Some issues with Starfinder


General Discussion

201 to 250 of 299 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
Ok so that doesn't mean give it skill based abilities. If you get the right feats, an NOT FOCUS in skills, you could potentially be far superior and do more in combat that other classes. Some of these feats I have seen people down play or make it seem like they aren't great I have already seen practical uses for. Building a desk soldier and giving him the improved unarmed strike to have that damage level up would be great. The fact that he gets 1-1/2 times weapon specialization. If you can get in to melee the damage will be amazing with the right feats. Getting step up and step up an strike. Also getting to a 5th level character and 15 int, Picking up technomantic dabbler and getting overcharged weapon with all of that the damage for that one attack sky rockets (yes I realize anyone can do most of this but all the feats the soldier get make it more deadly.

This is a really bad build mechanically. 7d6+43 (average 67.5 damage) is maxed unarmed strike damage, and if nowhere near as good as 12d10+33 (average 99 damage). Which is what you can get with a normal weapon.

Micheal Smith wrote:
Just because they all can be as efficient in combat, you HAVE to build a soldier purely for combat, I would think, in order to out shine others.

This really isn't true. A Soldier, just with class abilities and a good weapon, is already just flat-out better at doing damage than anyone but a Solarian. By quite a bit. That third attack, especially combined with full BAB, is mechanically amazing. As is their free access to all the best weapons.

Some Feat investment in combat is a pretty good call, but hardly to the point of needing to spend every single Feat on it.

This is the guy that has ran the math too^^


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
Ok so that doesn't mean give it skill based abilities. If you get the right feats, an NOT FOCUS in skills, you could potentially be far superior and do more in combat that other classes. Some of these feats I have seen people down play or make it seem like they aren't great I have already seen practical uses for. Building a desk soldier and giving him the improved unarmed strike to have that damage level up would be great. The fact that he gets 1-1/2 times weapon specialization. If you can get in to melee the damage will be amazing with the right feats. Getting step up and step up an strike. Also getting to a 5th level character and 15 int, Picking up technomantic dabbler and getting overcharged weapon with all of that the damage for that one attack sky rockets (yes I realize anyone can do most of this but all the feats the soldier get make it more deadly.

This is a really bad build mechanically. 7d6+43 (average 67.5 damage) is maxed unarmed strike damage, and if nowhere near as good as 12d10+33 (average 99 damage). Which is what you can get with a normal weapon.

Micheal Smith wrote:
Just because they all can be as efficient in combat, you HAVE to build a soldier purely for combat, I would think, in order to out shine others.

This really isn't true. A Soldier, just with class abilities and a good weapon, is already just flat-out better at doing damage than anyone but a Solarian. By quite a bit. That third attack, especially combined with full BAB, is mechanically amazing. As is their free access to all the best weapons.

Some Feat investment in combat is a pretty good call, but hardly to the point of needing to spend every single Feat on it.

So also keep in mind this is all based on reading and theory. I haven't gotten to actually play and see what works.

Also using the armed strike as a main weapon isn't really the point. I haven't really stated a character past 11th level. I play society and thats what I am used to playing to. Even in pathfinder, in all the home games, I only ever got past 11th 1 time.

My point is the fact they can pick up all of these feats and make them much more versatile combat than the other classes with feats. When more and more feat options come out I am sure it will show.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am also the guy that doesn't try to squeeze every little bit i can out of character. I hate when people do that. I honesty hate all of this math people do. Alot of it I feel is completely a waste. It truly is all based on the perfect scenario.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Piloting ranks were discussed earlier as the primary determinant of efficacy in starship combat which is universal in terms of the benefits derived from skill ranks: AC, TL and effective ranks = BAB for ship-to-ship gunnery.

Running the numbers for soldiers vs others in raw damage output will heavily favor soldiers. They have almost every weapon proficiency in the game (except Special Weapon Proficiency, of which there are all of two at present: shuriken and net) with which they gain weapon specialization for free in all of them at 3rd level. All of the other class' gratis weapon specialization applies solely to their class-specific weapon proficiencies. Except grenades, but no one gets weapon specialization with grenades. Bombard soldiers can get really nasty with them if they so choose.

Gear Boost adds additional bonuses, usually to weapon damage, on top of this. Their fighting styles can further improve this. Deadly Aim is BAB-based, making it the purview of the Solarian and Soldier starting at 6th level onward in terms of getting more of a damage bonus than the penalty taken. All of these stack with each other.

The Soldier lacking Perception as a class skill aside, they do have theme and general feat options available to address this lack. A themeless soldier can add any one skill of choice to their list of class skills at 1st level, later gaining skill-specific benefits at 6th and 12th level (as is the case with all themeless characters). The Skill Synergy feat adds two skills to the soldier's class skill lists, which will then benefit from Skill Focus should they so desire (unless the character for some reason decided to select an existing class skill to gain a +2 insight bonus).

Soldiers are not skill monkeys, nor should they be. Soldiers with Dex as a key ability score they'll make more than adequate pilots in addition to being innately very good gunners.

Starfinder is not an MMO, nor should it be viewed as one. Therein lies madness and character deaths.

Dark Archive

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
Ok so that doesn't mean give it skill based abilities. If you get the right feats, an NOT FOCUS in skills, you could potentially be far superior and do more in combat that other classes. Some of these feats I have seen people down play or make it seem like they aren't great I have already seen practical uses for. Building a desk soldier and giving him the improved unarmed strike to have that damage level up would be great. The fact that he gets 1-1/2 times weapon specialization. If you can get in to melee the damage will be amazing with the right feats. Getting step up and step up an strike. Also getting to a 5th level character and 15 int, Picking up technomantic dabbler and getting overcharged weapon with all of that the damage for that one attack sky rockets (yes I realize anyone can do most of this but all the feats the soldier get make it more deadly.

