Concerns about combat math

[Mashallah]

5th level Obozaya has 45 SP and 41 HP. That's a total of 86 Meat Points needed to down her.

Let's take a look at her weapons:

First, the flamethrower, as it's the thematically funniest one for this calculation. It deals 1d6+4 damage per hit, that's average 7.5 damage, meaning she needs 12 hits on average to down herself. Her accuracy on the flamethrower is +7 vs EAC, meaning she needs a 17 to hit her own EAC, which is a 20% chance. That means she would need an average 60 attacks with her flamethrower to down her clone. That is assuming not using full-attacks to preserve accuracy. So, she needs entire 6 minutes of flamethrower fire to kill herself.

Second, let's take a look at her melee weapon, as it's the most damaging option she has. It has 1d8+10 damage per hit, average 14.5, meaning she needs 6 hits on average to down herself. An accuracy of +10 vs EAC means she needs a natural 14 to hit her counterpart, which is a 35% chance. So she needs to attack herself about 17-18 times with a doshko. That is almost two minutes of beating herself with a laser polearm to kill herself.

Am I the only one who thinks this is excessively slow?

[Reef]

I was just worrying about that myself. I know characters are not necessarily balanced against themselves, but those defences and health totals seem awfully high based on the attacks listed. And this is just at 5th level.

[Azten]

That is a little disconcerting, yeah...

[Luke Spencer]

I can see how this could be concerning but it only really applies when considering her fighting herself. We don't know if enemies get SP, which I don't personally see as likely in most cases, as it seems like a mechanic to allow players to recover quickly without burning spells or items. Plus this is only taking into account a 1v1 situation, as is often the case with tabletops if you're facing enemies your level there will be less of them than you as most large groups tend to be made of weaker mooks who will die more easily. If you're a 5th level character fighting a 5th level character you probably have 3 or more allies and they'll maybe have one more person if the encounter is supposed to be tougher so they'll be taking damage from multiple sources.
You also have to consider that you're looking at the stats for what is essentially the party tank, she's a character designed to be able to avoid taking hits. A high AC is pretty much expected for this kind of character, as much as you would expect high AC from a standard front-liner in Pathfinder. Overall I just don't think the math translates in a 1v1 situation, we'd need to see more statblocks and simulate different situations with different strength characters and enemies before we can see the big picture.

[Torbyne]

i thought i heard somewhere though that most enemies wont have HP, just their stamina. So you only need a solid three minutes of flame chucking to down a Soldier. yay!

But really, it looks like the pregen is specifically built to be a tank, with a secondary role as a melee beatstick. firearms are a distant third. And pregens are notoriously not optimized even at their main roles. i have some hope that when we see the full rule set we will not only be able to replicate the pregen but exceed it with just the core rules.

[John Spalding]

I played a Starfinder game at PaizoCon. I looked over the pregens. The soldier was the tankiest by far. Her AC was probably 6 higher than average. Maybe more. In play, she got up in the fight and tanked like a pro.

The four encounters we did probably isn't a solid sample size, but for those fights, things seemed about right. Monsters died in a sensible fashion, not after 8 rounds of missing.

[Torbyne]

Luke Spencer wrote:

I can see how this could be concerning but it only really applies when considering her fighting herself. We don't know if enemies get SP, which I don't personally see as likely in most cases, as it seems like a mechanic to allow players to recover quickly without burning spells or items. Plus this is only taking into account a 1v1 situation, as is often the case with tabletops if you're facing enemies your level there will be less of them than you as most large groups tend to be made of weaker mooks who will die more easily. If you're a 5th level character fighting a 5th level character you probably have 3 or more allies and they'll maybe have one more person if the encounter is supposed to be tougher so they'll be taking damage from multiple sources.

You also have to consider that you're looking at the stats for what is essentially the party tank, she's a character designed to be able to avoid taking hits. A high AC is pretty much expected for this kind of character, as much as you would expect high AC from a standard front-liner in Pathfinder. Overall I just don't think the math translates in a 1v1 situation, we'd need to see more statblocks and simulate different situations with different strength characters and enemies before we can see the big picture.

Yeah, we need more of a stat break down to see what is going where. As is, it looks like Starfinder follows Pathfinder's design for tanks; you can do it but you basically give up offense to get there.

Does the character have level tiered weapons? Are they enchanted? with a +4 Dex mod and being a full BAB class how are the ranged options at anything less that +8 to hit? what about weapon focus or a class ability to increase accuracy? it looks like the pregen can spend a resolve to get a minor boost to AC that it doesnt even seem to need... what else could they have done with that point? What is the feat breakdown?

