Director Robot

Xenocrat's page

3,431 posts (3,504 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 27 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Nerdy Canuck wrote:
I... Look, I don't mean to be rude here, but you don't have the slightest clue about game design, do you?

I'm very happy that you've found this coping strategy.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:

And there you go with the irrelevancies again.

I'm not talking about frequency, and never was. EV isn't the subject at hand. Why are you trying to apply it like it's the only analytical tool in the world?

You've been talking about your feelings - SEVERE WOUND BAD, SCARY! I've been talking about how your feelings have nothing to do with reality. You've applied no analytical tools at all.

I accept that you feel deep panic at the very small risk of a crit effect that can usually be mitigated at low cost. Lots of people feel irrational panics. Some can be talked out of it with reason and logic, some need anti-anxiety medication, others just cope the best they can and endure the irrational fear.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to help you. I'm sure I was able to help anyone who read this thread and initially thought your fears might be valid, but now see that that just objectively isn't so. I'll just have to take solace in that good deed and hope that you're more amenable to my corrections of your mistakes in other threads.

I wish you well and hope your gaming group is able to calm you down if you face a severe wound crit weapon or any other phobia triggers you may have.


Kishmo wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
There's zero doubt that the vast majority of the current starfinder tech all existed before the gap.
Do we know that, though? Like if The Gap started for Golarion very close to the current year - like 4725 AR or something - and lasted for, I dunno, 4000 years, it's very possible that the technology explosion to get from Pathfinder to Starfinder all happened during The Gap, right?

By "before the Gap" I mean "before the ending of the Gap" which seemed to be how you were using it. It's not at all surprising that an experimental Azlanti ship made during the Gap, for example, had tech comparable to that in use during the present day.


Kishmo wrote:

Interestingly, though, speaking about spaceship technology existing pre-Gap:

** spoiler omitted **

Huh? There's zero doubt that the vast majority of the current starfinder tech all existed before the gap. They built Absalom Station during the Gap! Ungarato was modified into its current form during the Gap. Androids were created during (and thousands of years before) the Gap. Anacites and their technology existed many thousands of years before the Gap. Eox had a planet killing space station many thousands of years before the gap. The Vesk and Azlanti had fully conquered their system's planets with advanced space navies during the Gap and shifted into interstellar conquest mode as soon as they slapped drift drives on to their existing tech base.

The only difference is that the drift engine arrived shortly after and made interstellar travel cheap and ubiquitous, rather than limited and expensive. The Pact Worlds are absolutely littered with Gap-era ship hulks from forgotten wars that have equivalent technology to what is in use today.


Pogiforce wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Pogiforce wrote:
I also don't think the gap goes nearly that far back. The sunrise maiden I believe was described as pre gap technology, and it had a human captain. If humans had competent space travel pregap, I don't think it would extend as far back as pathfinder days.
This is all wrong. The Sunrise Maiden was missing for about a century, so two centuries after the Gap ended and drift travel was revealed.
I may be misremembering and ascribing more mystique to the sunrise maiden than it's worth. I don't know, I don't have my incident at Absalom station in front of me to double check at the moment.

From the inside cover write up:

Quote:
The Sanjaval Spaceflight Systems Vagabond-class multipurpose light transport/freighter is a versatile workhorse with a reputation for durability and reliability. In service for over 100 years, Vagabonds are still regularly used throughout the Pact Worlds as cargo haulers, smuggling ships, and exploratory survey vessels.

From the campaign outline:

Quote:
They also discover the Sunrise Maiden, a ship lost in hyperspace 75 years ago, which they can claim for themselves.

From the adventure:

Quote:
Seventy-five years ago, a human explorer named Moriko Nash came across the Drift Rock during her own Drift travel.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I understand that you don’t understand it to work that way.
And I understand that you don't seem to get that "Wealth By Level" doesn't mean "credits".
I definitely understand your desire to retreat into these irrelevant nonsequitors.
The fact that losing a limb that has a valuable augmentation in it, and may not get it back easily if your Wealth By Level is coming in the form of items more than in the form of credits, is fairly relevant.

"Fairly"? Now apply values and probabilities to all of these conditionals, multiply them out, and find out how relevant it really is. I did the work for you upthread, you just need to add in values and probabilities for possessing certain augmentations (reduced by 50% for augmentations that are only one hand/arm, of course) and the odds that your GM is someone who both won't fix your WBL and you still want to play with.

