Search Posts
I am going to have to say that you're suffering from confirmation bias, then. Everyone does. None of us are enlightened to the point of not making mistakes. If by making that blanket statement it offended a party or parties that their mind was changed on new evidence, well then I owe them an apology. Perhaps it was hyperbolic of me to make such a statement, and that's my fault. I can accept that.
My point is the "simply stop arguing" because the "accept ___ point" isn't possible. I haven't seen anyone in this thread, or threads like them accept another person's point of view. Doesn't matter how many pages they span, they all end the same way, and months later the topic comes back up. I don't recall advocating my personal implementations on the subject in this thread so I don't know how my personal views on the matter are relevant to your response. On the topic of realism, my point has nothing to do with what is realistic or not. I added expanded definition on the term appendage. There seems a blind eye being cast that the parameter of the term is not limited to what we puny humans have as arms and legs. Skin is an appendage. The rules for VTM are neither here nor there. That game has additional mechanics attached to vampire blood drain that has severe implications to combat. Hence, you need a grapple because blood drain on humans makes them euphoric and basically helpless. It is also thematic to the horror tropes the game emulates to include the grapple for the bite. Starfinder doesn't require a grapple for a bite unless expressed within a creature or effects text. Otherwise, having a maw of teeth is just another vector for making an attack. The only thing about an appendage I find important in the context of Starfinder is what descriptive text precedes the mechanics. For Nuar, they are described as having horns. Horns are an appendage. When the Natural Weapons EX trait makes reference to what can be done, it is my interpretation that mechanic is referencing the creature's description. Therefore, a Nuar always threatens in melee range because it can attack with it's horn for piercing damage with an additional specialization modifier. If the Nuar wishes to punch with a fist, that is using a different appendage and follows other printed unarmed strike parameters. I apply that logic to all races with Natural Weapons. If a Reptoid is described as having claws, then the unarmed attacks being referenced are to the claws. By extension of the above, I rule that the RoF gives the user a maw of fangs, or improves it if they had sharp teeth, and that in and of itself is the attack vector. The rest of the description on the mechanics is on how that new chompy chomp bite works in the context of doing damage. I do not extrapolate from any of this that by wearing the RoF, growing a maw of teeth, now gives you license to have piercing damage punches with your fists. I'm fully aware that these text blocks do not explicitly describe my views on the matter. There is absolutely no point debating that with me. Likewise, I see no point in trying to convince everyone else here that this is 100% how it needs to be handled. You guys do you. You resolve balance issues how you want. My whole point though, is arguing ad nauseam about it is pretty pointless when it is clear there are various views that cannot be changed. I hope that adds clarity to how I feel about it.
Others have already pointed out about what organized play requires. A strict adherence to RAW isn't it. We'll disagree on absurdity. This thread includes examples of "Space Minotaurs" not being able to gore while holding tea cups because Natural Weapons don't make them martial artists. This stems only from strict reading of the rules as presented in the books and being pedantic purely for the sake it. I'm sure those that wish to defend that stance don't see themselves as being pedantic for the sake of it. They may agree on being pedantic even. What they may not get is that for an outsider looking into these 4 pages, this level pedantic banter comes off as pure enjoyment for those doing it. Because the arguments do not hold good sense. They seem to be done purely to get the last word or cherry pick specifics out of personal pleasure to do it. I don't speak for the game designers. However, having played games, like many of you, for decades I think we all understand these rules are frameworks. Frameworks are intended to provide a base level of guidance. Game master and player interpretation are meant to be agreed upon terms. No, that won't stop all arguments but the caveats in books like these that include "GM has final say" should matter. In this thread it really doesn't. Because the pedant aims to push for expanded text in these types of books so that each level of minutiae can be called out in the most hand holding of ways. While having a game book with truly concise and specific rulings is a noble goal, it isn't going to be practical in all accounts. There are financial (costs to print, page count, etc) and project limitations (time-to-ship, other deadlines, etc.) that will always prevent this. No game framework will be perfect. I know that's not what people think they are asking for, but this thread has pushed past what should be reasonably expected of the game authors. At least, that is my opinion on it. Even calling for a full time FAQ writer for a business like Paizo is absurd. I'm going to bet they have one. It's called an project director or even an editor in some cases. In edition to having someone oversee a project, the authors put a certain amount of responsibility on to all of us to run games that our players enjoy. Much like what BNW stated in the sentence I quoted, it is pretty obvious to some that there is a level of intent that players will figure it out at their table. This assumption trims words and pages and speeds up the project. Another thing, there is such a thing as author intent in writing. These arguments here ignore it in favor of trying to support a specific vision. This has led into arguments asking for expanded clarification on what terms like appendage might mean because it is part of the default unarmed strike definition. If appendage is to mean limbs, then a Space Minotaur clearly can't gore while holding a tea cup! Apparently appendage is limited to the hands holding the tea cups. EXCEPT, that the National Museum of National History defines things like horns and antlers as cranial appendages. Skin is an appendage. Teeth are part of a creatures oral cavity, but can be included in the term appendage per Oxford Medicine. Look, I agree and disagree with a lot of you here. I also don't disagree that a FAQ clearing up some unarmed strike/natural weapon wording is in order. If how several you wish to run the RoF works at your tables, then cool. However, this thread is off the rails.
4 Pages in, and it is pretty obvious that players cannot figure how this works since RAW is gospel and intent in language is apparently absolutely meaningless. This thread is beyond absurd.
I haven't been on here in a while, but I support a FAQ. In my home game my interpretation of unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and the RoF is an accepted part of playing the game. For the purposes of readers, we'll call it "house rule" since I lean very much on intent of the language vs strict textual interpretation. It works for us, but my FAQ support is for all of the others wrestling with this at your tables. I feel for you.