[John Spalding]

The solider pregens had some of the better damage dealing in the party. That said, the melee damage was better than ranged (which makes sense given ability score allotments).

The flame thrower is a burst weapon, not single target, so the lower damage makes some sense.

I think the damage calculation for the other ranged weapon was wrong. The text on the pregen and the damage listed on the pregen were inconsistent. I don't think these pregens are ready to go out the door. There were definitely some math issues on them.

[Torbyne]

On a counter point to the "not 1v1" arguement, that may be true but the game should let every player feel like they accomplished something on their turn. Limiting the number of attacks per round makes those attacks all the more valueable to player fun, if Obazaya doesnt feel like they have done anything on 3 out of 4 rounds than the game isnt working. a lot of this may be the character over spec'd into AC... there are still too many unknowns to really get a feel for what is going on.

[Torbyne]

John Spalding wrote:

The solider pregens had some of the better damage dealing in the party. That said, the melee damage was better than ranged (which makes sense given ability score allotments).

The flame thrower is a burst weapon, not single target, so the lower damage makes some sense.

I think the damage calculation for the other ranged weapon was wrong. The text on the pregen and the damage listed on the pregen were inconsistent. I don't think these pregens are ready to go out the door. There were definitely some math issues on them.

So as you remember it the ranged attacks would land fairly consistently and do more than ~7 damage per hit? Could the burst weapon be fired twice in a full round action? As is, an at will cone effect for 1D6+4 is still underwhelming coming from my Pathfinder mindset where the wizard was doing better than that with Burning Hands from level 1 with enough castings per day that we didnt need to worry about it.

[GreyYeti]

Honestly i would much prefer PCs that can take their own attack routine for a few rounds instead of the pathfinder glass cannons that kill a party member in one ound each time they get confused or dominated.

In my opinion one of the biggest problems of pathfinder is that the offensive abilities of character scale much faster and easier then their defense which then leads to the so-called "rocket tag".

[Distant Scholar]

1.) We don't know all the combat math, so I would hesitate to jump to conclusions about how it'll fall out.

2.) Maybe most fights in Starfinder aren't supposed to be to the death?

[Torbyne]

GreyYeti wrote:

Honestly i would much prefer PCs that can take their own attack routine for a few rounds instead of the pathfinder glass cannons that kill a party member in one ound each time they get confused or dominated.

In my opinion one of the biggest problems of pathfinder is that the offensive abilities of character scale much faster and easier then their defense which then leads to the so-called "rocket tag".

True, rocket tag is too far in one direction but 20+ rounds to drop a foe is overbalanced in the other direction.

[Luke Spencer]

Torbyne wrote:

True, rocket tag is too far in one direction but 20+ rounds to drop a foe is overbalanced in the other direction.

But that's only 20+ rounds against yourself. The enemies you're facing aren't likely going to have as much HP as a PC if they're designed or you to fight one-on-one. In Pathfinder if you're fighting a 1v1 battle against an enemy that enemy will be lower level than you so that the battle doesn't drag on for ages. if you put two high AC fighters with regular weapons and just have them wail on each other of course the fight is gonna take time.

[Torbyne]

Luke Spencer wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

True, rocket tag is too far in one direction but 20+ rounds to drop a foe is overbalanced in the other direction.

But that's only 20+ rounds against yourself. The enemies you're facing aren't likely going to have as much HP as a PC if they're designed or you to fight one-on-one. In Pathfinder if you're fighting a 1v1 battle against an enemy that enemy will be lower level than you so that the battle doesn't drag on for ages. if you put two high AC fighters with regular weapons and just have them wail on each other of course the fight is gonna take time.

So give an enemy front liner half that HP and about the same AC and weapons, then put three of them together against a team of 4-5 PCs and watch the inept flailing for hours around the table? What does the Soldier have going for them aside from their armor and dex? i dont mean that to be deriding, there very well could be some class abilities bumping up the AC, in fact it kind of looks like the player spent a resolve point for a +2 AC boost, but the general numbers should still be usable for a benchmark.

[Mark Seifter]

John Spalding wrote:

The four encounters we did probably isn't a solid sample size, but for those fights, things seemed about right. Monsters died in a sensible fashion, not after 8 rounds of missing.

The full math matches your play experience. If Obo were dueling a CR 5 monster or NPC for 4 rounds with the stats listed in the OP (I don't have access to the file in question) with her flame doshko, she would kill it in about 4 rounds or so without any assistance, or much sooner on a team providing flanks and envoy buffs (even if the team never actually attacked the monster and let Obo solo it with buffs).

I'd suggest waiting for the first contact book and trying Obo out against some opponents. Also, flamethrowers are AoE attacks and even then the number seems slightly off.

