Building a Solarian: Blitz Soldiers need not apply.


Advice

101 to 150 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
bookrat wrote:
If you play any other game than starting at Absolom Station, you're playing outside the assumptions of the game. Got it.
Nope. Because if you start in «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» you are starting in a «typical» settlement. Which means the game assumes you buy lvl+1

And what would «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» even be?

A "typical" settlement is not defined in the Core rulebook.

Any place where you should be able to buy or have delivered weapons? Probably not a pacifist monastery or a plantation staffed by slaves of which you were one in your backstory, but most other likely places to start should qualify.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
bookrat wrote:
If you play any other game than starting at Absolom Station, you're playing outside the assumptions of the game. Got it.
Nope. Because if you start in «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» you are starting in a «typical» settlement. Which means the game assumes you buy lvl+1

And what would «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» even be?

A "typical" settlement is not defined in the Core rulebook.

In such cases, the most reasonable course of action is referring to a dictionary.

"1. of the nature of or serving as a type or representative specimen."

Thus, our typical settlement is representative of most settlements. Thus, this should apply to most settlements. Thus, in most games, you should be able to purchase level+1 weapons.


avr wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
bookrat wrote:
If you play any other game than starting at Absolom Station, you're playing outside the assumptions of the game. Got it.
Nope. Because if you start in «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» you are starting in a «typical» settlement. Which means the game assumes you buy lvl+1

And what would «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» even be?

A "typical" settlement is not defined in the Core rulebook.

Any place where you should be able to buy or have delivered weapons? Probably not a pacifist monastery or a plantation staffed by slaves of which you were one in your backstory, but most other likely places to start should qualify.

That's probably a safe bet, but it's vague enough that I was wondering what everyone would consider a "typical" settlement. How many shops and the like would be needed before it reaches that point?


Noodlemancer wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
bookrat wrote:
If you play any other game than starting at Absolom Station, you're playing outside the assumptions of the game. Got it.
Nope. Because if you start in «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» you are starting in a «typical» settlement. Which means the game assumes you buy lvl+1

And what would «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» even be?

A "typical" settlement is not defined in the Core rulebook.

In such cases, the most reasonable course of action is referring to a dictionary.

"1. of the nature of or serving as a type or representative specimen."

Thus, our typical settlement is representative of most settlements. Thus, this should apply to most settlements. Thus, in most games, you should be able to purchase level+1 weapons.

If "typical" meant everywhere then why did they bother spelling it out like that?


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Noodlemancer wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
bookrat wrote:
If you play any other game than starting at Absolom Station, you're playing outside the assumptions of the game. Got it.
Nope. Because if you start in «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» you are starting in a «typical» settlement. Which means the game assumes you buy lvl+1

And what would «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» even be?

A "typical" settlement is not defined in the Core rulebook.

In such cases, the most reasonable course of action is referring to a dictionary.

"1. of the nature of or serving as a type or representative specimen."

Thus, our typical settlement is representative of most settlements. Thus, this should apply to most settlements. Thus, in most games, you should be able to purchase level+1 weapons.

If "typical" meant everywhere then why did they bother spelling it out like that?

Because, right now, it means "most of the time, this is the case, but the DM is free to make an exception".

Just like, most of the time, you're free to take levels in Solarian, but the DM is free to make an exception by banning the class for campaign-specific thematic reasons or something similar.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
bookrat wrote:
If you play any other game than starting at Absolom Station, you're playing outside the assumptions of the game. Got it.
Nope. Because if you start in «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» you are starting in a «typical» settlement. Which means the game assumes you buy lvl+1

And what would «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» even be?

A "typical" settlement is not defined in the Core rulebook.

Typical is defined in English. Should be enough unless your GM is tryimg on purpose to not allow you, in which case he doesn't need permission from the book, or assumptions. I'm not allowing shirreens in mine, and that's fine, but it is not the game assumption. So if soneone else cones with a build of a Solarian Shirreen, telling him «yeah, but what if you GM doesn't allow Shireens» isn't helpful. To debate about builds we need a common ground, which is the game's assumptions.

A typical settlement is a settlement that looks and work like a settlement. So every town, city, village, or colony outpost, is a settlement. A prison, an assylum, a beach with a wreckage, or a military camp in deeo enemy territory, is not.