For some clarity on Power Armor damage, see page 203 of the Core Rule Book: "When you make an unarmed melee attack with the powered armor, it deals damage equal to the armor’s listed damage value plus its Strength modifier." The listed damage is an unarmed melee attack. It's not worded as unarmed strike or unarmed attack as per Improved Unarmed Strike on CRB pg 158. I take that to suggest that the Power Armor replaces whatever natural weapon or unarmed striking method the wearer has. Hammer Fist changes this. CRB 113: "You treat any unarmed attack you make while wearing heavy or powered armor as being made with a battleglove (see page 187) with an item level equal to or lower than your soldier level, and you calculate damage for these attacks as if you had the melee striker gear boost (see page 112). If you have the melee striker gear boost, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with your unarmed attacks when using this ability. These unarmed attacks don’t benefit from other abilities that apply specifically to unarmed attacks (such as the Improved Unarmed Strike feat)." So Power Armor normally uses the Power Armor's strength modifier plus whatever listed damage is there. Hammer Fist changes this to a faux Battleglove with additional strength calculations and additions like Melee Striker (PA default doesn't seem to allow this, I could be wrong). The caveat is that Hammer Fist doesn't take on any other improving modifiers to unarmed attacks (IUS called out explicitly, Natural Weapons is likely implied). Seems like Power Armor melee by default isn't as stellar for One Punch Space Marine as it may seem. Armor Storm's Hammer Fist however does change it significantly.
In retrospect, I regret even replying or logging in today. 1) It's not about my players fun. It is about making suggestions to help the OP. I'm trying to be helpful to that person. Anyone that read that could take it or leave. It's not how I would handle it, and I said as much, but I can see arguments in favor of it. Nothing more, nothing less. 2) As for the pedantic arguments, well you did choose start with that position. 3) My damage question in the original reply was rhetorical. I should have been more clear. My mistake. You were just trying to be helpful in trying to provide examples in your own way, and I took it the wrong way. I regret that. I took it as you basically man-splaining something I didn't need explained. We could go down the list of weapons available to a level 7 soldier and math it all out. It doesn't answer the OP's question about a hard line rule. All it does is show pros and cons of why or why not to implement the suggestion. At the end of the day it comes down the OP's group fun.
Er, okay?See that? Most aspects that you stack gives about +3 average damage. That seems too specific to be a coincidence. Allowing Natural Weapons to buff a power armor unarmed attack is a swing of +6 instead of +3. I'm not saying it isn't intended, but it is not something to sneeze at or brush off as insignificant, either. I made an edit to that response. However, that quoted point still stands. It's stating the obvious but then again I felt the other things I stated in that reply to the OP were also obvious. My mistake and the question on damage balance was rhetorical. The point I was trying to make was this. If the player is having fun playing Mecha One Punch Man then go for it. If the stacking isn't that disruptive, and I don't think it is, then who freaking cares about 3 points of damage at level 7? I don't want to go line by line of available weapons to a 7th level character which can go into the level + 2 range, but the damage comparisons don't seem to be that big a deal. So if I scoff at +3 damage, then guilty as charged because in my opinion it's not a big deal. But! If that is too much for your table, then don't allow it. None of what I posted or what the OP is asking about is explicitly detailed in any of the source material so who cares how they run it in the end?
See that? Most aspects that you stack gives about +3 average damage. That seems too specific to be a coincidence. Allowing Natural Weapons to buff a power armor unarmed attack is a swing of +6 instead of +3. I'm not saying it isn't intended, but it is not something to sneeze at or brush off as insignificant, either. Cool, then don't do it if you think it is too powerful. However, pointing out an average 19.5 weapon damage for Power Armor One Punch Man at level 7 isn't really an earth shattering revelation to me. The same Vesk Soldier could be using a 2D8 Advanced weapon at the same level which averages what, 25 damage (Str mod +6, melee striker +3, WPS +7, dice damage 1d8 (4.5) x 2 =9)? That's a damage difference of 5.5. If you don't include the Natural Weapon Specialization then it is a difference of 8.5. So again, is it really that big a deal when you look outside the realm of just how hard characters can punch in the game?
And by stacking, I meant the 1.5× specialization only. Starfinder is a game of balance, not sense. Basically is there a hard rule written that says Natural Weapons doesn't apply in Power Armor. Or that the attack Power Armor provides is not an Unarmed Strike. Nope. In the absence of this being spelled out in the text, reason should dictate the interaction. Every suit of PA beyond the Battle Harness suggests that the suit's damage die is a result of replacing the user's normal hand-to-hand method. It isn't called out that way, but that is how I read it. The Battle Harness is basically an exoskeleton with limited advantages. Natural weapons should be no problem. The Cargo Lifter is pretty much Ripley from Aliens. I'd think the damage die is from hitting with the lifting implements and not the pilot's appendages. Everything else is mecha inspired and presumes to be fully enclosed. That said, if punching things with mecha hands is the character's thing, Does adding 1.5 x level to PA damage really skew things over just plain 1 x level? I don't think I'd run it that way personally, but balance wise is it really that big a deal?
To people looking at getting into organized play that are worried it's full of munchkin rules lawyers? As someone who doesn't play organized play, I can confirm this is EXACTLY how SFS comes across to me. I've been playing these games for a long time, and I understand that real organized play isn't necessarily like that. However, people that make constant commentary about putting SFS in statements of what appear very munchkiny... well it turns me off. I hadn't participated in the forums much either after some of these threads like this. Please understand that forum rules on decorum are there not just for the people arguing, but they are there for readers too. There is no harm in having discussions about rules interpretations but be mindful of their presentation. Negative perceptions are bad for businesses.
Or another option is to run the game how I see fit at my table. I can also choose not to play with people that decide to go another way, or I can play with those people as long as I accept it. Also, saying that rules don't necessarily need to make sense pretty much ends this conversation. Trying to apply reality to the game is one thing. Having a discussion about applying interpretation is something completely different. There is no need to tell me to go find another game when I am also clearing stating my views as my opinions not as matters of fact.
So what if the Ring of Fangs explicitly stated it granted a natural weapon (bite) with a 2xlevel Weapon Specialization effect but only with said bites? I feel that was the intent of the item, but that isn't how it was written. I also would have loved for more explicit statements about natural weapons. Unfortunately Vesk seem like a reverse power creep. They have an untyped natural weapon. Their physical description includes several options but none of these are referenced under the trait. Since their natural weapon has no descriptor (e.g., slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) it is easy to make the argument they punch harder. However, the Alien Archive disputes that under the definition of what Natural Weapons *are*. Other races in the first Alien Archive get a bit more descriptive but you still have to parse their physical description. Then the Armory includes Pistol Whip which grants a new bonus to unarmed combat for Operatives with rationale that natural weapon races just hit harder with the maneuver. Finally, you have Alien Archive 2 which just gets flat out lazy with some descriptions like the Uplifted Bear "function like those of vesk, except the bears’ natural weapons deal slashing damage". If we're not supposed to incorporate *any* of the descriptor text of what natural weapons *are*, then we have Uplifted Bears punching so hard they cut people. Or because they are described as having claws, they can hit harder with the butt end of a pistol than a human. None of that makes any lick of sense. To each their own though.