[Mashallah]

Mark Seifter wrote:

John Spalding wrote:

The four encounters we did probably isn't a solid sample size, but for those fights, things seemed about right. Monsters died in a sensible fashion, not after 8 rounds of missing.

The full math matches your play experience. If Obo were dueling a CR 5 monster or NPC for 4 rounds with the stats listed in the OP (I don't have access to the file in question) with her flame doshko, she would kill it in about 4 rounds or so without any assistance, or much sooner on a team providing flanks and envoy buffs (even if the team never actually attacked the monster and let Obo solo it with buffs).

I'd suggest waiting for the first contact book and trying Obo out against some opponents. Also, flamethrowers are AoE attacks and even then the number seems slightly off.

I'm basing numbers on the following picture:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA8j5-fVwAA-YtX.jpg

[Mark Seifter]

Mashallah wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

John Spalding wrote:

The four encounters we did probably isn't a solid sample size, but for those fights, things seemed about right. Monsters died in a sensible fashion, not after 8 rounds of missing.

The full math matches your play experience. If Obo were dueling a CR 5 monster or NPC for 4 rounds with the stats listed in the OP (I don't have access to the file in question) with her flame doshko, she would kill it in about 4 rounds or so without any assistance, or much sooner on a team providing flanks and envoy buffs (even if the team never actually attacked the monster and let Obo solo it with buffs).

I'd suggest waiting for the first contact book and trying Obo out against some opponents. Also, flamethrowers are AoE attacks and even then the number seems slightly off.

I'm basing numbers on the following picture:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA8j5-fVwAA-YtX.jpg

Thanks for the link! I took a look at my Starfinder materials to be sure, and while I can't be 100% certain, I'm pretty sure that some of the damage numbers on there are incorrectly too low. I highly recommend waiting for the official materials to check it out with some PC vs monster battles or calculations.

[Mashallah]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

John Spalding wrote:

The four encounters we did probably isn't a solid sample size, but for those fights, things seemed about right. Monsters died in a sensible fashion, not after 8 rounds of missing.

The full math matches your play experience. If Obo were dueling a CR 5 monster or NPC for 4 rounds with the stats listed in the OP (I don't have access to the file in question) with her flame doshko, she would kill it in about 4 rounds or so without any assistance, or much sooner on a team providing flanks and envoy buffs (even if the team never actually attacked the monster and let Obo solo it with buffs).

I'd suggest waiting for the first contact book and trying Obo out against some opponents. Also, flamethrowers are AoE attacks and even then the number seems slightly off.

I'm basing numbers on the following picture:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA8j5-fVwAA-YtX.jpg

Thanks for the link! I took a look at my Starfinder materials to be sure, and while I can't be 100% certain, I'm pretty sure that some of the damage numbers on there are incorrectly too low. I highly recommend waiting for the official materials to check it out with some PC vs monster battles or calculations.

Unfortunately, I'm very excited for Starfinder as it seems like a huge overall improvement from Pathfinder based on most of what I've seen so far, making it really difficult to just sit back and wait for official information.

[Mark Seifter]

Mashallah wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

John Spalding wrote:

The four encounters we did probably isn't a solid sample size, but for those fights, things seemed about right. Monsters died in a sensible fashion, not after 8 rounds of missing.

The full math matches your play experience. If Obo were dueling a CR 5 monster or NPC for 4 rounds with the stats listed in the OP (I don't have access to the file in question) with her flame doshko, she would kill it in about 4 rounds or so without any assistance, or much sooner on a team providing flanks and envoy buffs (even if the team never actually attacked the monster and let Obo solo it with buffs).

I'd suggest waiting for the first contact book and trying Obo out against some opponents. Also, flamethrowers are AoE attacks and even then the number seems slightly off.

I'm basing numbers on the following picture:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA8j5-fVwAA-YtX.jpg

Thanks for the link! I took a look at my Starfinder materials to be sure, and while I can't be 100% certain, I'm pretty sure that some of the damage numbers on there are incorrectly too low. I highly recommend waiting for the official materials to check it out with some PC vs monster battles or calculations.

Unfortunately, I'm very excited for Starfinder as it seems like a huge overall improvement from Pathfinder based on most of what I've seen so far, making it really difficult to just sit back and wait for official information.

Certainly fair! One thing to keep in mind is that there were some major improvements in Starfinder to the whole "confusion/dominate the soldier/solarian and then she kills the whole team" problem from Pathfinder that will render comparing a PC to herself less useful of a calculation than comparing to monsters. Since PFRPG monsters are compatible with SFRPG, you could try it right now actually; pick out your favorite PFRPG CR 5 monster from the book, maybe raise its touch AC a little to be its EAC, and try it out (using her main weapon, the flame doshko, which I think does have the correct damage). Remember to take a -4 to make two attacks when it would be useful, and you're missing some of her class features at the bottom of the screenshot.