Note that the game didnt even say «average» settlement, but «typical» settlrment. It does not matter if it is big, or small, it does matter if it hass the common elements of a settlement. Like shops, people living there,etc. A mine with slaves working, for example, is not. A mining town, is.


Noodlemancer posted the definition but it doesn't really help any. "Typical" and "Major" in regards to settlements is something made by your GM, meaning you need to ask.

"It does not matter if it is big, or small,"

That's kinda the issue, since "typical" and "major" aren't defined anywhere, meaning they're purely up to the GM. You the player can guess as to what a settlement qualifies as, but it would be just that, guessing.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Noodlemancer posted the definition but it doesn't really help any. "Typical" and "Major" in regards to settlements is something made by your GM, meaning you need to ask.

"It does not matter if it is big, or small,"

That's kinda the issue, since "typical" and "major" aren't defined anywhere, meaning they're purely up to the GM. You the player can guess as to what a settlement qualifies as, but it would be just that, guessing.

Typical, in effect, means normal, meaning the majority of settlements will be such.

This is further reaffirmed by SFS allowing everyone to buy items up to character level +1, clearly showing that it's one of the game's assumptions that you can get items of that level.


Noodlemancer wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Noodlemancer posted the definition but it doesn't really help any. "Typical" and "Major" in regards to settlements is something made by your GM, meaning you need to ask.

"It does not matter if it is big, or small,"

That's kinda the issue, since "typical" and "major" aren't defined anywhere, meaning they're purely up to the GM. You the player can guess as to what a settlement qualifies as, but it would be just that, guessing.

Typical, in effect, means normal, meaning the majority of settlements will be such.

This is further reaffirmed by SFS allowing everyone to buy items up to character level +1, clearly showing that it's one of the game's assumptions that you can get items of that level.

Majority, but not all.

That's the GM equivalent stance (aka giving you permission) in SFS that you can buy items at +1, since otherwise there would be too much table variation due to possibly not having the same GM every time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Noodlemancer wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Noodlemancer posted the definition but it doesn't really help any. "Typical" and "Major" in regards to settlements is something made by your GM, meaning you need to ask.

"It does not matter if it is big, or small,"

That's kinda the issue, since "typical" and "major" aren't defined anywhere, meaning they're purely up to the GM. You the player can guess as to what a settlement qualifies as, but it would be just that, guessing.

Typical, in effect, means normal, meaning the majority of settlements will be such.

This is further reaffirmed by SFS allowing everyone to buy items up to character level +1, clearly showing that it's one of the game's assumptions that you can get items of that level.

Majority, but not all.

That's the GM equivalent stance (aka giving you permission) in SFS that you can buy items at +1, since otherwise there would be too much table variation due to possibly not having the same GM every time.

And majority cases is what you assume when you compare classes to each other. You don't make general comparisons based on rare exceptions like "the DM banned the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat", you make general comparisons based on general cases. Thus, in general comparisons, you assume level+1 gear is available, as that is stated to be the majority case in Starfinder.


Except the purchasing rules are specifically set up that way in saying a GM may restrict what all you can buy.

You can assume +1 gear is available, but you still need to ask your GM if it is. Because it is not actually the majority. If it was the majority and you could purchase +1 equipment anywhere they would have wrote it differently.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Except the purchasing rules are specifically set up that way in saying a GM may restrict what all you can buy.

You can assume +1 gear is available, but you still need to ask your GM if it is. Because it is not actually the majority. If it was the majority and you could purchase +1 equipment anywhere they would have wrote it differently.

Just like the DM can restrict absolutely anything in the game.

The book is very clear that the normal, most common situation is that you have access to +1 gear whenever you are in a settlement, regardless of that settlement's size. Anything else is pointless rules lawyering.


I'd like to state, incase it wasn't clear, that I'm not saying PCs can never buy items at +1 or +2 their appropriate level. I'm saying you have to ask the GM first, that's it. You just can't go into a town and think, hey I can buy something at +1/+2 IL now.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

My God! They have gone into a infinite loop!


Noodlemancer wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Except the purchasing rules are specifically set up that way in saying a GM may restrict what all you can buy.

You can assume +1 gear is available, but you still need to ask your GM if it is. Because it is not actually the majority. If it was the majority and you could purchase +1 equipment anywhere they would have wrote it differently.

Just like the DM can restrict absolutely anything in the game.