I feel like this can be a really valuable educational experience for you, and you might even be able to aggressively plug numbers in that bring the expected cost of an attack by a severe wound crit weapon from 0.9 credits all the way up to 10 or even 20. Scary, it appears, to some. But it takes all kinds, just like some people find it worth their time to pick up pennies off the street, others apparently find it terrifying that they might have to spend a bit of money and time to recover from an unlikely event.


Pogiforce wrote:
I also don't think the gap goes nearly that far back. The sunrise maiden I believe was described as pre gap technology, and it had a human captain. If humans had competent space travel pregap, I don't think it would extend as far back as pathfinder days.

This is all wrong. The Sunrise Maiden was missing for about a century, so two centuries after the Gap ended and drift travel was revealed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I like my abstractions to at least make sense.

If I aim a rifle up, and pull the trigger, my bullet maybe flies 1000 feet up.

It shouldn't fire 2000 feet simply because of some polished glass and duct tape.

But the range increment doesn't represent "how far your bullet flies", it represents how far away you can hit a target, which would absolutely be impacted by the sights of the weapon.

It represents elements of both. That’s why the sight/scope helps your increment only for purposes of determining range penalties and not for purposes of your maximum range.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I understand that you don’t understand it to work that way.
And I understand that you don't seem to get that "Wealth By Level" doesn't mean "credits".

I definitely understand your desire to retreat into these irrelevant nonsequitors.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Is anyone alive from before the gap? I know it was only 300 years ago but how long was if for?

Dragons and some necrovites for sure.


Ravingdork wrote:
Again, you guys are overthinking it. The rules are an abstraction. If the developers were trying to mimic the ranges of real world weapons, they might as well not bother with ranges at all, since it would be much farther than any battle map.

We don’t have to think it, we just have to read plain English.


I understand that you don’t understand it to work that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nimor Starseeker wrote:

Here are my two cents:

To answer your question I ask you in return:
What would it take to increase the maximum range of a firearm?
In my opinion the weapon would have to become more powerful somehow and a scope will not make a firearm more powerful, but it will increase accuracy at longer ranges (within the fire arm maximum).

I think scopes do not increase your maximum range, they increase accuracy.

Right, range limits of modern firearms are physical limits, not based on quality of sights.

For example, the M16 has an effective range of 500m vs point targets (a dude) and 800m vs area targets (a group of dudes or encampment). The point limitation isn't because small targets are harder to aim at and a better scope would help you extend out to that 800m, it's because the physics of the bullet mandate that it has too much random spin and dispersion past 550m. But it still has enough energy to (less accurately) travel and do some damage, so you can still hit at a random point inside a certain area out to 800m.

For energy weapons in Starfinder the physical limit would presumably be beam coherence past a certain point. A scope/sight isn't going to make the photons stick together any longer.


Pogiforce wrote:
I don't know how much clearer it can be, when the book says it increases range increments specifically for range penalties. You may think it's too much rules, but that doesn't mean it's against the design or intent of scopes.

It's very clear what the rule actually is, he just doesn't believe they meant it.


What's the contention, exactly? That the developers didn't mean what they wrote, and actually meant to include things that this language explicitly excludes? I think it's clear that your preferred interpretation isn't supported by the rule's language.

Incidentally, this gives us the intersting situation where a pistol with a sight/scope only has 6.67 effective penalty increments, a longarm/heavy weapon has 2.5, and a sniper has 5. So at max range (unmodified by the scope/sight) a pistol has a -12 penalty due to range, a longarm/heavy weapon a -4, and a sniper a -8 (all before move actions to aim, bipods, or reductions from the Far Shot feat). Which isn't totally bizarre, as pistols are notoriously inaccurate at long range, it's not actually that hard to hit things with a scoped assault rifle near max range, but I gather sniping at extreme range is quite hard and requires a lot of skill.


Pogiforce wrote:
There really isn't anything that bypasses energy resistances though, this isn't DR.

There are quite a few ways to ignore or reduce energy resistance before applying your damage.