Natural Weapons are a sub-type of Unarmed Strike with the following properties: removes archaic, switches to lethal, increases the value of Weapon Specialization, still doesn't require a manufactured weapon to be wielded, shifts the character to a status of "armed" at all times and therefore threatens spaces. The free hand requirement doesn't appear to matter since you are considered armed as long as your natural weapon is available. If it is not available, then go back to the default Unarmed Strike rules above.The bolded is not currently settled by any means. "...As long as your natural weapon is available..." None of the natural weapons races actually specify in their racial trait text what their natural weapons actually are, so therefore it is impossible to say, from a rules perspective, that their "natural weapon is available." The Ring of Fangs might give you a bite attack and Nuar might have pointy horns, but all the rules say is that they have a piercing unarmed strike that you need a free hand to use. Yeah, I’m aware. In the absence of explicit rules as written some love to get really pedantic about the topic.
In Pathfinder, Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strike do have enough distinguishing mechanics that such round about discussions doesn't seem necessary. There are different feats impacting the two things and they effect full attacks differently. In Starfinder, this is not the case. On page 158 of the Core Rule Book (CRB) you have a feat, Improved Unarmed Strike, which describes the game mechanics of unarmed combat. On page 190 of the CRB, you have other rules for Unarmed Strikes which muddy the waters of how unarmed combat may be resolved. That's the core problem. All of that seems to spiral arguments about hands free or not and requiring a feat or not. Here is my take on how it works. Unarmed Strike is a weapon type with the following properties: does not require a manufactured weapon to be wielded*, Archaic, Non-Lethal, doesn't threaten spaces, requires a free hand to apply, but still counts as an uncategorized weapon for the purposes of applying effects which modify weapon damage (like Weapon Specialization). *The only distinction between Unarmed Attack and Armed Attack seems to be if you can be disarmed or not and if you threaten a space applicable to an attack of opportunity. Again, Unarmed Attack and Weapon Attacks are how you resolve an action but different descriptors resolve damage. Natural Weapons are a sub-type of Unarmed Strike with the following properties: removes archaic, switches to lethal, increases the value of Weapon Specialization, still doesn't require a manufactured weapon to be wielded, shifts the character to a status of "armed" at all times and therefore threatens spaces. The free hand requirement doesn't appear to matter since you are considered armed as long as your natural weapon is available. If it is not available, then go back to the default Unarmed Strike rules above. Integrated Weapons are somewhat similar but the wielder has a manufactured weapon as a part of their body and this weapon is not subject to being disarmed (Alien Archive pg 151) and it doesn't gain benefits like a Natural Weapon (Weapon Specialization). As long as this weapon is available, there should be no reason why a wielder couldn't attack with it (again, free hand be damned). Improved Unarmed Strike removes several limitations of the basic Unarmed Strike and also increases the damage die. Getting to this point requires me to look at page 158 first, then relevant pages in the equipment section, and then relevant sections of the Alien Archives to even define what a Natural Weapon is. Also, since Natural Weapons are just a layered sub-type of Unarmed Strike there appears to be no limit to other modifiers (i.e., Improved Unarmed Strike) unless explicitly called out (i.e, Hammerfist). So yeah, it's needlessly confusing and I can see why people get so hung up on it.
It's been a while since I tried to keep up with this forum, but do you have a link for that? I asked about this interaction a lot when the game was still early, and post Alien Archive 1 which seemingly muddied the waters. The best statement I found to support Natural Weapons and Improved Unarmed Strike working together was from Owen mentioning they specifically don't call out what you can't do. Also, to further muddy the waters, the description for Pistol Whip Exploit (Armory, pg 150) states: "If you have an ability that gives you a special version of Weapon Specialization that allows you to add 1-1/2 × your level to natural or unarmed attacks as damage (such as vesk natural weapons), you add your level to pistol whip unarmed strikes; otherwise you add half your level as normal for an operative weapon" Which leads me to believe that there is little difference between the actual delivery method on natural weapons and unarmed strikes under RAW. Since this exploit addresses that any race with a natural weapon is just more naturally suited to booping targets upside the head with the butt end of a pistol over any other race. It doesn't make sense to me, but there it is. I think I prefer to separate natural weapons and unarmed strikes ala Pathfinder, but I'd still really appreciate seeing an official ruling if there is one. Thanks!
Right, I forgot about them, and I'm not fond of them either. I'll re-state with, I'm leery about combining Improved Unarmed Strike and Natural Weapons for a number of other reasons which are on this forum already.
I kinda like where Ravingdork is going with it, and I'd probably do the same. I would not let Vesk, Formian, or Nuar (or any other race with Natural Weapons) combine their EX trait with Improved Unarmed Strike *or* an Operative exploit for unarmed attacks. I'm not fond of the idea of those races getting what amounts to an unconditional damage advantage for what seems like a flavor text game trait. But it's homebrew, so do what works for ya!
So going outside of the box in any way, multi-classing or even archtypes, is a question of trade-offs. How well that plays out in the game is going to vary widely on what you're hoping to get out of the character, who you're playing with, and what level the game ends. You can probably tack on a few other statements to that, but those 3 are the big ones in my book. Especially "what level the game ends". In addition to what Pantshandshake said: 1) What are you willing to trade-off and what do you hope to gain? There is no specific answer here without more specific details. Common practice is to dip into a class for a level 1 bonus (Soldier is commonly abused) or dip out of a class at level 3 for weapon specialization (Soldier is common for this too). Beyond that we circle back to trade-offs, your specific vision for the character, and campaign longevity. 2) What's your motive behind this question? Are you asking if pairing physical classes together makes a more powerful whole or if two supports make a more powerful character? I think the answer to that is, no. Even taking the common dip of Soldier 1 and Solarian X doesn't necessarily make a more powerful character in the long run. It's just different from straight Solarian. Combining Envoy and Mystic doesn't necessarily make a stronger support character, but it could add more flexibility and options. Are those options worth it? That's entirely personal choice. Is stronger than just sticking with a single class? Maybe in the short-term but that's more dubious in the long-term. Some classes have better capstones (if playing to 20) or really solid mid-tier perks. Multi-classing delays, or even excludes, the use of that.