The book is very clear that the normal, most common situation is that you have access to +1 gear whenever you are in a settlement, regardless of that settlement's size. Anything else is pointless rules lawyering.

Yes but that would be the GM's personal rules, rather than rules setup whithin the game.

And no, in a "typical" settlement they can buy at +1.

Not in "every" settlement.

Not in any settlement regardless of size.

If it was supposed to be that you could always buy at +1 anywhere and everywhere they would have said so.


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Noodlemancer wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Except the purchasing rules are specifically set up that way in saying a GM may restrict what all you can buy.

You can assume +1 gear is available, but you still need to ask your GM if it is. Because it is not actually the majority. If it was the majority and you could purchase +1 equipment anywhere they would have wrote it differently.

Just like the DM can restrict absolutely anything in the game.

The book is very clear that the normal, most common situation is that you have access to +1 gear whenever you are in a settlement, regardless of that settlement's size. Anything else is pointless rules lawyering.

Yes but that would be the GM's personal rules, rather than rules setup whithin the game.

And no, in a "typical" settlement they can buy at +1.

Not in "every" settlement.

Not in any settlement regardless of size.

If it was supposed to be that you could always buy at +1 anywhere and everywhere they would have said so.

By the simple meaning of the word typical, most settlements are typical. Typical literally means something representative of the majority. By definition, anything that isn't typical is somehow atypical, making it an exception rather than the rule. Maybe some atypical settlements allow only items up to level-3, maybe some allow items up to level+5 - all of that is DM fiat territory, not normal assumptions of the game, which are, in turn, clear from SFS rulings saying level+1 is the norm.


+1 is the norm in SFS, not all of Starfinder.

As you pointed out this is all GM territory, as you the player do not get to decide what is typical or atypical.

As Space Master7 pointed out we're just in a loop at this point as we're not going to convince the other side so I think it'd be best to just drop it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aww you broke it. Its probably for the best...


Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
Noodlemancer wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Noodlemancer posted the definition but it doesn't really help any. "Typical" and "Major" in regards to settlements is something made by your GM, meaning you need to ask.

"It does not matter if it is big, or small,"

That's kinda the issue, since "typical" and "major" aren't defined anywhere, meaning they're purely up to the GM. You the player can guess as to what a settlement qualifies as, but it would be just that, guessing.

Typical, in effect, means normal, meaning the majority of settlements will be such.

This is further reaffirmed by SFS allowing everyone to buy items up to character level +1, clearly showing that it's one of the game's assumptions that you can get items of that level.

Majority, but not all.

That's the GM equivalent stance (aka giving you permission) in SFS that you can buy items at +1, since otherwise there would be too much table variation due to possibly not having the same GM every time.

Your GM might rule that New York isn't a major settlement, or a typical settlement for that matter. Only cities above the size of New York qualify.

That's however, your GM being a d**** for no reason. If he doesn't want you to buy gear above your level, or even better, if he doesn't want you to buy gear, at all, he's perfectly justified to do so. Does not need to play semantics with the (crystal clear) definition of "Typical". I'm banning an entire race, because I want to. I just say so, and it happens.

However, the fact I ban Shirreens is of no help in a discussion about the merits and flaws of, say, the solarian class, and some combo someone built with solarians and shirreen racial traits, because the game assumption is Shirreens are a core class and players can, by default, play shirreens.

So yes, we agree your GM might tell you you can't buy weapons of lvl+1. In fact, I go further: your GM might tell you you can't buy weapons, period. None of them. For example, because you start the game as a slave in a drow ship. That has nothing to do with comparing lvl 1 solarians and lvl 1 soldiers in a vacuum, under the normal game assumptions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Except the purchasing rules are specifically set up that way in saying a GM may restrict what all you can buy.

You can assume +1 gear is available, but you still need to ask your GM if it is. Because it is not actually the majority. If it was the majority and you could purchase +1 equipment anywhere they would have wrote it differently.

Typical is exactly that, the majority. A typical tiger has stripes. A typical car has four wheels. A typical beer has alcohol. A typical basketball player is tall.

Yes, Isaiah Thomas is not tall. But that's because he is not the typical basketball player.

If your GM doesn't want you to buy gear, he doesn't need a rule in the book for that. That's part of the narrative, and he controls that. He can make and adventure about a Planet where a Pacifist AI has taken control of the goverment, has shut down every gun shop, and has seized every black market. That's the plot hook, and is perfectly fine, and even sounds very fun.