[Torbyne]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

John Spalding wrote:

The four encounters we did probably isn't a solid sample size, but for those fights, things seemed about right. Monsters died in a sensible fashion, not after 8 rounds of missing.

The full math matches your play experience. If Obo were dueling a CR 5 monster or NPC for 4 rounds with the stats listed in the OP (I don't have access to the file in question) with her flame doshko, she would kill it in about 4 rounds or so without any assistance, or much sooner on a team providing flanks and envoy buffs (even if the team never actually attacked the monster and let Obo solo it with buffs).

I'd suggest waiting for the first contact book and trying Obo out against some opponents. Also, flamethrowers are AoE attacks and even then the number seems slightly off.

I'm basing numbers on the following picture:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA8j5-fVwAA-YtX.jpg

Thanks for the link! I took a look at my Starfinder materials to be sure, and while I can't be 100% certain, I'm pretty sure that some of the damage numbers on there are incorrectly too low. I highly recommend waiting for the official materials to check it out with some PC vs monster battles or calculations.

Thanks for weighing in! i dont think there was ever any danger of us not pouring through first contact and looking at how things match up though :P

[IonutRO]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

John Spalding wrote:

The four encounters we did probably isn't a solid sample size, but for those fights, things seemed about right. Monsters died in a sensible fashion, not after 8 rounds of missing.

The full math matches your play experience. If Obo were dueling a CR 5 monster or NPC for 4 rounds with the stats listed in the OP (I don't have access to the file in question) with her flame doshko, she would kill it in about 4 rounds or so without any assistance, or much sooner on a team providing flanks and envoy buffs (even if the team never actually attacked the monster and let Obo solo it with buffs).

I'd suggest waiting for the first contact book and trying Obo out against some opponents. Also, flamethrowers are AoE attacks and even then the number seems slightly off.

I'm basing numbers on the following picture:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA8j5-fVwAA-YtX.jpg

Thanks for the link! I took a look at my Starfinder materials to be sure, and while I can't be 100% certain, I'm pretty sure that some of the damage numbers on there are incorrectly too low. I highly recommend waiting for the official materials to check it out with some PC vs monster battles or calculations.

Unfortunately, I'm very excited for Starfinder as it seems like a huge overall improvement from Pathfinder based on most of what I've seen so far, making it really difficult to just sit back and wait for official information.

Certainly fair! One thing to keep in mind is that there were some major improvements in Starfinder to the whole "confusion/dominate the soldier/solarian and then she kills the whole team" problem from Pathfinder that will render comparing a PC to herself less useful of a calculation than comparing to monsters. Since PFRPG monsters are compatible with SFRPG, you could try it right now actually; pick out your favorite PFRPG CR 5 monster from the book, maybe raise its touch...

Just tested her against a Troll (Assumed EAC 14), and she took it down in 4 turns with no HP lost and 13 SP left.

[Mark Seifter]

IonutRO wrote:

Just tested her against a Troll (Assumed EAC 14), and she took it down in 4 turns with no HP lost and 13 SP left.

Good experimental data. That's around what I posted as an estimate above, though I suppose a fire weapon is a good match-up against our trollish friend.

[IonutRO]

Mark Seifter wrote:

IonutRO wrote:

Just tested her against a Troll (Assumed EAC 14), and she took it down in 4 turns with no HP lost and 13 SP left.

Good experimental data. That's around what I posted as an estimate above, though I suppose a fire weapon is a good match-up against our trollish friend.

Even if her melee weapon wasn't fire based, she has a damage mod of +10 and is carrying a flamethrower, she could down it and then torch it with the Ifrit.

[Mashallah]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

John Spalding wrote:

The four encounters we did probably isn't a solid sample size, but for those fights, things seemed about right. Monsters died in a sensible fashion, not after 8 rounds of missing.

The full math matches your play experience. If Obo were dueling a CR 5 monster or NPC for 4 rounds with the stats listed in the OP (I don't have access to the file in question) with her flame doshko, she would kill it in about 4 rounds or so without any assistance, or much sooner on a team providing flanks and envoy buffs (even if the team never actually attacked the monster and let Obo solo it with buffs).

I'd suggest waiting for the first contact book and trying Obo out against some opponents. Also, flamethrowers are AoE attacks and even then the number seems slightly off.