How heavily are you wanting to lean on Revelations with DC's? I ask this, because you could swap that 16 you rolled and placed in Cha with that 14 in Dex. You'd look more like Str 16, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 13, Cha 16, right? Solar Armor can be pretty amazing with a high dex character. I'd only say it is the "shooty" Solarian in point buy builds. You have fewer limits on decision making since the stats were rolled. Even if you prioritize Str for equipment boosts and make Dex secondary you can have very high armor values with eventual elemental damage reduction. A build like this could also make use of Longarm Prof. You'd give up some Save DC's on your powers, Resolve, and Social skills. So not sure how important the 18 Cha is to the concept/build/group (is this a Starship Captain?).
I'd feel like a Ysoki is kind of a waste with starting Dex and Int at a 17. The Goblin offers an opportunity at some creativity in my opinion. Here is how I'd probably build it... Str 8 (they're small so it works thematically)
Theme, whatever... So final modifiers: Str 8, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 17, Wis 10, Cha 15 (+1 stat floating from theme). Some may think CHA??? WHY, it sucks!! I guess from a power-gamer perspective that's true. However, I've always envisioned player goblins as more "plucky" and lovable. Having a negative modifier makes them come across as more like obnoxious. At least what I present could roll a Diplomacy with a +2 after "accidentally" setting fire to someone's favor furniture on the ship or something else. We're not making a character competing with an Envoy for social skill monkey, but instead we're making one with personality. Big difference. Could dump Cha and go with Con to buff the Fortitude save. Though if you did that, may as well go with the Ysoki... You could also use the Ysoki like so: Str 8, Dex 18, Con 13, Int 18, Wis 10, Cha 8 with a +1 floating from theme. You excel in Dex, Int, and you get a bonus from Con for Fortitude checks. The -1 for Cha here isn't too horrible. Maybe the Ysoki is a jerk but it covers Reflex, Fortitude, Will saves and has high DC's on its spells. Your basic collection of game mechanics turned in as "a character".
Here is what it says: "When you wear this ring, your teeth become long and sharp,
I don't think what you're asking is in the spirit of the item or rules BUT you can easily make a case for the opposite since nothing is spelled out otherwise.
I don't see a problem with the feat moving into Starfinder as-is. There is nothing mechanically unique to Pathfinder. The scaling of the cohort is player level minus 2. This is regardless of your leadership score. The cohort is supposed to have equipment appropriate to their level. That last part could be a balance issue if your players give it higher grade weapons and it was min-maxed. I'd probably consider looking at the Mechanic's Drone for ideas to rule the use of the cohort as an active companion. If that is what they are going for. A cohort left unchecked could imbalance action economy and step on the toes of a Drone Mechanic (if there is one). Also, Envoy's are deceptively strong damage contributors. As force multipliers, they can make everyone else better depending on what features you pick. That said, a combat focused cohort is going to contribute even more to the Envoy. It may not be noticeable, if others at the table are tallying up effective damage contribution then the Envoy may end up overshadowing everyone else. Leadership has always been one of those feats that require a lot of oversight. I tend to allow it only when low-level followers are background fluff and not impacting game mechanics (like mass producing weapons for gold, etc.).
No. Natural weapons function under the unarmed strike rules, for the most part, and are basic weapons. So no Operative tricks or dex mods for attack bonus.
I am not meaning to pick a fight, oldskool, but I think it is perfectly valid. I can see these problems in sfs, which may be where you are coming from, but as a gm myself, i see no problem. But I can see minmaxers trying to use this in sfs. No worries. I don't see your comments as picking a fight. I hope that's not how you took my response. I didn't intend to state that as a means of debate. I just expressed the rationale as to why I have the conclusions on this topic that I do. I think for 99% of the GM's they will hand wave this as not being a big deal and allow it. That's perfectly fine. They aren't wrong. You aren't wrong. Neither I am when it comes to how I run my own games. It's nothing more than a difference of opinion. And this thread was necro'ed from last October when I wrote it addressing that the Vesk ability doesn't change or define a descriptor (bludgeoning, slash, etc.) within the natural weapons text. Anyway, thanks for the added discussion. Hopefully they will be of use to someone. Let's hopefully see this topic return to its grave.
I think there would be a lot less of this if IUS explicitly just dropped the archaic descriptor. Because it doesn't you have people trying to justify natural weapons and IUS combining as otherwise IUS is a terrible feat and the natural weapon is pretty meh as well. Maybe. The cynic in me thinks people will always try to put lipstick on a pig.