1. Unholy/holy/axiomatic/anarchic fusions
2. Divine Judgement (Divine Champion archetype) ability
3. Tactical Analysis (Starfinder Data Jockey archetype) ability
4. Penetrating Attack feat
5. Penetrating Spell feat
6. Focusing Membrane biotech augmentation
7. Divine Blessing (Abadar, Iomedae, Pharasma) feat

I'm probably forgetting one or two.

Pogiforce wrote:
Nor does it use bypass in the language. It says overcome, and it also says if that attack does not overcome ER. So my understanding of it is it's for energy attacks which do insufficient damage to overcome the er, you can reduce their er and may do something. Which might be useful if the enemy has huge er, but against enemies with er 5/10 I see this rarely kicking off. If the er is that difficult to overcome, you could always try a different weapon, most characters should have a couple different options by level 7. This honestly doesn't seem that useful. If it didn't have the caveat of "if your attack doesn't overcome ER" then it would translate to a flat 5/10 er reduction, which would be great.as is, it doesn't seem worth the gear boost. You don't get those that often.

This I all agree with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I assume armor has a reasonable amount of space on the front of it to clip on a few batteries or magazines (real world standard US army load is 6x30 round magazines on your chest, you could easily do more batteries) that require no special additional action to draw or load. At most you make a player pay 5-15 credits under the "additional basic equipment exists" clause from the CRB for ammo pouches.

The Efficient Bandolier needs an errata to have a point other than carrying an arbitrarily high amount of (unnecessary) ammo without a bulk cost. It's best to just ignore the supposed (and nonsensical) weapon categories and just treat it like 5 separate pouches that can each hold 1 bulk of ammo of the same type (battery categories, projectile category magazines, etc).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fifth Wanderer wrote:
I'm wondering who she's dressed as in the picture. And yah, huzzah!

Looks like a Steward from the Starfinder setting.


That's a possible reading, but not one that originally occurred to me. I remember thinking it was oddly phrased and deciding that it was a weird way to prevent reducing resistances below zero into "negative resistance" territory.

But given how bad some of the other gear boosts are I now think your interpretation is correct.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lej wrote:
Never considered that the range increment increase might not require the aim action. Rereading the scope rules I do think you might be onto something though.

When you can read the rules so that they're nonsensical and read them another way so that they're sensible the latter one is far often the better reading.

"I slapped a scope on my pistol now i can shoot the wings off a fly at 300 feet while shooting from my hip..." doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"I slapped a scope on my pistol now I can shoot the wings off a fly at 300 feet by taking a few seconds to line up the rectical..." now we're talking

This reads like a caveman explaining how a wheelbarrow can't possibly help move a heavy weight and you should just pick it up and carry it on your back.

That's not how shooting works. No one shoots from the hip. An aimed shot or shots in a 6 second period involve lining up your eye and your sights. If you have a scope or sight, you're going to benefit from that even with a quick snapshot. The extended range increment reflects that benefit. See here for a scope. Here for a sight.

It's ok not to confidently opine on what is nonsensical when it comes to things you don't understand!

I am very open to the idea that Paizo's developers also don't understand this and that their intent with this somewhat poorly worded item was not to reflect reality. That's also ok! But until they explain it, I'll go with reality where it matches up with a defensible reading of the text.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Nimor Starseeker wrote:

This is relevant:

Armory 74

Hands
Powered armors of Large or greater size use their own arms and hands, rather than allowing the user to manipulate objects or weapons with their own hands. Operating such a suit of powered armor requires all your hands to be free (within the armor’s cockpit) and allows you use of all the armor’s hands. Large and bigger suits of powered armor have two arms and hands unless specified otherwise.
Powered armors of Medium or smaller size allow the operator to use its own limbs (however many that is), and does not require any hands be free in order to operate the functions of the powered armor.

That would make the rules more complicated, because different sets of power armor would have different access to the users natural attacks. Which is bad for rules consistency and ease of use.

I really feel we need a one size fits all ruling on this.

Either natural attacks simply modify unarmed strikes, and regardless of what kind of armor (including power armor) you're wearing it simply works. Or power armor simply prevents the use of natural attacks, which is why you get the benefit of the damage dice with power armor.

I agree. This is more complicated, not less.

Do kasatha, shobhad, and other multi-armed races only have two "armor" arms while wearing large powered armor? If so, why would their armorsmiths conform to the standards of other humanoids?