I'm basing numbers on the following picture:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA8j5-fVwAA-YtX.jpg

Thanks for the link! I took a look at my Starfinder materials to be sure, and while I can't be 100% certain, I'm pretty sure that some of the damage numbers on there are incorrectly too low. I highly recommend waiting for the official materials to check it out with some PC vs monster battles or calculations.

Unfortunately, I'm very excited for Starfinder as it seems like a huge overall improvement from Pathfinder based on most of what I've seen so far, making it really difficult to just sit back and wait for official information.

Certainly fair! One thing to keep in mind is that there were some major improvements in Starfinder to the whole "confusion/dominate the soldier/solarian and then she kills the whole team" problem from Pathfinder that will render comparing a PC to herself less useful of a calculation than comparing to monsters. Since PFRPG monsters are compatible with SFRPG, you could try it right now actually; pick out your favorite PFRPG CR 5 monster from the book, maybe raise its touch...

Because nothing is more classic than a troll, I picked a troll for this calculation. Assuming an EAC of 14 seems fair as AC-2, so that's what I'll go with. That needs a natural 4 to hit, which is 85% chance. Given that accuracy, it's reasonable to full attack, so we're down to 65% chance.

She needs an average of 5 hits to kill the troll, without accounting for crits as I don't know how crits work in starfinder.
At that accuracy, that's 8 swings, meaning 4 rounds of full attacking, which sounds much more reasonable than the 20 rounds figures from initial calculations.

EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot that a Doshko can't full attack. This brings the required number of rounds to about 6, assuming one attack per round.

[IonutRO]

Mashallah wrote:

Because nothing is more classic than a troll, I picked a troll for this calculation. Assuming an EAC of 14 seems fair as AC-2, so that's what I'll go with. That needs a natural 4 to hit, which is 85% chance. Given that accuracy, it's reasonable to full attack, so we're down to 65% chance.

She needs an average of 5 hits to kill the troll, without accounting for crits as I don't know how crits work in starfinder.
At that accuracy, that's 8 swings, meaning 4 rounds of full attacking, which sounds much more reasonable than the 20 rounds figures from initial calculations.

It seems we've all reached scientific consensus.

EDIT:

Mashallah wrote:

EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot that a Doshko can't full attack. This brings the required number of rounds to about 6, assuming one attack per round.

Oh yeah, forgot about that as well.

[Mark Seifter]

I think flame doshkos can full attack whereas kinetic ones can't but do much more damage.

[Wzrd]

Went back to the source and asked "Does this character sheet follows official #Starfinder rules? I ask as the defence appears too high for a 5th level character."

The reply from @BaconGolem was "It does follow #Starfinder. This class (Soldier) and build is designed to have a high AC. Plus the Vesk have a bonus to AC wearing armor."

So the aim of the build was high AC. I still do feel the Stamina and Hit Points are high when compared to Pathfinder.

[Torbyne]

lets not forget a major unknown in these, what will enemy AC be like? Mark seems to be implying AC will be about the same for enemies as their Pathfinder CR counterparts but that isnt exactly confirmed and then what happens when you do run into an enemy with power armor, will their AC but in the mid 20's at CR 5?

[IonutRO]

Mark Seifter wrote:

I think flame doshkos can full attack whereas kinetic ones can't but do much more damage.

It's also worth remembering that a level 5 PF can't attack twice to begin with, so in a way it makes sense to not full-attack when trying to see if a SF character can kill an enemy just as fast as a PF one.

Torbyne wrote:

lets not forget a major unknown in these, what will enemy AC be like? Mark seems to be implying AC will be about the same for enemies as their Pathfinder CR counterparts but that isnt exactly confirmed and then what happens when you do run into an enemy with power armor, will their AC but in the mid 20's at CR 5?

I assume that's the same as putting a goblin in full plate and a tower shield. It breaches the CR guidelines.

[Mark Seifter]

IonutRO wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

I think flame doshkos can full attack whereas kinetic ones can't but do much more damage.

It's also worth remembering that a level 5 PF can't attack twice to begin with, so in a way it makes sense to not full-attack when trying to see if a SF character can kill an enemy just as fast as a PF one.

The SF character's math does assume the ability to attack twice, though (except for weapons that can't), so you'll get the most realistic assessment if you let them full attack when applicable. If the troll doesn't like it, it can guarded step away to force a guarded step, but no claw/claw/bite.

[Torbyne]

Mark Seifter wrote:

IonutRO wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

I think flame doshkos can full attack whereas kinetic ones can't but do much more damage.

It's also worth remembering that a level 5 PF can't attack twice to begin with, so in a way it makes sense to not full-attack when trying to see if a SF character can kill an enemy just as fast as a PF one.