To throw my 2 cents I believe it is that the war like race is just lethal even when unarmed. I liken it to Klingons in star trek. Now this is only because of this thread that I looked into it, otherwise I thought it was a natural weapon. I think that is how a lot of people interpret it. I'd have an easier time agreeing with that view point if the entirety of the descriptions and effects were consistent. However, they aren't. Vesk's natural weapons as described under the EX racial trait can probably be intrepreted as war-like race that is really lethal when unarmed. However, that ignores several points. First, this logic ignores Vesk are described as having claws, tails, and teeth in their physical description. Second, Alien Archive defines Natural Weapons as being things like claws, teeth, horns, or even acid spit (it's not an all inclusive list). Third, the description of natural weapons trends towards the notion that such attack methods *are not* archaic. They do full damage against foes in common campaign armor sets (aka, futuristic armor). Fourth, "unarmed" is mostly referenced as requiring a free *hand* which does not threaten adjacent squares *and* it's damage is reduced when used against futuristic armor (to the tune of -5). Fifth, Improved Unarmed Strike is addressing "unarmed", it mentions the free hands issue, removes that limitation, expands the use of appropriate fighting appendages (like kicks with legs), further defines that grapples require *hands*, adds lethality to the strikes, increases the damage dice on a scale, and so on, but keeps the attack mode as archaic. So if people only zero in on the term "unarmed" in every natural weapons listing in this game, like many seem to do, then you get into discussion where people try to pull off the following... "My Nuar, Space Minotaur, is taking Improved Unarmed Strike to enhance it's Natural Weapons. You see, the description says "Nuar are always considered armed. They can do piercing damage with their unarmed strikes, and they gain a unique form of weapon specialization at 3rd level that lets them use 1.5 x character level instead of regular character level with Natural Weapons". So now my Nuar martial artist is going to punch the bad guy as piercing damage with a higher than normal weapon specialization bonus and the feat's enhanced dice range. Cool right?" ^ Stuff like that annoys me. Because what is happening here is the player in this description is focusing *only* on what the natural weapons racial trait says as it is written only in the race's entry. However, it's not explicitly described in the natural weapon text. So, the above example is 100% legal per RAW, but that doesn't make it any less obnoxious. Or, this is not 100% legal by rules-as-intended *if* you take the time to read the physical description of the race *and* the Alien Archives definition of what natural weapons are. Alien Archive lends me to question are natural weapons a separate thing from traditional "unarmed strike" concepts? Because one of these two methods is archaic and the other is not. Does the natural weapon text override IUS or work with it? It seems to me most interpretations just cherry pick the best parts of Natural Weapons and Improved Unarmed Strike and combine them without really thinking if they're intended to be different. I guess the other thing I find annoying about it is all of this feeling debating who gets to be the smartest dumb person. Because at the end of the day unarmed damage, improved unarmed damage, and natural weapons all pale in comparison with actual weapons. Anyhoo, I know that not what you bargained for, but that's my soapbox. ;)
Hopefully, it all works out. Another thing, when I say I'd allow what was more favorable that includes damage type. Who knows, you may find that bludgeoning everything with Battle Glove damage after 10th level is great, but then you fight that weird alien that is immune to bludgeoning damage. I'd let the player default to the power armor's base damage plus alternate type if it wasn't disruptive. I think either the Spider Harness or Loader do 1d10 P plus modifiers. So the player could use the lesser damage dice method instead, but that is better than continuing to punch an immune target. Something to think about even if it may not come up in game. Good luck!
Yeah, the official text doesn't offer an option but good sense implies it should. I'd let my player use whichever damage was more favorable. At level 10+ the Battle Glove dice scale better than current power armor. You probably already know that though. ;)
[Edits, lots of edits - I feel the spirit of my reply has already been stated by others] I guess it is worth clarifying that I question if that interaction of natural weapons and IUS is intended. My hunch is that it is fine, but I feel there are some unintended consequences. This is why I separate the traditional idea of unarmed strikes and natural weapons. I do not allow IUS to be used with natural weapons, even if others feel it is fine. Again, small problem but given the number of posts that pop up about unarmed strikes clarity feels valuable.
I feel that is the intent of Vesk natural weapons and unarmed strike separation. However, it is also fair to say: Vesk can make an unarmed strike that is lethal with a special modifier to Weapon Specialization [1.5 times Character Level], period. There are no rules or statements that require the player to specify this "unarmed strike" is blugeoning, slashing, piercing, or an acid spit. Therefore, Improved Unarmed Strike should apply equally to this EX ability. It is fair to say: A Nuar, or Reptoid, can make an unarmed strike which causes piercing/slashing damage with a special modifier to Weapon Specialization, period. Again, there is nothing in this ability that actually limits a Nuar player to piercing with horns, or Reptoids slashing with claws. The details of how these unarmed "natural" attacks are accomplished are left vague which I find problematic. I assume Nuar and Reptoids use the natural weapons described in their entries. However, their actual racial trait's don't specifically call it out. We're supposed to use "common sense", as if that really exists, and apply reasonable logic. However, the numerous posts about unarmed strikes illustrate the intent is left open to interpretation.
I think something was lost in translation. I understand how the rules are written. I just disagree with them. I prefer to keep natural weapons and unarmed strike as separate things for a number of reasons.
100x this! I completely agree it feels incredibly pedantic to argue the specifics of an application on the natural weapons traits, but it annoys me to no end when I see "Vesk Unarmed" builds trying to exploit the poor wording and stacking Improved Unarmed Strike. Yes, it's easy to house rule that Natural Weapons are a special form of "unarmed strike", in that you are not wielding a manufactured weapon, and therefore do not gain benefit from the Improved Unarmed Strike feat which seems to be written with traditional martial arts concepts in mind. Again, this feels pedantic because at the end of the day unarmed builds, even if they look to exploit the wording loophole of "Natural Weapons", still fall behind everyone else using weapons. I mean, I get it... people love monks. I know I do, but good grief.
It wouldn't be damage efficient for solarians or soldiers. Small arms and operative melee weapons do significantly less damage than longarms, heavy weapons, or advanced melee weapons. The additional +1 to hit for 2 attacks wouldn't offset the damage lost from 2 attacks with superior weapon choices. The feat doesn't explicitly state "while using such weapons" after "reduce the penalty for making a full attack by 1" but that is apparently the intent. Either way, doing something like this is gaming the system for little gain. You can do it for flavor and neat use of items with a race with multiple limbs but not for power gaming.
JetSetRadio did a great job of describing my similar point of view on interpretation. As for a page reference in AA, look at page 155: "NATURAL WEAPONS (EX)
That text, and the specific call outs for descriptors on damage like the races you mention, lead me to believe "natural weapons" are their own class of weapon separate from the traditional idea of "unarmed strikes". Unarmed is used interchangeably in the Core Rule Book/Alien Archive but the use seems ambiguous to me. I think in the alien references you quote the nuance comes from the first sentence. For example "Reptoids are *always* considered *armed*. [when not shape changed]". This tells me they always have a weapon, their claws. The second sentence describes the mode in which they deal lethal slashing damage which is via *unarmed strikes*. A problem with this is *unarmed strike* is a specific weapon type listed under the basic weapons table, but it is also referenced as a style of combat. As a weapon type, unarmed strikes do archaic damage at a 1d3 + strength and can be improved by the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Natural Weapons are an EX ability in the list of special traits in the Alien Archive that appear to add a new weapon type in addition to the default basic weapon option for a given race. Natural weapons can reference a number of effects that are not necessarily unarmed strikes in the classic sense. So to me, the context of what *unarmed strike*/*unarmed attack* needs to be understood in what it is being referenced to. And I realize a lot of this has been said, but sometimes it is nice to talk/type it out for my own sake too. ;)
The Core Rule Book is vague like you mention, Kudaku. However, the Alien Archive is a bit more descriptive on what natural attacks actually are. By this I mean they describe a damage type (like slashing or piercing) as well as a mode (gore, claws, etc...). Rules as written, Vesk "natural weapons" are whatever you want as they are not explicitly described as being any different from other races unarmed strike. So it is reasonable to use their enhanced weapon specialization. Sadly with the inclusion of the Alien Archive, the Vesk is the only race with a non-descriptive unarmed attack bonus. Making them the only race with this advantage. For my own rulings I lean towards describing what a Vesk natural weapon is, like a tail slap with bludgeoning damage and disallow it from applying to Improved Unarmed Strike (this goes for all races with a natural attack). The natural weapon seems to be intended as a nice back up option to allow races with the feature a means to threaten in melee at all times. Given the Alien Archive's more descriptive text, I do not believe natural weapons are intended as a method to be built around to abuse their higher specialization bonus (or lack of archaic damage penalty) in conjunction with feats/class features that further enhance unarmed combat. In effect, I treat natural weapons their own special weapon class.