It's not the game assumption, tho, and when we compare lvl 1 solarians to lvl 1 soldiers, it's under a set of common rules, based on the game assumptions. Thus, you can buy lvl 2 gear, and you can play a Shirreen. Even if in some campaigns you can't buy gear at all, or in my campaign, you can't play a shirreen.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

At this point I think we can safely say this whole issue about what level one can buy gear has moved completely beyond the intent of this thread and should be moved to its own thread. Especially as it's mostly a back and forth fairly circular argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sedoriku wrote:
At this point I think we can safely say this whole issue about what level one can buy gear has moved completely beyond the intent of this thread and should be moved to its own thread. Especially as it's mostly a back and forth fairly circular argument.

That is what I was trying to say!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sedoriku wrote:
At this point I think we can safely say this whole issue about what level one can buy gear has moved completely beyond the intent of this thread and should be moved to its own thread. Especially as it's mostly a back and forth fairly circular argument.

You are completely right. It entered a typical loop, pun intended :)

I'm ok with letting it die, tho.


avr wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
bookrat wrote:
If you play any other game than starting at Absolom Station, you're playing outside the assumptions of the game. Got it.
Nope. Because if you start in «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» you are starting in a «typical» settlement. Which means the game assumes you buy lvl+1

And what would «a settlement combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a settlement» even be?

A "typical" settlement is not defined in the Core rulebook.

Any place where you should be able to buy or have delivered weapons? Probably not a pacifist monastery or a plantation staffed by slaves of which you were one in your backstory, but most other likely places to start should qualify.

It really shouldn't be nessary to define a "typical" settlement, since is will usually be obvious when the adventure doesn't begin in one.

Is the party:

* in prison?
* in the wilderness?
* on a crashing spaceship?
* in other media res?

If none of these, then they are probably in a settlement.


Noodlemancer wrote:
d'Eon wrote:
Plasma Sheath plus Specialisation is 1.5×level to damage, wasn't there a soldier bit that gave that to their damage as well?
No, Soldiers get Melee Striker (1.5x STR to damage), which scales slower.

Ah, alright.


Fardragon wrote:

It really shouldn't be nessary to define a "typical" settlement, since is will usually be obvious when the adventure doesn't begin in one.

Is the party:

* in prison?
* in the wilderness?
* on a crashing spaceship?
* in other media res?

If none of these, then they are probably in a settlement.

In Dead Suns the PCs start aboard a shuttle. Now do you restrict the PCs to level items only? Level+1? Or level+2? Do you dictate it based on their backstory? The rules say that settlements can either be level, level+1 or level+2, or whatever the GM says. So based on the rules, what do you restrict the PCs to for chargen?


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fardragon wrote:

It really shouldn't be nessary to define a "typical" settlement, since is will usually be obvious when the adventure doesn't begin in one.

Is the party:

* in prison?
* in the wilderness?
* on a crashing spaceship?
* in other media res?

If none of these, then they are probably in a settlement.

In Dead Suns the PCs start aboard a shuttle. Now do you restrict the PCs to level items only? Level+1? Or level+2? Do you dictate it based on their backstory? The rules say that settlements can either be level, level+1 or level+2, or whatever the GM says. So based on the rules, what do you restrict the PCs to for chargen?

They where in a settlement settlement before boarding the shuttle, and they didn't have thier gear removed, so it would be level +1.

It aint rocket science.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fardragon wrote:

It really shouldn't be nessary to define a "typical" settlement, since is will usually be obvious when the adventure doesn't begin in one.

Is the party:

* in prison?
* in the wilderness?
* on a crashing spaceship?
* in other media res?

If none of these, then they are probably in a settlement.

In Dead Suns the PCs start aboard a shuttle. Now do you restrict the PCs to level items only? Level+1? Or level+2? Do you dictate it based on their backstory? The rules say that settlements can either be level, level+1 or level+2, or whatever the GM says. So based on the rules, what do you restrict the PCs to for chargen?

Unless they were stripped of their previously bought (in a settlement) gear when they went into the shuttle, Lvl +1.

If they are, say, prisioners in said shuttle, probably nothing but an orange robe with a number in the back. And maybe a ball and chain, if you want to be funny with tropes.