The SF character's math does assume the ability to attack twice, though (except for weapons that can't), so you'll get the most realistic assessment if you let them full attack when applicable. If the troll doesn't like it, it can guarded step away to force a guarded step, but no claw/claw/bite.

So are monsters exempt from the PC limits on number of attacks per turn? or is that just a thing for using Pathfinder monsters in Starfinder that they'd keep their attack routines?

[IonutRO]

Mark Seifter wrote:

IonutRO wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

I think flame doshkos can full attack whereas kinetic ones can't but do much more damage.

It's also worth remembering that a level 5 PF can't attack twice to begin with, so in a way it makes sense to not full-attack when trying to see if a SF character can kill an enemy just as fast as a PF one.

The SF character's math does assume the ability to attack twice, though (except for weapons that can't), so you'll get the most realistic assessment if you let them full attack when applicable. If the troll doesn't like it, it can guarded step away to force a guarded step, but no claw/claw/bite.

I just meant that using a weapon that can't full-attack is not really an issue.

[Lucanar]

Wzrd wrote:

Went back to the source and asked "Does this character sheet follows official #Starfinder rules? I ask as the defence appears too high for a 5th level character."

The reply from @BaconGolem was "It does follow #Starfinder. This class (Soldier) and build is designed to have a high AC. Plus the Vesk have a bonus to AC wearing armor."

So the aim of the build was high AC. I still do feel the Stamina and Hit Points are high when compared to Pathfinder.

Hello yes I'm @BaconGolem on twitter and I approve this post.

[BretI]

Mashalloah wrote:

She needs an average of 5 hits to kill the troll, without accounting for crits as I don't know how crits work in starfinder.

I believe all weapons crit on a 20, at least that is what I was told during The Delve at PaizoCon. On Sunday they ran that with Starfinder pre-gens and it seems a few of the Starfinder monsters.

Since no one at the table rolled a 20, we didn't get further details. Perhaps one of the other attendees did?

[Torbyne]

Just noticed that level 1 Obazaya has a 1D12 unwieldly Doshko whereas by level 5 it has dropped to 1D10 wieldly(?) and energy damage. considering the measly difference between KAC and EAC as well as the huge penalties for making two attacks i am not sure that is really much growth. though i also get Obo has super tanky AC and there are some math errors in the character sheet but the more i look the more suspicions pop out at me.

[Mark Seifter]

Our experimenters and theorycrafters in this very thread (Mashallah and IonutRO) showed that the unwieldy property alone would have increased Obo's rounds to kill the troll by 50%, and I'm guessing targeting KAC would have made matters worse, much more so than the d12 would help. A d10 non-unwieldy EAC weapon is going to in most cases be a big step up over a d12 unwieldy weapon.

[Mashallah]

What I'm most curious about right now is how was the monster math changed, as so far I couldn't get a glimpse of it, leaving me to wait for First Contact.
Judging by how Starfinder characters seem to be fairly robust, I'd intuitively expect Starfinder monsters to be much more damaging - in the Obozaya vs Troll matchup, IIRC the troll only got to inflict an average of 16 damage before dropping.
But all of this is, of course, speculation.

[Torbyne]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Our experimenters and theorycrafters in this very thread (Mashallah and IonutRO) showed that the unwieldy property alone would have increased Obo's rounds to kill the troll by 50%, and I'm guessing targeting KAC would have made matters worse, much more so than the d12 would help. A d10 non-unwieldy EAC weapon is going to in most cases be a big step up over a d12 unwieldy weapon.

I know that you actually have ground truth on the rules but from your statement i infer that EAC is not normally as high as Obo's mid 20's would indicate and that elemental resistance is uncommon to actually make EAC and +1 damage that much of an improvement over the course of 5 levels. As a reference point I would consider 5 levels to be almost half of a character's career normally (1-12).

[Mashallah]

Torbyne wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Our experimenters and theorycrafters in this very thread (Mashallah and IonutRO) showed that the unwieldy property alone would have increased Obo's rounds to kill the troll by 50%, and I'm guessing targeting KAC would have made matters worse, much more so than the d12 would help. A d10 non-unwieldy EAC weapon is going to in most cases be a big step up over a d12 unwieldy weapon.

I know that you actually have ground truth on the rules but from your statement i infer that EAC is not normally as high as Obo's mid 20's would indicate and that elemental resistance is uncommon to actually make EAC and +1 damage that much of an improvement over the course of 5 levels. As a reference point I would consider 5 levels to be almost half of a character's career normally (1-12).

I believe what Mark Seifter meant is "the ability to make 2 attacks is a big deal", not "a slight improvement to accuracy is a big deal".