This is a really bad build mechanically. 7d6+43 (average 67.5 damage) is maxed unarmed strike damage, and if nowhere near as good as 12d10+33 (average 99 damage). Which is what you can get with a normal weapon.

Micheal Smith wrote:
Just because they all can be as efficient in combat, you HAVE to build a soldier purely for combat, I would think, in order to out shine others.

This really isn't true. A Soldier, just with class abilities and a good weapon, is already just flat-out better at doing damage than anyone but a Solarian. By quite a bit. That third attack, especially combined with full BAB, is mechanically amazing. As is their free access to all the best weapons.

Some Feat investment in combat is a pretty good call, but hardly to the point of needing to spend every single Feat on it.

This is the guy that has ran the math too^^

I have not run the math. I was only replying to the person above me claiming that with feats other classes can contribute just as meaningfully to combat as a soldier.

Liberty's Edge

Micheal Smith wrote:
So also keep in mind this is all based on reading and theory. I haven't gotten to actually play and see what works.

True enough for me, too. Just for the record.

Micheal Smith wrote:
Also using the armed strike as a main weapon isn't really the point. I haven't really stated a character past 11th level. I play society and thats what I am used to playing to. Even in pathfinder, in all the home games, I only ever got past 11th 1 time.

Even at 10th, unarmed strike is behind a standard melee weapon. 2d6+24 (31 average) is still a fair bit less than 3d10+19 (35.5 average), though admittedly not to the same degree.

As for not playing above 11th...in that case the Soldier still has much better class features in terms of damage than anyone else (except for Solarians). They're a very solid combat generalist.

Micheal Smith wrote:
My point is the fact they can pick up all of these feats and make them much more versatile combat than the other classes with feats. When more and more feat options come out I am sure it will show.

Totally a valid thing to do...but not one that is suddenly rendered useless by the investment of a couple of Feats in non-combat areas.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I am also the guy that doesn't try to squeeze every little bit i can out of character. I hate when people do that. I honesty hate all of this math people do. Alot of it I feel is completely a waste. It truly is all based on the perfect scenario.

Uh...I'm not suggesting you do this. I was noting, in fact, that you don't need to do this since Soldier does fine without it. That was pretty much my whole point, actually.


I could see some expansions allowing the soldier to boost some of their skills in place of gear boosts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
So also keep in mind this is all based on reading and theory. I haven't gotten to actually play and see what works.

True enough for me, too. Just for the record.

Micheal Smith wrote:
Also using the armed strike as a main weapon isn't really the point. I haven't really stated a character past 11th level. I play society and thats what I am used to playing to. Even in pathfinder, in all the home games, I only ever got past 11th 1 time.

Even at 10th, unarmed strike is behind a standard melee weapon. 2d6+24 (31 average) is still a fair bit less than 3d10+19 (35.5 average), though admittedly not to the same degree.

As for not playing above 11th...in that case the Soldier still has much better class features in terms of damage than anyone else (except for Solarians). They're a very solid combat generalist.

Micheal Smith wrote:
My point is the fact they can pick up all of these feats and make them much more versatile combat than the other classes with feats. When more and more feat options come out I am sure it will show.

Totally a valid thing to do...but not one that is suddenly rendered useless by the investment of a couple of Feats in non-combat areas.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I am also the guy that doesn't try to squeeze every little bit i can out of character. I hate when people do that. I honesty hate all of this math people do. Alot of it I feel is completely a waste. It truly is all based on the perfect scenario.
Uh...I'm not suggesting you do this. I was noting, in fact, that you don't need to do this since Soldier does fine without it. That was pretty much my whole point, actually.

You keep posting average damage. I hate when people quote that. Most of the time its a perfect case scenario. I had this discussion with Automatic weapons. The average that was suggested is based on a perfect scenario. I don't base anything off of that. I tried that a few times and ended up with a crap character.

Liberty's Edge

Ventnor wrote:
I could see some expansions allowing the soldier to boost some of their skills in place of gear boosts.

Ooh. That's a neat idea. Heck, you could just give a scaling +1-6 insight bonus to one Dex or Str based skill as a Gear Boost option. That seems cool and easily implemented.

Dark Archive

It'd make me as happy about the soldier as I was about the fighter after Weapon Master Handbook came out.

Liberty's Edge

Micheal Smith wrote:
You keep posting average damage. I hate when people quote that. Most of the time its a perfect case scenario.

Huh? This statement literally does not compute. I do not comprehend what you're saying here.

Average damage is just that, the average damage of that attack method. It requires no special 'perfect case scenario' to apply.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I had this discussion with Automatic weapons. The average that was suggested is based on a perfect scenario.

I don't remember that occurring, but even if it did there...the damage numbers I list are purely the average rolled damage. Nothing conditional at all.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I don't base anything off of that. I tried that a few times and ended up with a crap character.

Um...I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm not arguing all characters must be perfectly optimal at all times or anything like that. I'm just laying out the math so people can make informed decisions and be aware of what their character is capable of.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
I could see some expansions allowing the soldier to boost some of their skills in place of gear boosts.
Ooh. That's a neat idea. Heck, you could just give a scaling +1-6 insight bonus to one Dex or Str based skill as a Gear Boost option. That seems cool and easily implemented.

Or, if they want to keep the flavor of gear boosts (Soldiers get better use out of the equipment they've trained to use), you could tie the skill boosts to certain types of non-weapon, non-armor equipment.

Like, a perception boost for soldiers who specialize in targeting systems/ocular implants, an acrobatics boost for soldiers who specialize in jetpacks, and so on.


For real what scenario could affect average damage. are you thinking of DPR?