But yeah, good or bad will is something that most every class could be argued to have or not have. It's a bit arbitrary, to be honest. To be fair, there are a lot of choices in the game design that seem arbitrary in the name of "balance". I have no issue with the Mechanic having a lower Will save. I can see an argument for it as a narrow focus on technology makes the class less perceptive/willful as others just as easily as I can see an argument for the opposite. The narrow-mindedness is a common rational used with Wisdom penalty races which may have been the argument for the Mechanic. Or it could have just as easily been "Wait, we don't have a low Will save class... Pick one, Johnson!". I'm still surprised the Soldier is not the low Will save class in this game, but I'm also pretty pleased the Fighter isn't hosed on that save for a change.
Not sure what you mean by "bought" or "grabbing". Envoys have both Engineering and Computers as class skills without a need to add them to the list. They do need to select them for Skill Expertise which you appropriately point out, but they are both on the list. Also worth noting, the Soldier could potentially be an engineer if they build for it (but the Envoy should be better due to Skill Expertise). It isn't outside the realm of possibility to be a ranged Soldier with a secondary focus on intelligence. But otherwise agreed on that potential road map.
Armor storm is clear it doesn't stack with anything except melee striker (and the special buff in the Hammer Fist description), strength, and default weapon specialization. It is unclear if the Improved Unarmed Strike Feat and the Natural Weapons EX ability are *intended* to stack. As written, using the Core Rules Book only, Improved Unarmed Strike + Vesk Natural Weapons looks legal. However, Alien Archive describes Natural Weapons (EX) as a broad category of damage types from claws (slashing), horns (piercing), breath weapons (ranged, cone, multiple damage types), etc... This enhanced descriptor is further illustrated in several player race stat blocks which really mucks up the waters about just what the Vesk can do from the CRB. So for now, I'd suggest working this out with your GM to find out what they allow in their game.
EDIT: comment removed Regardless of who is right or wrong, at this point this thread is treading into waters which seem to go counter to the forum guidelines. By that, I mean this thread seems to exist solely for the purposes of brow beating and abusive commentary (even if not fully intended to be so). Because some people cannot stop commenting when addressed, and yes, I realize how ironic that sounds since I'm probably not helping by bumping this thread. Let's let this thread end with people feeling they have some dignity.
Geez, I thought this thread spiraled out of control, got back on track, spiraled out of control, found some commonality, and now is spiraling out of control again. I'd strongly urge folks taking the time to review what is now page 12, to look back a few steps and see if your talking point has already been brought up, refuted, and counter-pointed ad nauseam. Much of the new fervor pushing these new pages are the same tired argument with a slightly different coat of paint. No one has changed anyone's mind on either side and that seems unlikely to change. There are people that find flaws in the Solarian. There are people that find the same flaws in the Solarian but find them workable in the context of trade-offs in other classes. There are people that find no flaws in the Solarian. I think there are established views which are valid for each of those 3 perceptions. Continuing to debate the same argument even with a minor change in semantics doesn't appear to be getting anywhere. For those that find flaws with the class, there is enough data in this thread that perhaps a new thread needs to be created in the Homebrew sections to start discussing a solution for immediate use instead of beating this horse.
Thanks. In retrospect, I could have reigned in that response, and I regret that. Sorry. I was thinking today, "if I could just buy these peeps a round of beer, then I bet we could have a FAR better conversation about this". :)
I spend 2 feats. 1) Skill Synergy (Diplomacy added as a class skill, Intimidate for an insight bonus), and Skill Focus (Diplomacy). My Diplomacy will be a 32 and Intimidate a 31. Ah, you are correct, I totally glossed over that. Ok, so I'd need to spend 3 feats. One on Skill Synergy to pick up and Diplomacy and Perception (a skill the Soldier lacks). Then Skill Focus x 2 to cover the insight bonuses to Diplomacy and Intimidate. Cool, so to make use of the CHA in the build I'd want to plan a little better for it. Thanks Rikkan! :) **Edit, a Soldier like this may not be my first choice but the more I think about it. The more I like it. Now I want to play it. :(
Did I actually state Solarians are fine or did you just decide to conveniently completely skip over the points I specifically disagree with? But regardless, challenge accepted. You state in this snark to use the stat array for the Solarian. Let's do that shall we, and not try to manipulate experiment controls just to create favorable arguments. Ok? Human Soldier: Starting: 16 13 10 10 10 14 level 20: Str 26 Dex 20 Con 18 Int 14 Wis 14 Cha 22 Fortitude +16 (Default), Reflex +16 (+5 Ring), Will +16 (Iron Will) Theme: Ace Pilot +1 Skill Skills to spend: 4 base, 1 racial bonus, 2 INT = 7 Starship role: Pilot... Starship Pilot: Pilot Skill 20 ranks, +1 Theme, +5 Dex, +3 In-class bonus = 29... Given the current scaling of all stunts with 10 + 2x Ship Tier you'd need to have a minimum of a +2 modifier like from Skill Synergy to bring down the change to make the DC to a roll of a 19. This is of course assuming your group *hates* you and will not let your actions be one of the 2 capable of getting a Computer advantage (which can be up to +10 making the necessary roll a 9). Non-combat roll = Face I spend 2 feats. 1) Skill Synergy (Diplomacy added as a class skill, Intimidate for an insight bonus), and Skill Focus (Diplomacy). My Diplomacy will be a 32 and Intimidate a 31. Attack bonus modifier from Str = +8 Resolve = 1/2 level (10) + Ability score (6) = 16 All saving throws at a +16. Building a Soldier like this does have the draw back of having 5% less chance to hit in melee as an equal level Solarian using the exact same array. Also, since my Solarian spent feats so does this Soldier. The Soldier actually spends 3 feats on Skill Synergy, Skill Focus, and Iron Will. They do have the luxury of having more feats to spare. I'm not stupid. You're clearly trying to attempt a "gotcha". But you also seem to think that the CHA spent in the above example is a "waste". Fine. However, for many players... that is a character. Maybe not "optimal" to you, but serviceable for many. If you'd like to see how I would prefer to play a Soldier and what I find optimal for it personally, then that is a different question. I'm also willing to bet that build would be dismissed as "sub-optimal" even if I can make it with a higher KAC than the average Solarian will have. But if you'd just like to banter on about numerical blocks that lack context just to push a self serving argument... I'm not interested.