[Shisumo]

Torbyne wrote:

As a reference point I would consider 5 levels to be almost half of a character's career normally (1-12).

This assumption might also not hold any value for SF, you realize. We've already seen quite a bit of information that suggests a smoother transition to high-level play than PF has.

[Torbyne]

Mashallah wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Our experimenters and theorycrafters in this very thread (Mashallah and IonutRO) showed that the unwieldy property alone would have increased Obo's rounds to kill the troll by 50%, and I'm guessing targeting KAC would have made matters worse, much more so than the d12 would help. A d10 non-unwieldy EAC weapon is going to in most cases be a big step up over a d12 unwieldy weapon.

I know that you actually have ground truth on the rules but from your statement i infer that EAC is not normally as high as Obo's mid 20's would indicate and that elemental resistance is uncommon to actually make EAC and +1 damage that much of an improvement over the course of 5 levels. As a reference point I would consider 5 levels to be almost half of a character's career normally (1-12).

I believe what Mark Seifter meant is "the ability to make 2 attacks is a big deal", not "a slight improvement to accuracy is a big deal".

I am sorry if that didnt come across clearly from me; i recognize Mr. Seifter considers the two attacks to be a big improvement but i am not sold without having more data about the normal split between KAC and EAC and in particular i am used to see more accuracy boosts or higher damage on a PC by this point so the idea of taking such a big hit to accuracy doesnt feel right. The idea of a 3/4 BAB class that likewise does not have any significant accuracy boosts taking a -4 to hit is really messing with my head. Clearly they have worked through the math on their end and think its right, i am just not there in my head yet.

[Torbyne]

Shisumo wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

As a reference point I would consider 5 levels to be almost half of a character's career normally (1-12).

This assumption might also not hold any value for SF, you realize. We've already seen quite a bit of information that suggests a smoother transition to high-level play than PF has.

Yup, i get that, i am not saying Starfinder is broken; my only points of reference are Pathfinder and the leaked/previewed information from Starfinder so thats all i have to speculate with. i could hold off and patiently wait for the books to drop but the boards would be pretty boring if we all waited paitently for our questions to be answered by the book. So i will play with the numbers i have and try to figure out how it all works ahead of time. :)

[Mark Seifter]

Torbyne wrote:

Mashallah wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Our experimenters and theorycrafters in this very thread (Mashallah and IonutRO) showed that the unwieldy property alone would have increased Obo's rounds to kill the troll by 50%, and I'm guessing targeting KAC would have made matters worse, much more so than the d12 would help. A d10 non-unwieldy EAC weapon is going to in most cases be a big step up over a d12 unwieldy weapon.

I know that you actually have ground truth on the rules but from your statement i infer that EAC is not normally as high as Obo's mid 20's would indicate and that elemental resistance is uncommon to actually make EAC and +1 damage that much of an improvement over the course of 5 levels. As a reference point I would consider 5 levels to be almost half of a character's career normally (1-12).

I believe what Mark Seifter meant is "the ability to make 2 attacks is a big deal", not "a slight improvement to accuracy is a big deal".

I am sorry if that didnt come across clearly from me; i recognize Mr. Seifter considers the two attacks to be a big improvement but i am not sold without having more data about the normal split between KAC and EAC and in particular i am used to see more accuracy boosts or higher damage on a PC by this point so the idea of taking such a big hit to accuracy doesnt feel right. The idea of a 3/4 BAB class that likewise does not have any significant accuracy boosts taking a -4 to hit is really messing with my head. Clearly they have worked through the math on their end and think its right, i am just not there in my head yet.

The math does a lot of interesting things once you start adding the option to increase # of attacks (and taking away those iterative attacks that normally have to be contenders at -10 or -15 to hit). Consider, a level 11 hasted Pathfinder archer who normally could shoot 5 arrows a round (4 attacks, first a Manyshot for two arrows) generally takes a -2 penalty on all these attacks in order to fire a sixth arrow and still comes out ahead. A -4 to double your number of attacks is going to be significantly more worthwhile than that trade is in most cases (Mash and Ionut's playtest/calculations show that pretty successfully for Obo v. troll), and Starfinder classes have additional tricks up their sleeves beyond level 5.

As to a 3/4 BAB friend like the operative, well, you guys have the soldier sheet right now so you can't see how an operative would work at that level, but let's just say you don't want to mess with a level 5 operative and their trick attack.

[Shisumo]

Mark Seifter wrote:

let's just say you don't want to mess with a level 5 operative and their trick attack.

Adam Jensen thanks you for your support.