If they are, say, soldiers or guards in said shuttle, probably the standard gear of a shuttle guard, whatever it is (even if it is above their level). Regardless of they preference, actually (so no doshkos for you, if the guards use clubs and laser pistols, and no laser pistols if the guards use shotguns. No choice for armer either, whatever is the standard armor for that shuttle's guards, that's the PC starting gear).

But for the regular assumption (that is: every player has his own background, they choose what class and theme they want to play, and what they want to buy for their build of chose), then I'll assume they have bought their gear sometime in the past, not in that shuttle. They bought it in a settlement. A regular, normal, run-o-the-mill, typical settlement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The real answer is, of course, "ask your gm."

There's no other answer than that. The book doesn't tell you, ergo, ask your gm.

At best, you might he able to infer from the book, but it doesn't specifically state it, therefore you have to ask your gm.

And all this equivalence of "non L+1 starting gear is the same as banning a class" is utter b$#@*%!!. It's only there to drive a feeling of revulsion in people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In any case, it's WAY off topic here. Please take it to a new thread.

This thread is about Solarian builds, not "Mother may I?" rules discussions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
There's no other answer than that. The book doesn't tell you, ergo, ask your gm.

Rather than meticulously track every arms dealer, contact, guild, and license a character has access to, the game assumes that in typical settlements you can find and purchase anything with an item level no greater than your character level +1, and at major settlements items up to your character level +2. The GM can restrict access to some items (even those of an appropriate level) or make items of a higher level available for purchase (possibly at a greatly increased price or in return for a favor done for the seller).

The book does say. It does not deffine what "typical" is, but it does not define what a "settlement" is. Or what "appropiate" means. It does not deffine what "assumes" means either. That's because the game is written in English and thus the reader is supposed to understand English.

Then, of course, the game allow the GM to work against the assumption, and not allow a certain item, such as a tactical pike, or allow other items even if it's not of an appropiated level yet, such as a blue star plasma sword. Just like in Pathfinder Strange Aeons make the PC start without gear, and just like some GM might allow the PC start with a +5 vorpal sword, because they are storytelling a copycat of King Arthur and Excalibur.

The GM is king, and under his control of the narrative, he can allow or ban entire portions of the book, make house rules, change things, or alter entire chapters of the game's background. I do so, every time I GM. In my current Strange Aeons game, I houseruled magical crafting, I changed automatic bonus progression, added parts (but not all) of Horror Adventures new rules, and forced the PC to take a flaw (a negative trait). Which is cool, but is not what the game assumes, and it does not translate to other people's tables and experiences.

That does not change, in the very least, the English meaning of "assume", "settlement", "typical", "major", and "+1". So when someone brings a build to a debate, under the assumption that they can buy a lvl +1 gear in a typical settlement, they are right. The GM might change that, but the GM might also houserule how solarians work, or whatever. The existance of Rule 0 does not mean every other rule is non-existant, just that Rule 0 can trump the rest. And "you can buy items up to your level +1" is a rule. Which can be trumped by rule 0, just like every other rule can.


Ravingdork wrote:

In any case, it's WAY off topic here. Please take it to a new thread.

This thread is about Solarian builds, not "Mother may I?" rules discussions.

Already done.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Rules say most settlements (at the GM's discretion) will allow level + 1 euipment. Says nothing about chargen though.

What about settlements that have defined item levels? Incident at Absalom Station has a write up for Absalom Station and item level is set at 20.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

If I remember your thread correctly, you were overkilling the to-hit part of the gane (statistically more than enough to hit , I think you said) but you failed several INT and CHA skills, and died because of a lack of resolve.

This build does not overkill in combat (just kill, without the over-), is better at diplomacy, (so will maybe succeed at sone pf the skills your character did) and will have resolve.

You are remembering incorrectly, then, because "overkill" was never an issue. There is really no such thing as "overkill" for attack bonuses in Starfinder. The flat-footed condition is only a -2 penalty to AC, and charging imposes a -2 attack penalty, so you will hardly ever run into a situation against significant opponents wherein you hit on a 2+.

It is completely fallacious reasoning to assume that "Well, I hit *enough*, so Strength 14 as a 1st-level melee character is fine," when you could be hitting even more often with a starting Strength 18.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
While it is obvious that thr build is going to be a worse Soldier than a Soldier, or than a 1-Lvl dip Soldier, he is going to be better than the soldier at other things, like Diplo, or beibg a Solarian.