Micheal Smith wrote:
You keep posting average damage.

You kind of have to if you want to meaningfully compare builds with differing splits between flat bonuses and varying numbers of differently sized dice.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
I could see some expansions allowing the soldier to boost some of their skills in place of gear boosts.
Ooh. That's a neat idea. Heck, you could just give a scaling +1-6 insight bonus to one Dex or Str based skill as a Gear Boost option. That seems cool and easily implemented.

Or, if they want to keep the flavor of gear boosts (Soldiers get better use out of the equipment they've trained to use), you could tie the skill boosts to certain types of non-weapon, non-armor equipment.

Like, a perception boost for soldiers who specialize in targeting systems/ocular implants, an acrobatics boost for soldiers who specialize in jetpacks, and so on.

Yeah, that would certainly work. It'd be a tad bit wordier than the one I listed, though. You could easily combine the ideas by calling it something like "Utility Specialist" and say something about picking a skill and piece of gear but leaving it relatively freeform.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
You keep posting average damage. I hate when people quote that. Most of the time its a perfect case scenario.

Huh? This statement literally does not compute. I do not comprehend what you're saying here.

Average damage is just that, the average damage of that attack method. It requires no special 'perfect case scenario' to apply.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I had this discussion with Automatic weapons. The average that was suggested is based on a perfect scenario.

I don't remember that occurring, but even if it did there...the damage numbers I list are purely the average rolled damage. Nothing conditional at all.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I don't base anything off of that. I tried that a few times and ended up with a crap character.
Um...I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm not arguing all characters must be perfectly optimal at all times or anything like that. I'm just laying out the math so people can make informed decisions and be aware of what their character is capable of.

I see people post average numbers those mean crap. I rarely ever roll average.

I don't remember if you did post the math or not. But the scenario of the potential vs auto fire and focus on one baddie was purely if it was a perfect scenario. They just said auto was better against more baddies because of the average damage. But they didn't account for all of the variables. An alot of times I see that the math that is laid out is complete and utter crap. So what if the average dmg dealt is xx. That still leaves so many other variables not accounting to see if the avg damage is worth having vs going for maybe less damage but doing other things. When I say it is a perfect scenario its assuming everything went the right way for the people doing damage.

I find it best is to see what the max is and what the min is and see if that is on par with alot of things that with the appropriate CR. Like do I have enough to do any sort of damage vs DR or bypass energy resistance. TO be stating that because unarmed strikes at 11th level aren't the idea weapon in the end because it does 5.5 points less damage than the average damage. So what if the average damage is a little less that other weapons. There are other variable that should be taken in consideration. I feel that the average damage is a false front. I get from that that well because it does less average damage it is an inferior option. Just because something does less average damage means nothing. What are the PRO's CON's of this lower average output. Basing weapons purely on damage is absurd.


Your really not making any sense.
Other factors? you mean luck? you can't ever truly account for luck but using averages is a way of attempting to account for luck.

Do you even understand how statistics work? Average is not some made up mumbo jumbo its assuming if all things equal you will get around this area of X. you can look at the average of 5d6 (17.5) versus and 6d4 (15) and plainly see which ones is going to give your more damage *on average*

Just because something does less average damage means nothing.?????!? IT literally means that on average it will do less damage. wth?

Take a stats course and get back to us you are literally making no sense.


Without seeing the NPC tables I'm not sure if fists are sufficient or not. I generally strive for killing an equal level opponent in 2-3 rounds in Pathfinder, however the changes in Starfinder will probably adjust that to 3-4 rounds. As long as a Soldier can hit that benchmark, I think they'll do fine.


Ok here is a scenario:

So lets say you have a bunch of ranged NON Soldiers. For math simplicity we will use your average damage.

So I move up get an attack I just hit you for 31 damage. You go you shoot me, you hit for 35. But you would provoke. So first you guarded step back. Oh wait I have step up and strike. Now I get another 31 damage. Then you hit for 35.

My lower damage output is not 62 to your 35. Now i know this is a situated scenario. But my point is your average damage is a false front. It just shows what the average damage you could do. It in no way shape or form accounts for any of these scenarios. Now this isn't the case all the time.

My point is average damage means nothing, and is a pretty poor way to base your character.

Now I know this is for Pathfinder but my point is still there. The overall math etc prob doesn't convert well over to Starfinder, but the concept does.

I am a monk that focused more into AC than damage. You have invested in doing a crap of damage. But in this scenario my AC to your to Hit is better that my to Hit and your AC. So I hit a lot more do a bit of damage here an there vs your every now and then. I will take the lower consistent damage and higher AC than to maximize damage and hit every so often. I can tell you In a home campaign I had a monk that was purely focused in AC. My flat-footed AC and Touch were higher than EVERYONE else's normal AC except the fight. Being the monk having a high dex with high AC and very low damage. It usually took 2-3 of my 7-8 hits to equal 1 of the fighters damage. The point being I only could be hit with a crit. I hit 99.9% of the time, I needed up doing more damage because I usually was the last standing man.

I hope this is getting through to you all. I will never build around average. I build around the abilities and maximize somewhere else. Damage is mealiness if you can't hit. If you can't hit that your average damage comparisons mean crap.

Liberty's Edge

Micheal Smith wrote:
I see people post average numbers those mean crap. I rarely ever roll average.

No one does most of the time. That's...really not the point of an average.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I don't remember if you did post the math or not. But the scenario of the potential vs auto fire and focus on one baddie was purely if it was a perfect scenario. They just said auto was better against more baddies because of the average damage. But they didn't account for all of the variables.

They said that, all things being equal, autofire was better against more foes. Because that's true. Other factors could certainly come up making it a better or worse choice, but the point of the analysis was to provide information. Ie: how many enemies should there be before I even consider using autofire?