[Torbyne]

coming out of that newest Blog post, no more flat bonuses to weapons. How is that for throwing Pathfinder math for a loop? What do you all think this means for the various levels of DR? And the follow on, if DR is being redone to not correlate to +1/+3/+4/+5 weapons, what does that do to energy resistance's design space?

What happens to the combat math when you drop in a DR10 monster into Starfinder where you now need to exactly match the alignment, damage type and/or material? i suspect there will be something in the legacy chapter to address this if the DR/Resistance system has changed that much though.

[QuidEst]

Torbyne wrote:

coming out of that newest Blog post, no more flat bonuses to weapons. How is that for throwing Pathfinder math for a loop? What do you all think this means for the various levels of DR? And the follow on, if DR is being redone to not correlate to +1/+3/+4/+5 weapons, what does that do to energy resistance's design space?

What happens to the combat math when you drop in a DR10 monster into Starfinder where you now need to exactly match the alignment, damage type and/or material? i suspect there will be something in the legacy chapter to address this if the DR/Resistance system has changed that much though.

DR might correspond with bonus easily-refreshed health or fast healing, and resistance is almost certainly a bonus to EAC.

[Torbyne]

QuidEst wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

coming out of that newest Blog post, no more flat bonuses to weapons. How is that for throwing Pathfinder math for a loop? What do you all think this means for the various levels of DR? And the follow on, if DR is being redone to not correlate to +1/+3/+4/+5 weapons, what does that do to energy resistance's design space?

What happens to the combat math when you drop in a DR10 monster into Starfinder where you now need to exactly match the alignment, damage type and/or material? i suspect there will be something in the legacy chapter to address this if the DR/Resistance system has changed that much though.

DR might correspond with bonus easily-refreshed health or fast healing, and resistance is almost certainly a bonus to EAC.

There are already AC bonuses and Fat Healing rules though, do you think they would just remove DR and resistance in Starfinder in lieue of more Fast Healing or regeneration or the like? At the least we know Hardness is still in and i would actually really like if hardness was more of a universal rule that replaced the various forms of DR but the small mention i have seen specified Object's hardness.

I suppose DR/- in small amounts could be another option but the damage numbers from Obo at level 5 would be seriously imapcted by even DR 5/- or fire resist 5.

Perhaps resistance and DR are just much smaller, a scale of 1-5 points with DR 5 being a high level thing.

[Damanta]

Torbyne wrote:

I suppose DR/- in small amounts could be another option but the damage numbers from Obo at level 5 would be seriously imapcted by even DR 5/- or fire resist 5.

The lvl 5 Obo would have no issues with the DR 5/- or Fire Resist 5.

To avoid the DR 5/- all she has to do is not use her unarmed attack.
To avoid the Fire Resist 5 all she has to do is not use her doshko or flamethrower.
Anything that incorporates both should be shot by her cold damage railgun.

I'm hoping that damage type is easily changed by use of the weaponfusion thingy or by simply using different type of ammo, but from comments I've seen it would seem that having multiple weapons with different types is going to be the way to get around energy resistance or damage reduction.

[Torbyne]

Damanta wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

I suppose DR/- in small amounts could be another option but the damage numbers from Obo at level 5 would be seriously imapcted by even DR 5/- or fire resist 5.

The lvl 5 Obo would have no issues with the DR 5/- or Fire Resist 5.

To avoid the DR 5/- all she has to do is not use her unarmed attack.
To avoid the Fire Resist 5 all she has to do is not use her doshko or flamethrower.
Anything that incorporates both should be shot by her cold damage railgun.

I'm hoping that damage type is easily changed by use of the weaponfusion thingy or by simply using different type of ammo, but from comments I've seen it would seem that having multiple weapons with different types is going to be the way to get around energy resistance or damage reduction.

That would be my least favored course of action, i dont want to play a walking armory straight out of a 90's xtreme era comic book. Obo has unarmed attacks, a doshko, a flamethrower, a freeze ray and grenades. That's great if the character is supposed to be a sampler platter of options but i dont want to worry about tracking 5+ weapons and playing rock paper scissors with all the resistences and immunities in play. I want to specialize in melee or ranged with a back up that works in the style i am not specialized in, and maybe a second back up for special cases, the grenades or something similar. Like, let my Operative roll with a sniper rifle or swap out for the pistol and knife for close in work, dont make me carry three rifles to work around resistance and DR and then worry about two knives and four pistols to get around those when working in close quarters.

Edit: And level 5 Obo would have problems with DR 5, Fire res 5. She doesnt have a melee option to avoid those and loses a third of her damage each hit to them. Her only option is move action break away and take a shot with her far weaker weapon, the 1D8+2 which deals less damage than her melee options even if she has to eat DR.