Isn't it more of a two round wait?
I wouldn't think of it like that. You get to do it on round 3 which may be at the start or finish depending on your initiative.
I guess the answer may be dependent on your actual build. Damage dealing solarians are fine waiting to pop at round 3 as by then most of your support and control elements in the group should have already been put in play. So in the end you should be able to pump more damage out.
As for controlling types? Being ready on round 3 is far too late for all but the most dragging of fights.
All in all I'm tempted to play around and see if Solarians and envoys can answer a lot of the problems I've been seeing in a lot of groups tactics.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Hwalsh
Your analysis is very nice and true, but it does not have any way of setting a value for things like walking on walls, or creating wormholes. You show that in a head to head for damage the soldier is better than a solarian if one wants to maximize saves. I doesn't and CAN'T show that the soldier is better than a solarian as a PACKAGE. Analyses like the one you have done are great and informative, but they can't compare the value of all the various aspects of each class to a point where anything truly conclusive can be achieved.
To hopefully illustrate my point a little better I'll give an brief example. Let us compare the operative class to the soldier class. We know that the soldier class can do far more damage each turn, but the operative has way better skills. So which one is "better?" well the answer is it depends. It depends on how much you values skills vs damage vs mobility vs save etc etc. Also it depends on the situation, the soldier is way better in a fire fight to the death, but the operative is way better at out of combat challenges.
Now lets compare the solarian very briefly to the soldier as that is the class it is closest to. The soldier is much easier to build effectively, can do equal to better damage and has more freedom in attribute spending to allow for more flexibility in skills or saves as each individual desires. The solarian has several abilities that will allow it to have effects similar to spells that a soldier cannot reproduce, or must spend money to do so. So which one is better? Again it's in the eyes of the beholder. To some the value of the solarian's powers outweigh the advantages a soldier has vs a solarian. For others that is not the case. But at the heart of it, it is important to understand that this is based on a PERSONAL VALUATION of the classes AS A WHOLE. It is not something that can be "proved" one way or another by math.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is mostly that the Solarian's gravity stuff has trouble...doing that it's supposed to do. Black Hole can't pull people over their cover or keep them with you once you've pulled them in, it pulls a shorter distance than it's range so you are not even certain to have them in AoO range by when it is done, you don't have any ability to keep them up close when you do...and that was your entire turn doing so.
Which is why I think the Solarian has issues. It's control side has a lot of holes in it that make it difficult for it to really hold a candle to it's damage side. Doubly so when it's one of the top damage classes in the game if you do go damage...but it's control isn't really fantastic compared to alternatives. Like, 'Has a cyro weapon' puts a Soldier generally as a more reliable control alternative since they can prevent guarded steps and halve movement speed with every attack.
Ikiry0: Well, I rather think the point of Black Hole is to pull enemies into better position for attacks by your teammates (or other cooperative uses), not just for the Solarian themselves. One useful function, for example, is to yank an enemy into the area of effect of a spell (like, say, Grease at lower levels).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ hwalsh
I have not ever said that the solarian powers/class abilities were better or worse than the soldiers. That is, as you point out, a matter of PREFERENCE. You are making my point on one hand then ignoring it and returning to your argument. I have acknowledged that the solarian has a "deficiency" as you have called it. My point is that ALL classes have deficiencies. The solarian's particular deficiencies you have illustrated are saves, difficulty in efficiently building, and a lack of skill points. What you can't do, and no one can, is prove one way or the other that the solarian package is less AS A WHOLE than any other class.
You have an opinion. You have done some analysis and come to a conclusion that works for you. That is great! You've shared your opinion and your analysis. Also great, and very much appreciated. But you don't seem to want to allow anyone else to have a differing opinion and can't seem to acknowledge that there is room for any opinion other than your own. Lots of people agree with you, your evidence is compelling, but there are also lots of people to disagree with you and have shared their reasons, some of which are also compelling. Please have the respect for other people to allow them to disagree with you without attacking them.
Black hole can be used to great effect if your teammates will work with you closely as well. For instance instead of attacking enemies behind cover they can ready an action to fire at any enemy that comes out of cover. If you manage to pull one out they would get assailed immediately by your teammates to great effect.
I don't understand why only damage is really being talked about. Solarian has quite a few crowd-control abilities and other neat things.
They can literally pull enemies out of cover. Dazzle all enemies in a 60-by-60 foot area with no save. Walk and run on walls for a round, half fall damage, get pretty good resistances to combat maneuvers and good bonuses to some Athletics checks. The list goes on.
Just because direct damage of, "I wanna hit it with my sword" isn't the absolute best doesn't mean it's somehow gimped or lesser.