I think not. Unless a suit of armor says otherwise, I don't believe you lose out on any of your traits or abilities, including natural weapons.

The problem is that while they haven't quite gone all the way to just say it flat out, it's increasingly clear that large+ power armor isn't really armor in a conventional sense. It's a mech that you're piloting around, using your hands to drive it and its speed to move.

The only real issue with whether medium armor breaks from this by being a small enough wrapper that your normal physiology still matters and can be applied in some situations.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
You made an assertion about the impact of this on characters that stick around. I find it unsupported. That is my point. I acknowledge it may have minimal rather than negligible salience in a minority of circumstances.
And, once again, your point is about frequency, which is irrelevant to my point.

My point is that your concern is amusingly trivial even when it happens; given that this trivial inconvenience won’t even occur very often it’s even less worth worrying about.

But of course different people worry about different things. Smarter, richer, and braver people worry about less in life than the poorer, dumber, and skittish. If this sort of thing is a problem for your games and your kind of players then I believe you.


Ellias Aubec wrote:
However, in that same section near the end it states that ‘The reduction in penalties due to aiming with a scope ...’ which implies that you have to aim with the scope to get the reduction in range penalties. SO not all the time.

An extension of range increment is not a reduction in penalties. And they are different clauses.

It is sufficiently ambiguous in the way they wrote it that you’re not crazy or dumb for thinking otherwise, though.


You made an assertion about the impact of this on characters that stick around. I find it unsupported. That is my point. I acknowledge it may have minimal rather than negligible salience in a minority of circumstances.


Note that two other effects work the same way: Might of the Elicoth spell and a Geneturge Mystic connection power option for upgrading your arms.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

If that were the case, wouldn't it also mean that the cones of automatic weapons outfitted with scopes would expand as well?

I very much doubt that sort of interaction was intended.

I’m reasonably sure, and it cannot interact with automatic fire. Read it again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What do the shape of hands have to do with natural weapons? Do you think if someone mounts Nuar horns on the bumper of their car a Nuar driver makes natural attacks when he crashes it into people?


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
HammerJack wrote:

I don't think severe wound is what I would look at as a potential problem, since the most dramatic effects of a wound critical have saving throws.

Someone quad attacking with a Stun critical and a 17-20 crit range is where I would worry about those fusions having a serious chance of negating what should be a threatening enemy.

It might not be a problem for "disposable" NPCs, but for characters who are meant to be sticking around in any way, it's an issue.
A severe wound has an 36% chance of chopping off a limb when it triggers. Reduce that to 18% for a save, and 0.9% of attacks with a severe wound crit are costing you a hand. A prosthetic arm costs 100 credits and can be crafted by anyone with a rank in Engineering, so the expected long term effect of attacking someone with a severe wound crit is 0.9 credits.

My point wasn't about current frequency, my point was about the impact when they happen - and therefore the impact of making them more common.

And it appears you haven't considered what happens when someone loses the limb (or eye) that has some kind of valuable augmentation installed in it.

My point is that the impact is negligible, and multiplying a negligible value a few times results in a negligible value. If you have an implant all that happens is your expected monetary loss goes up and you have a lag afterwards until your GM adjusts your WBL back where it should be.

Long term effects of wound crits are not worth worrying about. Only whether they actually kill you in combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It’s 120, but it’s always 120, including when you don’t use a move action. The move action additionally subtracts from any range penalty.

It’s the difference between aiming with cheap iron sights (unmodified weapin) and an ACOG. Even on a quick snap shot you have to look through the scope and benefit from the magnification and aiming dot. Taking more time just steadies you for extra long shots.


No.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
HammerJack wrote:

I don't think severe wound is what I would look at as a potential problem, since the most dramatic effects of a wound critical have saving throws.

Someone quad attacking with a Stun critical and a 17-20 crit range is where I would worry about those fusions having a serious chance of negating what should be a threatening enemy.

It might not be a problem for "disposable" NPCs, but for characters who are meant to be sticking around in any way, it's an issue.

A severe wound has an 36% chance of chopping off a limb when it triggers. Reduce that to 18% for a save, and 0.9% of attacks with a severe wound crit are costing you a hand. A prosthetic arm costs 100 credits and can be crafted by anyone with a rank in Engineering, so the expected long term effect of attacking someone with a severe wound crit is 0.9 credits.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Point of order: Armour, presumably including powered armour, has to be customized to the user. Presumably, that customization potentially includes everything that would be required to make natural weapons work - which I think takes care of any thematic elements.