I also want to say, HWalsh, this above build is also to not say "you're wrong". You're welcome. Technomancers and Mystics also have two poor saves. The Solarian actually has a lot in common with both them there. A level 20 Mystic: Str 10 Dex 26 Con 20 Int 10 Wis 26 Cha 18 Fort 6 + 5 = 11 (with ring = 16)
A level 20 Technomancer: Str 10 Dex 26 Con 20 Int 26 Wis 18 Cha 10 Fort 6 + 5 = 11 (with ring = 16)
I disagree that the Technomancer is just an outlier. If you do that, then you're just adding favor to your own argument about the Solarian by completely dismissing another class for the sake of your own talking point. But I'll concede that other classes can get can get to the +16 base line easier. I'll even concede the Mechanic doesn't, at level 20, need Iron Will if you plan to spend on the resistance rings. Hypotheical 20 "ranged" Mechanic: Str 10 Dex 26 Con 18 Int 26 Wis 20 cha 10 Fort 12 + 4 = 16
The Envoy and Operative can pull the same thing off with Fortitude saves if we're purely discussing level 20 with a plan to spend the wealth for a +5 ring. Sure. They don't need a save enhancing feat under these hypothetical conditions either. But still, the point still stands that a Solarian does in fact have a lot broader decision making on how they balance things out. Seems like a no-brainer.
This fails right here. You had to use Iron Will. I did not have to use Iron Will on any other class. The challenge quoted by you does not state "and don't use feats or other resources". In the build example I propose that other classes will likely spend 2 feats to improve offense making the expense a wash all things considered. Also, Mechanics will likely want Iron Will. They have the lowest base save of all classes in that category. So now you're just pushing the goal post purely to make an argument for the sake of it.
The challenge was then laid out:
Human Solarian: Starting: 16 13 10 10 10 14 level 20: Str 26 Dex 20 Con 18 Int 14 Wis 14 Cha 22 Fortitude +16 (Default), Reflex +16 (+5 Ring), Will +16 (Iron Will) Theme: Ace Pilot +1 Skill, Skill Adept freebie skill #1 = Pilot, Freebie Skill 2 = Bluff Skills to spend: 4 base, 1 racial bonus, 2 INT = 7 Starship role: Pilot Starship Pilot: Pilot Skill 20 ranks, +1 Theme, +5 Dex, +3 In-class bonus = 29... Given the current scaling of all stunts with 10 + 2x Ship Tier you'd need to have a minimum of a +2 modifier like from Skill Synergy to bring down the change to make the DC to a roll of a 19. This is of course assuming your group *hates* you and will not let your actions be one of the 2 capable of getting a Computer advantage (which can be up to +10 making the necessary roll a 9). Attack bonus modifier from Str = +8 Resolve = 1/2 level (10) + Ability score (6) = 16 All saving throws at a +16. Can assume at least 1 feat spent on Heavy Armor and obviously Iron Will. Other classes lacking more favorable offensive options will likely take Longarm Proficiency and Weapon Specialization/Versatility. And this example is not to say that Envoys, Operatives, Mystics, Mechanics, or Technomancers have a difficult time doing this. Due to how the other classes get insight bonuses, their Starship role should be far more manageable since by level 20 they will have a +6 with Mystics and Envoys going higher. Soldiers on the other hand are in the same boat as the Solarian, with getting up to roughly a +29 in piloting before considering how easy it is to potentially spend a feat on Skill Focus to get a +32. If it is a Guard Soldier it may even be a +33 (the benefit of increasing max Dex on armor encourages a 22 Dex). I also want to say, HWalsh, this above build is also to not say "you're wrong". I do agree with 100% that the Solarian has to make far broader decisions than other classes. I'm not sure I agree with you that this is an issue that requires Paizo to fix it via a new Revelation, or an errata on skill points.