The problem is that:
1) Solarian is a fighter
2) Each of these abilities require a standard action
3) The advantage caused by many of these abilities only lasts a round
This is an anti-pattern because the fighter can't fight while using these abilities and can't capitalize on the advantages that he creates. It should be obvious why the photon powers are more useful: they help a fighter class fight whereas the benefits of graviton are mutually exclusive with the class's primary role and yet they're not reliable enough to make a class that specializes in crowd control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an anti-pattern because the fighter can't fight while using these abilities and can't capitalize on the advantages that he creates. It should be obvious why the photon powers are more useful: they help a fighter class fight whereas the benefits of graviton are mutually exclusive with the class's primary role and yet they're not reliable enough to make a class that specializes in crowd control.
The Solarian isn't JUST a fighter. They may not be able to capitalize on the powers he creates, but the rest of the party can. Working well within a team is just as important, or even more so, than raw damage output.
If you want damage output, go Soldier. Solarian is useful for those who want to do damage while also supporting the rest of the party. You aren't alone, don't play like you are.
If, for example, the Solarian could lock an opponent down easily for 3-5 turns (there is one power which may be able to do this, but math shows it will only hold an enemy for 1-2 at maximum) then it could be classified as a support class, however it is NOT a support class and cannot properly function as a support class.
Did I say it was a support class? I said it's "not JUST a fighter." Does that mean it's JUST a support class? Absolutely not. It is a fighter with support options.
Don't twist what I say. Aka, the very same thing you were accusing another person of doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Solarian's support powers are incredibly bad. While they aren't "just a Fighter" they lack even the rudimentary abilities of other classes to offer support.
If, for example, the Solarian could lock an opponent down easily for 3-5 turns (there is one power which may be able to do this, but math shows it will only hold an enemy for 1-2 at maximum) then it could be classified as a support class, however it is NOT a support class and cannot properly function as a support class.Did I say it was a support class? I said it's "not JUST a fighter." Does that mean it's JUST a support class? Absolutely not. It is a fighter with support options.
Don't twist what I say. Aka, the very same thing you were accusing another person of doing.
How about you stop comparing them to other classes? A Solarian is not a Soldier. A Solarian is not Mystic. A Solarian is not a Technomancer.
A Solarian is a Solarian, so obviously if you expect it to be something else, you're going to be disappointed.
That also means that if you're going to determine if something is "gimped" or not, you have to look at more than just numbers and math. You're throwing the baby Solarian out with the bath water when you just ignore or put a blanket "they suck" statement on it's other, non-quantifiable abilities.
If you don't like the class because you can't optimize it to the max, then that's fine. I'm not gonna tell you what you can and can't play and enjoy. But don't call it "gimped" just because you don't like it.
To be fair, that's not what hwalsh is saying, all he's saying is that the solarian's support abilities aren't great. He hasn't said that solarian's suck, he just wants a buff. Some of that is debatable, but let's all try to be nice and hear each other's concerns/thoughts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel what Azalah is saying, frankly. Often a lot of these class-to-class comparisons rely on eliding huge tracts of context and possibility, which HWalsh insists they are not doing but which they are totally -- and constantly -- doing. This makes the whole exercise not only less credible but potentially actively toxic, and it's understandable to lose patience with it, especially with a poster who tries to bludgeon people into submission with walls of text and sheer degree-of-stridency that seems more consistent with an effort to exhaust than to actually discuss. HWalsh's posts often bounce off me because they're so dense with not-even-wrong assumptions that it's hard to know where to start.
Aside from that, one big thing that goes by the wayside sometimes, but should not, is that Starfinder is quite explicitly a system that doesn't treat the math as absolute and allows GMs to adapt the numbers to their play-style and what they think will work at their table. This is a quite crucial factor that some posters who seem to think they are analyzing a CRPG or an engineering system not only do not grasp, but actively refuse to grasp because it gets in the way of whatever pre-cooked conclusion they've reached, usually based on their own thin slice of anecdotal experience (if even that) which they would like to be definitive of the system.
HWalsh keeps bemoaning that Paizo doesn't reply to their demands, to their monotonous insistence that they will not be satisfied until there's an Unchained Solarian. Maybe there will be at some point, but I completely get why they don't reply. I wouldn't either.
|
The Solarian is meant to be a “fighter with options” instead of a “fighter who fights,” akin to the way most role playing games will have a Nature Skill Guy, a Holy Warrior Guy, a Light Weapon Mobility Guy, or a Bare Handed Kung-Fu Guy who will often lag behind the Fighter Who Fights Guy in terms of naked mechanical combat numbers. This is quite fun for a lot of players who don’t mind giving up a bit of naked mechanical combat numbers so long as the “with options” part of the class work as intended.