I don’t think this works at all for power armor. It certainly doesn’t work for large, huge, or gargantuan power armor, so for consistency I’d assume that medium PA also has too much metal between your flesh and the outside world to incorporate your natural weapons.


Stun doesn’t get a save because it’s so rare (and tied originally to the otherwise lackluster Bane). The things that give it are not otherwise super strong options.


Medium (+1), Large (+2), and Huge (+3) sizes granted by Polymorph give a bonus to strength checks and skills.

CRB wrote:
Larger and smaller creatures get bonuses and penalties to Strength checks to break objects as follows: Fine –16, Diminutive –12, Tiny –8, Small –4, Large +4, Huge +8, Gargantuan +12, Colossal +16.

So that's a cumulative +1 Medium, +6 Large, and +11 Huge for breaking things. May need to combine with compression if you're large/huge and busting down doors in a narrow hallway with the aid of a breach weapon.


Pogiforce wrote:
I'm fully aware that players use EAC melee weapons. I have a bombardier soldier with a Sonic pickaxe. That does not invalidate the fact that most melee options, especially the favor given to natural and unarmed attacks, target KAC. That's a simple fact.

It's simple, certainly.

As usual, my responses to people like you aren't meant to help you, but hopefully they are able to clarify things for other people reading the read.

Pogiforce wrote:
Besides, it doesn't matter if the difference is 1, 2, or 10.

Yeah, I definitely can't help you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pogiforce wrote:
Melee attacks are also mostly against KAC, whereas most guns are against EAC.

I'm wary of too much generalization about KAC vs. EAC. On the player front it's entirely a choice and there's no "mostly." Which is better is highly level, weapon category, damage type, and circumstance dependent. At many levels and weapon categorizes the best KAC options have higher DPR than the best EAC option - the extra damage more than compensates for the decreased likelihood to hit.

And note that while +2 KAC is the most common gap, not only do a lot of Alien Archive entries have a KAC only 1 higher than EAC, there are a few with equal or even lower KAC where the KAC targeting DPR advantage grows. (If you're Hallajin hunting bring a KAC weapon with a ghost touch fusion for best results.) Don't get tied up in general rules if you have the time, resources, and cognitive capacity to adapt to the situation at hand.


Voyd211 wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
Well. The statement that Starfinder favors ranged combat is pretty shaky. Well everyone should absolutely have a ranged weapon, and the addition of the Gunner Harness to heavy weapons has closed the gap up a lot, melee is where the real damage is.

That's... honestly news to me. While I haven't been able to play Starfinder myself yet, the sheer prevalence of firearms makes it seem like melee attacks are best left on the wayside. If every goon has a gun (which, if they're non-kasatha humanoids, they're going to), then you'll probably get turned into Swiss cheese on the way up to them.

In addition to the options BNW mentioned, you can also pick up Jet Dash as a feat and run at 6x speed up to (or preferably past) them to at least set up an AOO.

Melee damage > ranged damage because the dice are generally higher for equivalent level/damage type weapons, you get to add strength, soldiers can add 1.5 strength, Solarions can add fire damage, Ring of Fangs shenanigans, and natural weapon races can add 1.5 level weapon specialization. Plus melee can reliably trigger extra attacks via AOOs with proper placement, feat selection, and reach.

Ranged weapons have no way to generate extra attacks or bonus damage options, although they do now have full attack accuracy boosters that melee weapons lack. The other downside to melee is that you can become the focus of every ranged combatant on the battlefield and the guy you're engaging can't provide cover from everyone. But there is the Close Combat feat to boost your AC and help with that.


A Mass Polymorph 5 spell granting four creatures the Svartalfar's Bane ability as a racial trait can be a great anti-boss ability to try to stun lock someone. You grant them Bane, they activate as as swift action on their next turn, then full attack afterwards to crit fish for no save stun effects.