There'll inevitably be exceptions, but the data is still good to have.

Micheal Smith wrote:
An alot of times I see that the math that is laid out is complete and utter crap. So what if the average dmg dealt is xx. That still leaves so many other variables not accounting to see if the avg damage is worth having vs going for maybe less damage but doing other things. When I say it is a perfect scenario its assuming everything went the right way for the people doing damage.

Other variables are absolutely worth noting!

Weapon properties like reach or trip, or even analog are all super relevant. However, none of those really apply to unarmed combat as it has no such properties (or none the weapons I was comparing it to don't, anyway).

Opportunity costs are worth noting. Whether something costs a Feat, keeps you from using other weapons, and similar things. But Unarmed Combat is the thing here that costs a Feat, not the other weapons I suggested.

What else are you referring to that's worth noting? I'm just...confused.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I find it best is to see what the max is and what the min is and see if that is on par with alot of things that with the appropriate CR. Like do I have enough to do any sort of damage vs DR or bypass energy resistance.

That's...more or less what an average damage is. It's how much damage the weapon will usually do. For purposes of comparing to things like DR and Energy Resistance.

Micheal Smith wrote:
TO be stating that because unarmed strikes at 11th level aren't the idea weapon in the end because it does 5.5 points less damage than the average damage. So what if the average damage is a little less that other weapons. There are other variable that should be taken in consideration.

Such as? This isn't a facetious response. I'm legitimately quite curious what factor makes unarmed combat superior to something that doesn't cost a Feat and does more damage.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I feel that the average damage is a false front. I get from that that well because it does less average damage it is an inferior option. Just because something does less average damage means nothing. What are the PRO's CON's of this lower average output. Basing weapons purely on damage is absurd.

Right, sure. But unarmed combat is sorta coming up all cons here. I mean, you always have access to it, which is cool, but makes it a good backup not a good primary combat strategy. And my initial response was to you saying that it was a high damage build, not that it had 'other advantages'.

If you'd said 'The damage isn't great but it gives other advantages' I would have said 'Like what?' not listed damage comparisons. But you said, quite literally "the damage will be amazing". So I responded to that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Micheal Smith wrote:
I rarely ever roll average

You rarely roll minimum or maximum either, yet you said you consider those.

The point of average damage is not that it predicts any individual roll (though in the case of an RPG damage roll, with multiple dice, it will also be close to the most common result). The point is that you can measure how well a given attack will go over the long term - looking at the minimum/maximum doesn't work as well.

If you roll N times and add up the damage you do from start to finish, (N x Average damage) will be a better and better estimate, the larger N is.

So when people declare an attack superior because it has higher average, they mean "you'll do more damage over the long term". If that's not important to you, average damage isn't so useful - but how else do you evaluate efficacy of an attack?

Liberty's Edge

Micheal Smith wrote:

Ok here is a scenario:

So lets say you have a bunch of ranged NON Soldiers. For math simplicity we will use your average damage.

So I move up get an attack I just hit you for 31 damage. You go you shoot me, you hit for 35. But you would provoke. So first you guarded step back. Oh wait I have step up and strike. Now I get another 31 damage. Then you hit for 35.

My lower damage output is not 62 to your 35. Now i know this is a situated scenario. But my point is your average damage is a false front. It just shows what the average damage you could do. It in no way shape or form accounts for any of these scenarios. Now this isn't the case all the time.

My point is average damage means nothing, and is a pretty poor way to base your character.

Sure...but we're comparing melee weapons to each other. Melee weapons without weird abilities...so this example doesn't make a lot of sense in this specific example.

Micheal Smith wrote:

Now I know this is for Pathfinder but my point is still there. The overall math etc prob doesn't convert well over to Starfinder, but the concept does.

I am a monk that focused more into AC than damage. You have invested in doing a crap of damage. But in this scenario my AC to your to Hit is better that my to Hit and your AC. So I hit a lot more do a bit of damage here an there vs your every now and then. I will take the lower consistent damage and higher AC than to maximize damage and hit every so often. I can tell you In a home campaign I had a monk that was purely focused in AC. My flat-footed AC and Touch were higher than EVERYONE else's normal AC except the fight. Being the monk having a high dex with high AC and very low damage. It usually took 2-3 of my 7-8 hits to equal 1 of the fighters damage. The point being I only could be hit with a crit. I hit 99.9% of the time, I needed up doing more damage because I usually was the last standing man.

I hope this is getting through to you all. I will never build around average. I build around the abilities and maximize somewhere else. Damage is mealiness if you can't hit. If you can't hit that your average damage comparisons mean crap.

The issue with this example is that my comparison assumed identical stats.

You're quite right that things like AC and attack bonus matter. They matter a lot. But they also have almost nothing to do with weapon choice. Two characters can have identical AC and attack bonus and pick different weapons.


Micheal Smith wrote:

Ok here is a scenario:

So lets say you have a bunch of ranged NON Soldiers. For math simplicity we will use your average damage.

So I move up get an attack I just hit you for 31 damage. You go you shoot me, you hit for 35. But you would provoke. So first you guarded step back. Oh wait I have step up and strike. Now I get another 31 damage. Then you hit for 35.

My lower damage output is not 62 to your 35. Now i know this is a situated scenario. But my point is your average damage is a false front. It just shows what the average damage you could do. It in no way shape or form accounts for any of these scenarios. Now this isn't the case all the time.

My point is average damage means nothing, and is a pretty poor way to base your character.

You're missing the value of average damage. It's not to compare between two different situations but the same situation.

I'm better off in your example if my attack has an average damage of 42 instead of 35. That's all.