My annoyance with your debating tactic is this... You continually dismiss other people's points as if we're all just idiots and you happen to be the only person in the room with an IQ greater than the common cockroach. This comes from using terms like "I'm correct" "Those that don't agree are wrong" and "Everyone else is presenting their side as 'nuh uh'...". It's like you willfully choose to not even digest what others are bringing to the table solely to continue your diatribe and support your sometimes fluctuating arguments. This has ballooned this entire thread to over 9 pages of back-and-forth defense vs attack discussion. Now, the part I quoted... The first paragraph of this snip here, you keep staying that Solarians *have* to have 6 skills maxed out to make use of Sidereal Influence. Making this statement is opinion. You can make use of Sidereal Influence with far less. You cannot even use all of the skills bolstered by this ability at the same time. That last bit isn't my opinion, that is the text of the ability! That has 0 to do with math-based fact. Being able to max all 6 skills would be nice, but just picking a few of these to enhance whatever role you are playing is 100% doable on the base 4 points without investing into INT. You can either focus on making 100% use of Sidereal Influence, or you can use parts of it, either way the ability does what it is written to do... add a 1D6 to skill rolls. This fact does not change if you have 1 rank or 20 ranks. It is entirely up to the player on managing the opportunity cost. You repeat again that a Captain *needs* Intimidate, Bluff, and Diplomacy. YOU DON'T! Bluff comes up in exactly one Captain option... taunt. Intimidate can also be used for taunt instead of Bluff! You can 100% skip that skill for the Captain role. Diplomacy's greatest benefit comes at level 12 (reroll ship action skill checks). Until level 12, Intimidate offers a lot to your crew. Intimidate to be a ship Captain is exactly 1 skill to make the most out of the role until level 12 when another option opens in Diplomacy. Continuing a mantra of you need all 3 is hyperbole and not a math-based fact at all. As I outlined before, you can invest heavily into Diplomacy and Intimidate to cover the Captain role and when you use Sidereal Influence you can either A) push your skill results further out of combat with a 1D6, or B) use Sidereal Influence to boost other skills like Sense Motive. Regardless of choice, you're still making using of the class feature. You may not be maxed out on all of it, but you're using it. That is in no way shape or form, "ignoring a class feature". Your only argument to this is from a stance of all or nothing. The people need a +16 save and the Solarian is the only kid not invited to this party argument doesn't hold a lot of water. If you're making a build decision to not raise your save to this apparent benchmark, then that is *clearly* a personal preference. You can achieve a +16 in Fortitude or Will easily. You may need a feat to raise the other, and you'll need a ring to raise Dex. Let's not pretend that other classes don't have to make choices to do the same. It is likely an easier choice, but it is still a choice. I'm not telling you your Lashunta build is wrong. It is your preference, but please try to at least realize... it is in fact, your preference. It is also, a very cool build. If you want to build to str 20 dex 18 con 14 int 18 wis 14 and cha 18, then cool man. You obviously see and know your build has strengths and weaknesses. You're a smart person. That is obvious. The build I proposed with str 20 dex 18 con 18 int 10 wis 14 cha 20 has strengths and weaknesses too. I recognize and accept what it can and cannot do. I also recognize, that I do not believe what I presented is a universal allocation of attributes. In order to build my Captain, it was made in a vacuum without knowing a party composition. Because in actual play, I may go wildly different. The crux of your skills based argument, which is strongly tied to this entire discussion about saves, does fundamentally lay in personal build preference. That isn't math. That's opinion. What is factual, and I support, is that the Solarian will likely be behind a Soldier on Fortitude saves. However, they can be ahead of all of the other classes with the slow progression for Fortitude for much of the game. Those characters *need* to invest into their CON which can be a lot easier, but it isn't as axiomatic as you make it sound. A Solarian will be behind everyone in Reflex saves, but we've now just casually dismissed this in this thread because those saves are damage based. So who cares about being dead last here? This is the only save in which the class will be dead last without using Graviton mode. A Solarian will be ahead of the Mechanic in Will saves and behind most others *if* they build for it. I say this because you assume all Soldier will have an 18 WIS by level 20. You see this as an absolute truth, because, according to the way you present your arguments, no one in their right minds will build any other way. To build any other way from maxing out Str, Dex, Con, and Wis for saves on a Soldier is just "sub-optimal" and anyone that does anything different is just ignorant of how math works. Things I agree with you on from this thread: 1) Solarians are stretched too thin on skill points by default. However, this is workable. Also, Solarians have more inherent options to non-combat roles than the Soldier who also shares their INT+4 skills per level. The Soldier is the only class in the game that sits on the sidelines unless it is Pew-Pew/Smash-Smash time. Their Starship roles are pigeonholed into A) Gunner, or B) Pilot. You'd have to go out of your way to keep up with Computers/Engineering, and being Captain also requires a lot of build sacrifice. The Solarian can add at least one more to that with Captain and they aren't a terrible face... if you build off your already escalating CHA. But nothing changes that by default, a Solarian can be a Gunner, the universal role, a potential Captain, and due to Skill Adept a pilot. Building for Computers/Engineering doesn't play to most builds cranking DEX/CHA and requires INT which is tough to do. 2) Solarians are behind on saving throws. They are, across the board. There is no one spot in which they excel, but this can be variable depending on how the other classes are building. Level also needs to be taken in to account. I have some level 10 builds where a Technomancer, Mystic, Envoy start with an investment in Dex & Resolve stat. By level 10 their CON goes from 10 to 14. Their Fortitude save is a 5. By Contrast, the Solarian has a 7 Fortitude save if their CON is just 10. That's a math-based fact, and the sky is not falling. 3) All other classes in the game have a far easier time building up from character generation. You do your best to back up your statements with evidence. I appreciate that and I respect it. What this thread has inflated to is, an argument on just how much any of that actually means to individuals in actual play.
I'll give ya Quick Draw, but not sure what setup time you're referring to with Trick Attack or Clever Feint. The Trick Attack is a full action that has several moving parts like character movement, a skill check to make the target flat-footed, and then an attack roll that benefits from the previously mentioned condition if the skill check was successful. Given the Operative's increased speed in movement, they can often close the range gap, trick their opponent, and get their attack off in the same action. They don't get the flat-footed benefit as a duration until 4th level which is intended as a group benefit (and later you can expand options for more personal damage like swapping the effect to a bleed or conditions like stun etc...). Clever Feint is better used as a team booster at first. The effect *only* applies to the Envoy if they fail which isn't ideal but neither is it the end of the world. At 4th level, the Envoy can pick up a companion ability, Clever Attack that allows the Envoy to gain the benefits of Clever Feint before their attack lands with the same standard action. If they are successful with the bluff check, then their allies still gain the benefit as normal. Even if there are some ramp up abilities for other classes, everything takes a bit longer to drop due to the expanded health pool for everyone.
Operative and Soldier are both great choices for beginners in Starfinder. Both classes are very straight forward given the convenience of their resolve attribute, I feel there is little reason not to go with the absolute max in it for either. Also, both classes offer a lot without a lot of complex rules. I would throw out the following questions... "Who is the primary damage dealer?" "Who is the face?" "What do you see yourself doing out of combat?" "What is your Starship role?" Etc... That should help narrow down the choice because Operatives are not Rogues. The old "Rogue Fireball" combat trap builds of 3.X don't really apply to Starfinder. And Soldiers have absolutely 0 support for non-combat roles being the only class lacking an inherent insight bonus as a feature (you can pick up insight bonuses in feats but its not quite as good later on).
|