Depending on how many attacks your party can turn out in a round, here's your chances of stunning a focused target (quad attack for Operatives and Solarion triple attacks comes online at the same time as this spell, Soldier's already have triple attacks):

8: 33.7%
9: 37%
10: 40.1%
11: 43.1%
12: 46%


Yeah, the stunned critical with no save is a big problem with changing crit frequency, no actions for one round is bad, flatfooted is annoying, but also dropping your weapons (which can usually be scooped up during your no action turn) is a death sentence for many enemies.

Methods to get stunned criticals:

1. Mark 4+ bone blade necrograft.
2. Junksword 4+
3. Bane fusion (fixed to specific subtype)
4. Svartalfar racial bane trait, which can be customized daily

So this is mainly a problem for high level Technomancers (who can't add fusions to their weapon), high level Operatives/Soldiers with bone blades (who arguably can), level 13 Arcane Assailant Soldiers granting themselves Bane, Svartalfars who fight a lot of similar creatures in 1 hour blocks per day, and low to mid level people who receive a Polymorph 2+ spell that grants them the Svartalfar bane trait.

The last is the easiest, and note that a Mass Polymorph 5 can grant Bane to a party of four. If you're all full attacking after you receive and activate the buff that's 8-10 chances per round (assuming some 3 full attack classes) to roll a 20, or a 32.6-40.1% chance per round to stun a single boss you're focusing.


Pogiforce wrote:
Can you swap batteries though? From what I've read you can't put in a battery that has more capacity than the item can hold. Hence why 40 charge batteries can't go in 20 charge guns.all forcefield are ten charges. It's be like swapping out a watch battery with a double A.

Oh, I forgot the early forcefields have that dumb sub-20 capacity. Yeah, you can't use my method until the level 10 white force field. But I also believe forcefields are a bad deal until high levels - 2 slots, an action to activate, and the tiny benefits on top of not going able to recharge in the field (short of the Recharge spell) is pretty poor.


Pogiforce wrote:
Still an extra round, an extra 3/5/10 points of damage not taken. As an envoy too you'd burn rp often enough.

It's only extra damage not taken if you're bad at battery management and you'd otherwise run out of charge mid-combat. Most people just change their batteries out after every combat: no combats last 20 rounds, and you can afford to have enough extra (no bulk, 60 credits) batteries to get you through this until you have a chance to recharge them.


Pogiforce wrote:
I think when paired with a force field, and combined with the 9th level ability, you can get a lot of mileage out of the sixth level ability.

It's one charge per 1 RP spent, a force field has a usage of one charge per round. People just don't spend that much RP that fast or have that much.

Standard Batteries, not counting recharging, only cost 3 credits per charge. This is at best a tiny money savings or a rare "squeeze out one more use before I have to reload/recharge in combat" option.

The reduced RP to revive can be useful if you almost die regularly and are at the right level/augmentation number break point, although it's still wise to buy an Adrenal Booster that won't stack. The "burning and bleeding at 0 HP" recovery can surely save your life, though, on the rare occasions it might come up.


Pogiforce wrote:


Even omitting that one line though that's a lot of different things that you can do with one ability. To me this archetype looks really strong.

I agree that the level 9 and level 4 abilities are really strong. I think the 2nd level price savings are nice to have, and the 6th level ability is pretty meh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An attack absolutely is not an ability check because it adds BAB. Ability checks only add an ability score to the d20 roll.

You'll note distinct glossary entries and page references for ability checks and attacks/attack rolls at the back of the core rulebook.

I wrote a comprehensive list of all ability checks in the core rulebook here.

Pantshandshake wrote:

Unclear.

"Sometimes, a situation or ability might require you to attempt something called an ability check. In such instances, instead of attempting a check involving both your abilities and other factors (such as skills or saving throws that reflect your training and expertise), you attempt a check using just 1d20 + your ability modifier. This represents you trying to use your raw, untrained talent for that particular ability, such as attempting a Strength check to kick down a door. See page 242 for more information."

You don't get to decide to attempt something as an ability check and define it as such, a rule tells you when an ability check is called for. No rule calls for an ability check to resolve an attack. Even if you're BAB is zero or you decide you don't want to use it (to attempt something like this Augmented cheese) you're not allowed to. Page 240 defines how you make an attack roll. You must add your BAB (even if zero), and by adding something other than attribute it's by definition not an ability check.