Nobody is saying that a character with an average damage of 35 is always better than one with an average damage of 31. The claim is that, all else being equal, you're better off if your average damage is higher.


Which is why the correct formula is average damage times chance to hit. Which is what was calculated in the auto fire thread you complained about.

And good for you, moving the goalposts makes the math different. In a system with this many moving pieces, all you can say in general is all things being equal, option A will do x, and option B will do y.

Throwing Step Up and Strike in doesn't make punching better than an actual weapon, it just shows that the feat does something. We could switch the does and give the guy doing 35 damage the feat and make punching look really bad.


Character that hits every time +30 deals 2 damage

Character that misses 50% of the time deals 60 damage.

which does more damage?
does it matter which does more damage?
how do I know character does 60 damage?
every time I post character should I put this character does 6d6+23? Why can't i just put 44 damage on average?
Should I write out every time Assuming I don't move back and provoke and that I hit when I strike and that I am not on a lower footing and I have my weapon of choice + every situational modifier there is. I can do around this much damage?
Build what around the abilities? there is only so much to hit you can get. Have you even played this game? To hit hasn't been calculated yet because we don't know what the target AC will be until alien archive arrives

Assuming all things equal are you really trying to say damage doesn't matter at all?

Your argument is coming off more of damage isn't important but you are saying averages is useless? you do realize its a tool that people use to make variables easier to manage right. Its a descriptive tool.

You are not explaining yourself well at all.

For your monk how do you know one build is doing more damage then the other? did you sit down and roll once for each character and which ever character totaled up to the most that is the one you said deals more damage?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
I see people post average numbers those mean crap. I rarely ever roll average.

No one does most of the time. That's...really not the point of an average.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I don't remember if you did post the math or not. But the scenario of the potential vs auto fire and focus on one baddie was purely if it was a perfect scenario. They just said auto was better against more baddies because of the average damage. But they didn't account for all of the variables.

They said that, all things being equal, autofire was better against more foes. Because that's true. Other factors could certainly come up making it a better or worse choice, but the point of the analysis was to provide information. Ie: how many enemies should there be before I even consider using autofire?

There'll inevitably be exceptions, but the data is still good to have.

Micheal Smith wrote:
An alot of times I see that the math that is laid out is complete and utter crap. So what if the average dmg dealt is xx. That still leaves so many other variables not accounting to see if the avg damage is worth having vs going for maybe less damage but doing other things. When I say it is a perfect scenario its assuming everything went the right way for the people doing damage.

Other variables are absolutely worth noting!

Weapon properties like reach or trip, or even analog are all super relevant. However, none of those really apply to unarmed combat as it has no such properties.

Opportunity costs are worth noting. Whether something costs a Feat, keeps you from using other weapons, and similar things. But Unarmed Combat is the thing here that costs a Feat, not the other weapons I suggested.

What else are you referring to that's worth noting? I'm just...confused.

Micheal Smith wrote:
I find it best is to see what the max is and what the min is and see if that is on par with alot of things that with the appropriate CR. Like do I have enough to do any sort of
...

A weapon cost money and money an money. It may be minimal but it still cost more than a feat. You have to have ammo to fire your weapon.

AUTO is at best a get away cover tactic. If I can focus fire and take out an enemy in 1 round, no matter the number of enemies it will be greatly superior that auto fire. If I can eliminate an enemy that is one less foe doing damage. So this is still the better option. How many enemeies none. If you are throwing that many enemies that truly require auto, how worthy are they vs how balanced is the encounter? If they are a bunch of levels 1-2 vs 5 lvl 6-7, than thats not even a significant enemy. So at that point than is the encounter really worth wasting time with?

Other variables are absaloute nothing, really? That is about the dumbest thing I have heard. If any variable is a viable option in combat it isn't worthless. I disarm your weapon, now you have no weapon now your superior average damage means nothing. I still have my unarmed strike. Oh and your weapon in my hand. You make it seem that unarmed strike is complete inferior to your higher damaging weapons. With a single disarm I have basically made your superior damage weapon complete useless. The point I am making is the Soldier with ALL of those feats and making him pure combat your average damage and all your other crap is at best an option. I have now disarmed your weapon and now holding it. You can try to steal it back but chances are your not as good as my soldier. Melee based soldiers have the feats so disarming is totally a thing they should do. Chances are you only have the one HIGH DAMAGE weapon, yea you will have back up weapons but what will the average of those be?


Steve Geddes wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:

Ok here is a scenario:

So lets say you have a bunch of ranged NON Soldiers. For math simplicity we will use your average damage.

So I move up get an attack I just hit you for 31 damage. You go you shoot me, you hit for 35. But you would provoke. So first you guarded step back. Oh wait I have step up and strike. Now I get another 31 damage. Then you hit for 35.

My lower damage output is not 62 to your 35. Now i know this is a situated scenario. But my point is your average damage is a false front. It just shows what the average damage you could do. It in no way shape or form accounts for any of these scenarios. Now this isn't the case all the time.

My point is average damage means nothing, and is a pretty poor way to base your character.

You're missing the value of average damage. It's not to compare between two different situations but the same situation.

I'm better off in your example if my attack has an average damage of 42 instead of 35. That's all.

Nobody is saying that a character with an average damage of 35 is always better than one with an average damage of 31. The claim is that, all else being equal, you're better off if your average damage is higher.

False. Again just cause you could POTENTIALLY do more damage does not mean it is the best choice. Damage only matters if you can hit.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
I rarely ever roll average

You rarely roll minimum or maximum either, yet you said you consider those.

The point of average damage is not that it predicts any individual roll (though in the case of an RPG damage roll, with multiple dice, it will also be close to the most common result). The point is that you can measure how well a given attack will go over the long term - looking at the minimum/maximum doesn't work as well.