If you really want Diplomacy that badly, the soldier-dip solarian still receives Sidereal Influence.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
It is completely fallacious reasoning to assume that "Well, I hit *enough*, so Strength 14 as a 1st-level melee character is fine," when you could be hitting even more often with a starting Strength 18.

If a character with a 14 strength hits with every attack because of dice rolls, and a character with an 18 strength misses with every attack because of slightly lower dice rolls, and you had never seen the system before, would you still argue that an 18 stat is better?

What about the (I admit I'm making an assumption here) situation where there are two ranged enemies spread out enough that you can "charge" one and maybe kill it, then you have to weather the attack from the second one (I put charge in quotes because I'm not talking about a game mechanic, but a descriptive term).

And let's talk about the other assumption you're making: that you can get into melee easily against enemies. It is a very real possibility that you might take multiple rounds of incoming fire from ranged combatants. Odds are good that a glass cannon (like what you are emphatically and repeatedly demanding is the *Only* way to make a character) build is going to die, having never even gotten to hit an enemy and having wasted his 18 strength.

Also, and this has me honestly curious, are you saying that my character is bad? Cause that's the impression I get.

It seems odd to me that you're speaking using the voice of experience when the system has been out, what, maybe three weeks at this point? You're making a lot of assumptions, probably based on your anecdotal evidence, and speaking as if it were gospel.

I also have a question about your argued choice of soldier spec: Why would you not take Guard if you're only dipping one level? it lowers ACP and increases Max Dex, and it's the only way I've seen to do so.

[/soapbox]


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:


It is completely fallacious reasoning to assume that "Well, I hit *enough*, so Strength 14 as a 1st-level melee character is fine," when you could be hitting even more often with a starting Strength 18.

That is not fallacious reasoning if someone actually puts some value on anything other than pure ability to hit in melee. Those 4 points of Strength are not free, and need to be weighed against other things you could be getting with them. It is at the expense of something else.

You are basically saying, any character who doesn't have an 18 in either Strength or Dexterity is built wrong. Doesn't matter if they are a Mystic, a Technomancer, or an Envoy, anything. Because you are saying anything other than chance to hit should have zero value to everyone.

You hit *enough* when you are defeating combat challenges presented to you with a comfortable margin of stamina and/or hit points left.
There is a baseline combat expectation assumed by the developers, which is probably closest to what is put out in the various APs, modules and scenarios. There is a point at which your combat ability will be *enough*. Of course individual GMs in home campaigns may change numbers and challenges to taste.

But once you hit that *enough* point, your level of success in each combat (i.e. We defeated the encounter and we recovered all stamina/hit points) can't be improved. Defeating an encounter completely in 2 rounds instead of 3 has no additional value at that point.

At that point Charisma might be useful for those Charisma skills. Or for those cool powers with Saves. Or Int might be useful for more skills in general. And so forth.

I mean, have you considered that at 10th level, a Solarian that started at 14 Str/18 Charisma (the horror) could have a DC 22 for all his powers while still having a 20 Str? Sure he is at -2 to hit and damage in melee, but he has some things he can do that your perfect build Solarian can only dream of. Jedi mind tricks and stunning enemies to prevent them from calling for help come to mind.

That same starting 18 Charisma build is also rolling 1d20+1d6+20 for diplomacy (compared to a 10 Cha Operative's 1d20+13 or a 1d20+13+1d6 on your perfect Solarian build). Seriously, that high Cha Solarian can have a 50% chance of success in a Diplomacy check when an Operative has 0%. How is that not worth something in a party with no other face character?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I miss when folks used to play a game just to have fun and not worry about min/maxing. If ya like yer character, have fun as long as you contribute to the party.

*shrugs* To aid ye in yer future adventure, I would follow John Lynch's advice of dropping Con to balance Int out so ye can get more skills to expand RPing elements.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Can't drop Con to increase Int, Vesk have +2 to it so 12 is already their minimum Con.


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Can't drop Con to increase Int, Vesk have +2 to it so 12 is already their minimum Con.

Blah. Forgot that. Hmmmm Guess if ya focusing on using hammer more than needler, perhaps sacrificing two points from Dex to Int? lol or just roll with just being a little slower than others when folks use multi-syllable words :D Make fer some good RPing.