Pogiforce wrote:


And have you read the 9th level ability? Basically says you get your choice of more to hit in melee, more movement speed, more stamina, better crits and int checks, better Wis and in it checks, or better cha checks and free reroll to allies.

The bold part isn't true. A strength enhancement that is boosted only gives you a bonus to strength/dex skill or ability checks. It doesn't help you hit anything.


Garretmander wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Pogiforce wrote:


Also, if Get em is all that matters any archtype that does not replace the 6th level improv is fine, since that's the earliest you can take Improved get em anyway.

If you traded away your 2nd and 4th level improvs then you'll only be able to take Get 'Em, not Improved Get 'Em, at 6th. There are no archetypes that take only one of your 2/4/6 improvs, so at best you can take Get 'Em at 2, 4, or 6 and Improved Get 'Em at 8.
You get a 1st level improv. If there is an archetype that doesn't replace the 6th level ability, then get 'em at 1st and improved get 'em at 6th are worth it over inspiring boost.

Ah. There's only one archetype that doesn't take your 6th level improvisation - Steward Officer.


Pogiforce wrote:


Also, if Get em is all that matters any archtype that does not replace the 6th level improv is fine, since that's the earliest you can take Improved get em anyway.

If you traded away your 2nd and 4th level improvs then you'll only be able to take Get 'Em, not Improved Get 'Em, at 6th. There are no archetypes that take only one of your 2/4/6 improvs, so at best you can take Get 'Em at 2, 4, or 6 and Improved Get 'Em at 8.


Claxon wrote:
Pogiforce wrote:
I also thought Inspiring Boost would be first, since anyone can shoot things but battlefield healing is at a premium.

It's at best a once per combat per person heal.

I can tell you that my experience for my melee soldier is that it would basically negate one attack that I took. Which isn't bad, but also isn't as useful generally, as the attack bonus. And denying everyone the attack bonus that round to do it, is the real problem. Although, I guess you could regular Get 'Em and do Inspiring Boost. It's still on the lack luster side, in my opinion.

Note that regular (move action) Get 'Em is still a +2 if you have Improved Get 'Em and choose not to shoot/IG'E as a standard action. Or maybe you know that and still think a stamina heal instead of a single shot plus some other move action is lackluster, I guess there's some ambiguity in your response.

Improved Get 'Em wrote:
Your morale bonus from get ’em increases to +2. As a standard action, you can make a single attack against a target within 60 feet. You and your allies within 60 feet gain the benefits of get ’em against that target (applying these effects before making the attack roll). As with get ’em, you can spend 1 Resolve Point to grant the benefits against all enemies within 60 feet. You must have the get ’em envoy improvisation to choose this improvisation.

The first sentence is true even if you don't use the standard action shooting option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
Well. The statement that Starfinder favors ranged combat is pretty shaky. Well everyone should absolutely have a ranged weapon, and the addition of the Gunner Harness to heavy weapons has closed the gap up a lot, melee is where the real damage is.
It's more the "getting into melee" aspect which has difficulties; unless you're starting all your combats at super close range (which doesn't make sense in a setting with firearms). Ranged combatants grab cover, melee combatants are stuck getting over to them without a lot of good options for how to protect themselves on the way there.

Smoke grenades in front of their position, the same way real world infantry/armor screens movements when they have no cover or concealment.

Or just throw it in front of you and leap frog towards them on consecutive rounds if they're far away. All they can do is pick a square to shoot at random and hope you're there with a 50% miss chance. Or leave their cover to get line of sight on you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For Sprayflesh it seems like it should be DC 25, the normal DC; Medical Expert just speeds it up.

Since the only options published anywhere are DC 25 for basic medkit/sprayflesh and DC 20 for advanced medkit, I'd assume the DC 25 for a basic medkit for a medpatch as well.

I FAQ'd for an official clarification some day, maybe, but I think it's a safe assumption that since there are only two published DCs you should use the harder, more basic one for using basic equipment.

Also note that a medpatch is 50 credits, the same as a Mk 1 healing serum, so unless you have a good Int bonus and can reliably make a DC 30 check you're better off just investing in healing serums and saving the feat. At high levels you can heal more, but just once per day.

It doesn't seem worth a feat to me given the two round action economy (rd 1 draw/move to ally, rd 2 apply), low HP restoration, and cost compared to cheap serums.

1 to 50 of 3,431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>