If you roll N times and add up the damage you do from start to finish, (N x Average damage) will be a better and better estimate, the larger N is.

So when people declare an attack superior because it has higher average, they mean "you'll do more damage over the long term". If that's not important to you, average damage isn't so useful - but how else do you evaluate efficacy of an attack?

I tend to roll min or max more than I do average.


and when I do have my weapon and you have unarmed then what? or you know I shoot you with my gun before you get close? or I break out my back up weapons.. or or what if my space ship blows up your space ship first then where as your unarmed got you? what if I have magnetic boots and I blow a whole in the side of the space ship and let you get sucked out then how is your unarmed going to help you?


Micheal Smith wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:

Ok here is a scenario:

So lets say you have a bunch of ranged NON Soldiers. For math simplicity we will use your average damage.

So I move up get an attack I just hit you for 31 damage. You go you shoot me, you hit for 35. But you would provoke. So first you guarded step back. Oh wait I have step up and strike. Now I get another 31 damage. Then you hit for 35.

My lower damage output is not 62 to your 35. Now i know this is a situated scenario. But my point is your average damage is a false front. It just shows what the average damage you could do. It in no way shape or form accounts for any of these scenarios. Now this isn't the case all the time.

My point is average damage means nothing, and is a pretty poor way to base your character.

You're missing the value of average damage. It's not to compare between two different situations but the same situation.

I'm better off in your example if my attack has an average damage of 42 instead of 35. That's all.

Nobody is saying that a character with an average damage of 35 is always better than one with an average damage of 31. The claim is that, all else being equal, you're better off if your average damage is higher.

False. Again just cause you could POTENTIALLY do more damage does not mean it is the best choice. Damage only matters if you can hit.

"All else being equal"


Micheal Smith wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
I rarely ever roll average

You rarely roll minimum or maximum either, yet you said you consider those.

The point of average damage is not that it predicts any individual roll (though in the case of an RPG damage roll, with multiple dice, it will also be close to the most common result). The point is that you can measure how well a given attack will go over the long term - looking at the minimum/maximum doesn't work as well.

If you roll N times and add up the damage you do from start to finish, (N x Average damage) will be a better and better estimate, the larger N is.

So when people declare an attack superior because it has higher average, they mean "you'll do more damage over the long term". If that's not important to you, average damage isn't so useful - but how else do you evaluate efficacy of an attack?

I tend to roll min or max more than I do average.

OMG

You roll damage you roll a d8 you get 1 1 8 8 (minimum and maximum huh how about that) lets do some math kids. 1 + 1 + 8 + 8 equals 18 to get the average damage we divide that by 4 that gets us 4.5... The average damage of a D8......


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Micheal Smith wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
I rarely ever roll average

You rarely roll minimum or maximum either, yet you said you consider those.

The point of average damage is not that it predicts any individual roll (though in the case of an RPG damage roll, with multiple dice, it will also be close to the most common result). The point is that you can measure how well a given attack will go over the long term - looking at the minimum/maximum doesn't work as well.

If you roll N times and add up the damage you do from start to finish, (N x Average damage) will be a better and better estimate, the larger N is.

So when people declare an attack superior because it has higher average, they mean "you'll do more damage over the long term". If that's not important to you, average damage isn't so useful - but how else do you evaluate efficacy of an attack?

I tend to roll min or max more than I do average.

Your perceptions are almost certainly wrong (everyone's are).

Also, as I said, it's not about predicting a single roll. It's about your total damage over many trials - if you roll damage a hundred times, 100x(average damage) is the best estimate for your total damage.

Honestly - this stuff isn't opinion, it's mathematics. Probability is counterintuitive but well worth the effort.


No weapons currently in Starfinder have accuracy modifiers attached. Meaning that two identical characters both have the same chance to hit, so we can just go to average damage at the moment. When Alien Archive arrives with the NPC stats we'll know exactly what the to hit numbers will be.

And hey, if you add the minimum damage to the max damage and halve it, you get the average. You most definitely do roll average damage, over all the rolls you make. For every low roll, there's likely a high one to cancel it out.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
and when I do have my weapon and you have unarmed then what? or you know I shoot you with my gun before you get close? or I break out my back up weapons.. or or what if my space ship blows up your space ship first then where as your unarmed got you? what if I have magnetic boots and I blow a whole in the side of the space ship and let you get sucked out then how is your unarmed going to help you?

First of all if I build melee based characters I build them to have the higher chance to go first. So I acted first most of the time. Also my AC tends to be on the higher end of the spectrum. If you can't hit me you can't do damage. It seems like you all only know how to fight using damage and not tactics. All of these other variables that you all aren't accounting for I use to my advantage and overcome the whole who needs damage. Or here if you can't see me you can't hit me.

Also not all combat has to end with violence. If I disarm you than what are you going to do and you can't seem to get your weapon back. Or I grapple you up and tie you up? I sunder you weapon? Then who cares what the min is cause chances are you aren't doing anything.

In the end the average damage is a false front. It shows partially what your character can truly do. I use my class abilities and feats to the max and get more out of that than trying to hit one big hit. Again how can you hit me if you can't see me? This seems to be a very worthy variable.


No no you were sucked out a vaccum how are you attacking me at all? I blew your ship up so I fail to see how your higher AC is helping you?


d'Eon wrote:

No weapons currently in Starfinder have accuracy modifiers attached. Meaning that two identical characters both have the same chance to hit, so we can just go to average damage at the moment. When Alien Archive arrives with the NPC stats we'll know exactly what the to hit numbers will be.

And hey, if you add the minimum damage to the max damage and halve it, you get the average. You most definitely do roll average damage, over all the rolls you make. For every low roll, there's likely a high one to cancel it out.