The Solarian’s “options” as part of their “fighter with options” design just don’t seem up to par:
• Multiple Attribute Dependency
• Low number of Skill Ranks per Level
• Battlefield Control powers that don’t quite work as intended
• Very limited class feature options*
• Armor Proficiency (Heavy) seems like a compulsory “Feat Tax”
I really think that if I run Starfinder as a home game, I’m going to House Rule that Skill Adept adds a free rank in each Skill selected. I’m also going to let them gain a second Solar Manifestation at Level 5, but at five levels less in effectiveness (So a Level 6 Solarian could have a 2d6 Weapon and +1 AC or +1 AC Resist 5 Armor and a 1d6 Weapon).
* [small]This is, undoubtedly, expand with future sourcebooks. But it’s really limited now, when compared to the smorgasbord class features for Mechanics, Operatives, and Envoys; Bonus feat bonanza of Soldiers; or the Spell Lists of Mystics and Envoys.[/small]
Batgirl_III: I think the effectiveness of a lot of Revelations depends on the level of familiarity with tactical rules and how much of that detail is in your game.
Personally, although I have some ideas for homebrew Revelations -- I would love to work up some version of Temporal Fugue from Roger Zelazny's Creatures of Light and Darkness as a Graviton power -- I'm not confident in truly evaluating the usefulness of some of the finer-grained Revelations yet (and I don't believe that many of the people affecting that kind of confidence have really earned it either) and speaking as someone who's already had to make some hard choice in building a Solarian, I can't agree just yet that there aren't enough of them; they seem to stack up pretty well, especially given their raw power level, with Tricks or Improvisations or Gear Boosts.
If I were to house-rule something for Solarians I think it would be something simple at this stage, like letting them use Sidereal Influence in combat.
Ceejay - I disagree with you, and I feel you haven't offered enough of a compelling argument for your rebuttals to be considered for pure comment. There just isn't enough substance in your replies for me to discuss it.
You're entirely within your rights to feel that way, of course. For my part, I think your posts rely on an illusion of "substance" without actually providing it, because discussing the underlying assumptions of your math with you is a largely futile exercise.
There are people here I would go into detail with. Given what I've seen of you, you aren't going to be one of them, because it simply isn't worth my time. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Aside from that, one big thing that goes by the wayside sometimes, but should not, is that Starfinder is quite explicitly a system that doesn't treat the math as absolute and allows GMs to adapt the numbers to their play-style and what they think will work at their table.
The caveat to this is that everyone plays through their own styles and numbers. It's also not a unique feature of Starfinder.
Thus when discussing the values of classes at a table and how the game is written with those who are not at your table you can only really work with what's in front of you, which is to say, the math.
I for one am as well aware of Hwalsh's stubbornness as much as anyone. Yet, I won't deny that he has crunched the numbers.
For myself, while I am diving neck deep into starfinder as a system understood years ago that numbers is merely a part of the tabletop animal when talking about success in combat. Things like action economy, positioning, excellent party composition, and overall teamwork all play a role. That takes time, a whole lot of writing, and many many dead goblins. So for now I'm keeping an arm's distance and gathering notes.
The caveat to this is that everyone plays through their own styles and numbers. It's also not a unique feature of Starfinder.
Aside from that, one big thing that goes by the wayside sometimes, but should not, is that Starfinder is quite explicitly a system that doesn't treat the math as absolute and allows GMs to adapt the numbers to their play-style and what they think will work at their table.
True dat, and I wouldn't claim otherwise. But I think it's a hazard of "crunchy" systems for people to get absorbed in "crunching the numbers" and to completely forget that the numbers aren't a be-all and end-all, and that context and story matter hugely to how they actually play out. Even seemingly-minor differences in how a table approaches a story can make a decisive difference in how class mechanics work: cf. my earlier exchange with Quindraco, who is quite clearly witnessing Solarian play in a vastly different context from my own experience.
Thus when discussing the values of classes at a table and how the game is written with those who are not at your table you can only really work with what's in front of you, which is to say, the math.
I would flip this and say that if malleability and story and human interaction are taken to be part of what's in front of you (as they necessarily should and must be, as they are just factually the key part of the picture), it should teach you to put "the math" in context and in perspective and be restrained in pronouncements about what it really defines about "the system."
I get that this is harder to do for people coming from, say, STEM and engineering and programming backgrounds who would like to think they're analyzing the inputs and outputs of relatively simple user systems, the way they do in their day jobs. But they aren't. I think it's actually quite crucial to remember this; keeping it in view short-circuits some of the more toxic munchkin-isms that, aside from annoying people, also turn them off from playing.
(And I'm not saying the math is irrelevant, don't get me wrong. Just that it should be weighed in balance and in perspective.)