Wasn't there the option to reduce stats below 10? Or is the order specifically, 'Spend 10 points, then add race bonuses'?


You can drop stats below 10, but it doesn't give you any extra points to spend elsewhere.

The steps are actually:
All abilities start at 10
Add your Race modifiers
Add your Theme modifier
Spend 10 points.
Nothing can be over 18 at level 1


So you don't get anything back for dropping any stat, even from a 12 to a 10.


Correct.

Unless you had spent points outside of race and theme to raise it to 12, but then that's still during character creation and assigning points.


I don't even think there is an option to drop stats at all, although I haven't played with a GM who would mind you dropping stats if you wanted to.

Also, I like having con. It adds to fort saves, and SP.


There is, it's under Flaws on p. 19.

You can pretty much drop it as low as you want, if only to give your character quirks and flaws.


Yeah. Our Android PC has a charisma of 8, because the player wanted an Android that was socially awkward.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Yeah. Our Android PC has a charisma of 8, because the player wanted an Android that was socially awkward.

Commentary: I say we blast the meatbag and save you the trouble, master.


Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
If a character with a 14 strength hits with every attack because of dice rolls, and a character with an 18 strength misses with every attack because of slightly lower dice rolls, and you had never seen the system before, would you still argue that an 18 stat is better?

Yes. Yes, I would. It is almost impossible for that Strength 14 character to ever hit on a natural 2+ against significant opponents. Statistically, the Strength 18 character will hit more often, and for more damage each time.

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
What about the (I admit I'm making an assumption here) situation where there are two ranged enemies spread out enough that you can "charge" one and maybe kill it, then you have to weather the attack from the second one (I put charge in quotes because I'm not talking about a game mechanic, but a descriptive term).

I would still be more comfortable as the Strength 18 melee character because there is less of a chance for me to "waste my turn" by swinging and missing.

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
And let's talk about the other assumption you're making: that you can get into melee easily against enemies. It is a very real possibility that you might take multiple rounds of incoming fire from ranged combatants. Odds are good that a glass cannon (like what you are emphatically and repeatedly demanding is the *Only* way to make a character) build is going to die, having never even gotten to hit an enemy and having wasted his 18 strength.

The soldier dip is for Resolve Points, and from there, the 1st-level Dexterity 14 and the heavy armor should provide decent durability. Raising Constitution provides marginal gains to durability, and that is why I am not so great a fan of it.

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
Also, and this has me honestly curious, are you saying that my character is bad? Cause that's the impression I get.

Yes. Survivability is all well and good, but surviving means less when you *do* less due to reduced accuracy and damage.

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
It seems odd to me that you're speaking using the voice of experience when the system has been out, what, maybe three weeks at this point? You're making a lot of assumptions, probably based on your anecdotal evidence, and speaking as if it were gospel.

I have given both theoretical analysis based on numbers and observed evidence based on actually playing the class. If neither is good enough for you, then there is no other evidence to possibly present.

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
I also have a question about your argued choice of soldier spec: Why would you not take Guard if you're only dipping one level? it lowers ACP and increases Max Dex, and it's the only way I've seen to do so.

+4 initiative and +10 speed are a better deal in my mind than raising maximum Dexterity bonus, particularly because you might not hit your armor's maximum Dexterity bonus anyway.


"It is almost impossible for that Strength 14 character to ever hit on a natural 2+ against significant opponents."

? If you roll a 2 you ain't gonna hit with 18 STR either.

"Yes. Survivability is all well and good, but surviving means less when you *do* less due to reduced accuracy and damage."

No it doesn't, as every other class in the game is built around something other than doing damage. You don't need to be an absolute DPS beast in order to contribute to fights at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
? If you roll a 2 you ain't gonna hit with 18 STR either.

Compared to Strength 18, there are two possible results on the d20 that will spell a hit rather than a miss. That is a non-negligible benefit. The extra damage on a hit is also non-negligible.

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
No it doesn't, as every other class in the game is built around something other than doing damage. You don't need to be an absolute DPS beast in order to contribute to fights at all.

Solarians apparently are built for pure damage, or at least the kind that are actually effective in a fight, with Stellar Rush at 2nd, Plasma Sheath at 4th, and Corona at 6th. If nothing else, they kill people with steady damage.

101 to 150 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Advice / Building a Solarian: Blitz Soldiers need not apply. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.