So if the combat lasts 4 rounds my min damage is 4 max is 10. I hit min for 4 rounds I am not doing average. When I do damage, I either almost always d min or max never in-between. If my damage rolls high first round than I roll high the rest of the combat and vise versa.


And the guy with an actual weapon can use every trick you're using and do more damage doing it! And he didn't spend a feat so he could punch things, so he might have more tricks than you!

And you make every character you've every played have the best AC, to hit, and initiative? And the feats needed for disarm to be viable?


Micheal Smith wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
and when I do have my weapon and you have unarmed then what? or you know I shoot you with my gun before you get close? or I break out my back up weapons.. or or what if my space ship blows up your space ship first then where as your unarmed got you? what if I have magnetic boots and I blow a whole in the side of the space ship and let you get sucked out then how is your unarmed going to help you?

First of all if I build melee based characters I build them to have the higher chance to go first. So I acted first most of the time. Also my AC tends to be on the higher end of the spectrum. If you can't hit me you can't do damage. It seems like you all only know how to fight using damage and not tactics. All of these other variables that you all aren't accounting for I use to my advantage and overcome the whole who needs damage. Or here if you can't see me you can't hit me.

Also not all combat has to end with violence. If I disarm you than what are you going to do and you can't seem to get your weapon back. Or I grapple you up and tie you up? I sunder you weapon? Then who cares what the min is cause chances are you aren't doing anything.

In the end the average damage is a false front. It shows partially what your character can truly do. I use my class abilities and feats to the max and get more out of that than trying to hit one big hit. Again how can you hit me if you can't see me? This seems to be a very worthy variable.

If I can't hit you my average damage is zero.

Liberty's Edge

Micheal Smith wrote:
A weapon cost money and money an money. It may be minimal but it still cost more than a feat. You have to have ammo to fire your weapon.

All the weapons I've listed have been analog melee weapons. They have no ammo.

They do cost money, it's true. And if you'd listed 'costs less' as an advantage of unarmed combat, I wouldn't have argued that point.

But you said unarmed combat did, and I quote, 'amazing damage'. So that's what I argued with.

Micheal Smith wrote:
AUTO is at best a get away cover tactic. If I can focus fire and take out an enemy in 1 round, no matter the number of enemies it will be greatly superior that auto fire. If I can eliminate an enemy that is one less foe doing damage. So this is still the better option. How many enemeies none. If you are throwing that many enemies that truly require auto, how worthy are they vs how balanced is the encounter? If they are a bunch of levels 1-2 vs 5 lvl 6-7, than thats not even a significant enemy. So at that point than is the encounter really worth wasting time with?

If we're doing random hypotheticals, what if there are five enemies at low HP (from, say, the Technomancer's Explosive Blast)? Autofire suddenly looks real good then.

Micheal Smith wrote:
Other variables are absaloute nothing, really?

I said worth NOTING. As in, worth making note of. Read my actual words, please.

Micheal Smith wrote:
That is about the dumbest thing I have heard. If any variable is a viable option in combat it isn't worthless. I disarm your weapon, now you have no weapon now your superior average damage means nothing. I still have my unarmed strike. Oh and your weapon in my hand. You make it seem that unarmed strike is complete inferior to your higher damaging weapons. With a single disarm I have basically made your superior damage weapon complete useless.

There are certainly circumstances where having Improved Unarmed Strike is a very nice thing to have. Disarming isn't really one of them, though being disarmed is.

My point was that it's a better backup option than primary combat tactic.

Of course, for 120 credits I can make a weapon Called and spend a Swift action to cancel being disarmed whenever it happens...

Micheal Smith wrote:
The point I am making is the Soldier with ALL of those feats and making him pure combat your average damage and all your other crap is at best an option. I have now disarmed your weapon and now holding it. You can try to steal it back but chances are your not as good as my soldier. Melee based soldiers have the feats so disarming is totally a thing they should do. Chances are you only have the one HIGH DAMAGE weapon, yea you will have back up weapons but what will the average of those be?

As noted, 120 credits and this ceases to be a major problem.

Also, if you're gonna be focusing on disarming people, there are weapons that give you a bonus to that...which might be a better call than going unarmed.

Micheal Smith wrote:
False. Again just cause you could POTENTIALLY do more damage does not mean it is the best choice. Damage only matters if you can hit.

No weapon gives a bonus to hit, so when comparing weapons this statement is meaningless.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

No no you were sucked out a vaccum how are you attacking me at all? I blew your ship up so I fail to see how your higher AC is helping you?

Oh wait a variable that apparently is NOW worth something. Oh average damage doesn't matter than. Again what i am saying. Account for all other variables and than average damage isn't worth looking at.


Micheal Smith wrote:

When I do damage, I either almost always d min or max never in-between. If my damage rolls high first round than I roll high the rest of the combat and vise versa.

You are mistaken.

Seriously - this stuff is objective and measurable. It's not a matter of opinion.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:

When I do damage, I either almost always d min or max never in-between. If my damage rolls high first round than I roll high the rest of the combat and vise versa.

This is not true.

Seriously - this stuff is objective and measurable. It's not a matter of opinion.

Oh i am sorry, I didn't that you knew my dice rolls better than me. Geez. I didn't know you saw my dice rolls.

Liberty's Edge

Micheal Smith wrote:
First of all if I build melee based characters I build them to have the higher chance to go first. So I acted first most of the time. Also my AC tends to be on the higher end of the spectrum. If you can't hit me you can't do damage. It seems like you all only know how to fight using damage and not tactics. All of these other variables that you all aren't accounting for I use to my advantage and overcome the whole who needs damage. Or here if you can't see me you can't hit me.

