there's no ability score modifier to damage, Deadeye Bowman is off the table... I've had several players sour on the system after their first character tried and failed to make crossbows work. I'd hate to see that repeat itself with small arms in Starfinder.

I don't necessarily want pistols to work identically to longarms, but if players are willing to invest the same amount of feats into pistols that they would normally spend to gain Longarm Proficiency/Specialization then small arms should be a viable option in its own right.

As the old saying goes, "A handgun is merely a weapon used to fight your way back to your rifle - which you shouldn't have left behind..." All things being equal, a longarm being more powerful than a small arm is the more "believable" concept - it's that way in real life.

I don't want to sound dismissive, but I feel like this argument has limited value when we're discussing a system where bringing a sword to a gunfight is a perfectly good idea. I don't think "it's that way in real life" should be a compelling reason to obstruct one of the oldest sci fi tropes in existence.

Hey guys,

Unarmed Strikes are normally basic weapons, so Weapon Specialization scales with level. Vesk get a special rule using 1.5 level instead, and their unarmed attacks are not archaic. Does that apply to attacks made while wearing powered armor?

Say the Vesk is a level 5 Soldier. He's wearing a battle harness, giving him 18 strength and 1D10 unarmed strikes. He punches an akata.

What is his melee damage?
Is his attack considered archaic?

Ah, that's trickier. Honestly, some of the rules just aren't there (like what kind of action it is to mount/unmount a weapon) so the best we can do is offer guesses and advice. Since you're on a publishing schedule and waiting for a FAQ would be counter-productive, maybe you could try contacting Paizo directly?

I've never played PFS games but I've had the impression that they are pretty strict about GMs running stuff by the book? It seems like whoever was running this game was just making up rules as he went.

Here's the full writeup for the rockfall:

If a goblin successfully triggers the collapse, falling rocks crash down on the squares marked on the map (3x3 grid). Anybody standing in those squares must succeed at a DC 12 Reflex save or become trapped under the stone, taking 1d6 points of damage in the process (see page 415 of the Core Rulebook for burial rules). After the rockfall, the entrance between areas A4 and A5 is blocked. It takes 20 hours of work to completely clear the passage of rubble.

Characters take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage per minute while buried. If such a character falls unconscious, he must make a DC 15 Constitution check each minute. If it fails, he takes 1d6 points of lethal damage each minute until freed or dead.

Characters who aren’t buried can dig out their friends. In 1 minute, using only her hands, a character can clear rocks and debris equal to five times her heavy load limit. The amount of loose stone that fills a 5-foot-by-5-foot area weighs 1 ton (2,000 pounds). Armed with an appropriate tool, such as a pick, crowbar, or shovel, a digger can clear loose stone twice as quickly as by hand. A buried character can attempt to free himself with a DC 25 Strength check.

The worst-case scenario in that encounter is that a PC is buried behind three 5-foot squares of rubble. That means the party would need to move 3 tons (6000 pounds) of rubble. Assuming 3 PCs with 10 strength and some kind of tool, they'd be moving 3000 pounds per minute. In that scenario, a buried PC would be unearthed after 2 minutes, sustaining 2D6 nonlethal damage before he is freed.

My best guess is that the GM in question couldn't be bothered to look up the burial rules and he misread the "1D6 damage in the process" to mean that PCs continue to take 1D6 damage each round. Either way it's an unfortunate call. :-/

(...)What I find much more telling (and binding) in Starfinder, is the recommendation of only allowing the use of gear one level higher than your current character level (at most). This is going to keep you in the power range requirement far more than an arbitrary wealth limit.

I absolutely agree with you that the level requirement does a much better job of keeping the power range limited than the WBL cap in Pathfinder, but it's worth noting that you can shop up to level +2 gear in a major settlement (Absalom station certainly qualifies) and GMs can make higher level items available for an increased purchase price or as a sidequest. My vesk envoy just signed a sponsorship deal* with Abadar Armor Incorporated that gave him a one-time level+3 armor voucher! All he had to do was sell out his appearance and dignity. :)