We aren't accounting for these because we're discussing weapons not characters or tactics. Weapons without abilities that give them bonuses to any of this.

This is a perfectly valid style of character building, but doesn't only magically work when using a low damage weapon.

Micheal Smith wrote:
Also not all combat has to end with violence. If I disarm you than what are you going to do and you can't seem to get your weapon back. Or I grapple you up and tie you up? I sunder you weapon? Then who cares what the min is cause chances are you aren't doing anything.

Maneuvers are a fine idea! Of course, using weapons that give a bonus to Disarm is a very good idea, and a weapon with Penetrating is a huge bonus to Sunder.

Unarmed Strikes have neither of those things.

Micheal Smith wrote:
In the end the average damage is a false front. It shows partially what your character can truly do. I use my class abilities and feats to the max and get more out of that than trying to hit one big hit. Again how can you hit me if you can't see me? This seems to be a very worthy variable.

It is. On characters. We're talking weapons. What weapon makes you invisible?


Micheal Smith wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:

When I do damage, I either almost always d min or max never in-between. If my damage rolls high first round than I roll high the rest of the combat and vise versa.

This is not true.

Seriously - this stuff is objective and measurable. It's not a matter of opinion.

Oh i am sorry, I didn't that you knew my dice rolls better than me. Geez. I didn't know you saw my dice rolls.

Your error is that you think anecdotal reports are more accurate reflections of the results of multiple trials than statistical analysis.

Everyone is wrong when asked to estimate things like this. It's no slur on you, it's just that we are naturally poor at statistics and probability.


Then why do you need unarmed strike mike? All it does is increase damage? why are you taking the feat? Also what feats are you taking to make your accuracy better then anyone elses? I still haven't heard how your unarmed character is ever going to beat my pilot.

Lol LEARN TO MATH if you roll 4 combat rounds minimum damage and later 4 combat rounds maximum damage guess what you did average! how about that. That is how dice work.

Look guys there is no way he is not trolling at this point.


I said all rolls you make. Not four. Do you not understand the concept of averages?

And I might just agree with you. 31 damage versus 35 might not make a difference on average, I haven't seen the NPC rules. That said, when comparing damage and nothing else, 35 is objectively better than 31. If you have a feat or other thing that only works on unarmed strikes, then punching might be better. At the moment I don't know of any feat or other option that affects unarmed and doesn't work on actual weapons, other than the vesk racial.So for the vast majority of rules, anything punching can do weapons will do better.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Micheal Smith wrote:
A weapon cost money and money an money. It may be minimal but it still cost more than a feat. You have to have ammo to fire your weapon.

All the weapons I've listed have been analog melee weapons. They have no ammo.

They do cost money, it's true. And if you'd listed 'costs less' as an advantage of unarmed combat, I wouldn't have argued that point.

But you said unarmed combat did, and I quote, 'amazing damage'. So that's what I argued with.

Micheal Smith wrote:
AUTO is at best a get away cover tactic. If I can focus fire and take out an enemy in 1 round, no matter the number of enemies it will be greatly superior that auto fire. If I can eliminate an enemy that is one less foe doing damage. So this is still the better option. How many enemeies none. If you are throwing that many enemies that truly require auto, how worthy are they vs how balanced is the encounter? If they are a bunch of levels 1-2 vs 5 lvl 6-7, than thats not even a significant enemy. So at that point than is the encounter really worth wasting time with?

If we're doing random hypotheticals, what if there are five enemies at low HP (from, say, the Technomancer's Explosive Blast)? Autofire suddenly looks real good then.

Micheal Smith wrote:
Other variables are absaloute nothing, really?

I said worth NOTING. As in, worth making note of. Read my actual words, please.

Micheal Smith wrote:
That is about the dumbest thing I have heard. If any variable is a viable option in combat it isn't worthless. I disarm your weapon, now you have no weapon now your superior average damage means nothing. I still have my unarmed strike. Oh and your weapon in my hand. You make it seem that unarmed strike is complete inferior to your higher damaging weapons. With a single disarm I have basically made your superior damage weapon complete useless.
There are certainly circumstances where having Improved Unarmed Strike is a very nice thing to have. Disarming isn't really...

So I sunder your weapon. Now you have no weapon. No average damage no superior damage I still have my unarmed strike.

Thats the same thing. Worth nothing means it means nothing to you so in your eyes its useless and doesn't factor in.

I will give you at that point it may look nice, but then you have to consider ammo usage and if you have enough vs the actions at that time. Taking 1 enemy out could mean you living or dying. It has been the case with me so many times. Even in real life auto fire in crap. Focus fire is the best. Auto fire is best used to alot of damage to a large area and hope you hit alot of your enemies.

How many people will have returning. Disarming is a real nice thing to do. Chances are most people won't have returning. I think you all truly underestimate Combat maneuvers.


HE can still punch you back mike just because he doesn't have Improved unarmed strike doesn't mean he can't punch you.


d'Eon wrote:

I said all rolls you make. Not four. Do you not understand the concept of averages?

And I might just agree with you. 31 damage versus 35 might not make a difference on average, I haven't seen the NPC rules. That said, when comparing damage and nothing else, 35 is objectively better than 31. If you have a feat or other thing that only works on unarmed strikes, then punching might be better. At the moment I don't know of any feat or other option that affects unarmed and doesn't work on actual weapons, other than the vesk racial.So for the vast majority of rules, anything punching can do weapons will do better.

Again generally I don't do average. I usually track how much I do and again its not average. My 4 rounds was to prove that in one combat I don't do average. I roll high or low for everything. Its rare for me to roll average. We have a guy that plays that always rolls low, we give him crap. He rolls below average more than he rolls average and high added together.

201 to 250 of 299 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Some issues with Starfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.