. . . for now I'm keeping an arm's distance and gathering notes.
Good thinking. :D
We'll have to agree to disagree.Gladly. I feel the same way towards you in this matter. Have a good day.
You too. No hard feelings.
None at all. It is an internet debate. Never worth enough to get overly angry.You too. No hard feelings.We'll have to agree to disagree.Gladly. I feel the same way towards you in this matter. Have a good day.
We reach. :D
In addition to all of that I ran literally over one hundred combats in testing. Not simulated, we sat down and ran through them, with different parties, trying different tactics, against different enemies.
Out of curiosity do you have any records of those written, recorded or otherwise?
I think I see one potential difference between HWalsh and myself.
I have run (and played in) 0 adventures-as-written, from Dead Suns or SRS.
100% of my experience comes from running or playing in homebrew adventures tailored to a specific party that draw liberally from Paizo products but do not use them verbatim.
I do wonder how much of a difference that makes. It would seem, quite a bit. I don't know what to say about the over-a-hundred sample combats thing because it's largely meaningless without context and detail.
(I'm not much impressed by claims about running in a "very good home game," which as pertains to general claims about the system is not super-meaningful. I'm running a "very good home game" at this moment wherein we're having a metric @&!%-load of fun, doesn't mean I think I'm qualified to demand things from Paizo or define how the system will work for other people.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the graviton modes in a Star Wars style setting are going to much more viable than folks are giving them credit for.
There’s no railings in Star Wars for the most part and they regularly have strings on high platforms and across elevator shafts and around into for space hangars.
For my part, I saw a Solarian pull 3 enemies from out of cover after flanking them. This allowed his companions and some NPCs shoot them without the cover advantage.
The same Solarian pulled an enemy into the the middle of an elevator shaft and it fell three stories. It’s a complicated situation, you’ll need to read the Legendary planets AP to get full gist of why that fight is happening.
As is, I haven’t read anywhere in the setting of the game where there are safety railings etc. Nothings to say Starfinder isn’t similar to the Star Wars universe thematically.
Having said that, I’d like to see that particular revelation be enabled to work in both directions. Either a pull or a push. Effectively the Solarian draws a well of gravity to him during combat but then relases it like a magnetic coil eruption that cause the huge solar flares in the sun. It pushes enemies away if you want, or you could still use it to pull them.
Having said that, I’d like to see that particular revelation be enabled to work in both directions. Either a pull or a push.
That's a really good idea, actually.
|
|
I think I see one potential difference between HWalsh and myself.
I have run (and played in) 0 adventures-as-written, from Dead Suns or SRS.
100% of my experience comes from running or playing in homebrew adventures tailored to a specific party that draw liberally from Paizo products but do not use them verbatim.
I do wonder how much of a difference that makes. It would seem, quite a bit. I don't know what to say about the over-a-hundred sample combats thing because it's largely meaningless without context and detail.
(I'm not much impressed by claims about running in a "very good home game," which as pertains to general claims about the system is not super-meaningful. I'm running a "very good home game" at this moment wherein we're having a metric @&!%-load of fun, doesn't mean I think I'm qualified to demand things from Paizo or define how the system will work for other people.)
And this is where you are still blind to your own bias.
You’re running games that deliberately cater to things. This means you could well be compensating for poor game design.
I think there’s an issue when the game is run as is, using modules designed by the developers with their rule set in mind.
And before you go off on your “game developers are only human too” rant, remember that this is exoeri need by people running multiple modules from multiple authors across multiple developers.
When the sample size is large and disparate in nature, and it is presenting issues from a number of different players, then that means there is some substance to the claims being made.
You however, still insists on arguing from your own game that you are homebrewing and modifying to ensure your friends are having fun.
That’s a pretty weak position to argue from in all honesty.
You’re running games that deliberately cater to things.
Yes. It's because I take deliberately catering to your table to be the most basic possible part of the exercise. Most certainly this is part of my "bias." Quite frankly this wouldn't be a hobby if I couldn't do it.
|
|
You’re running games that deliberately cater to things.Yes. It's because I take deliberately catering to your table to be a basic part of the exercise. Most certainly this is part of my "bias." Quite frankly this wouldn't be a hobby if I couldn't do it.
Absolutely, I 100% agree with you and aplaud you for doing so.
But then you also come on here and argue against folks who have issues with the game because they run it unmodified.
But then you also come on here and argue against folks who have issues with the game because they run it unmodified.
On account of I'm not convinced "running it unmodified" (or rather "running it without attempting to customize the story and scenario," which is what we're actually talking about) should be the thing the system is judged by, given that it's basically designed to be adapted to your player group.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to graviton stuff.
Situations where graviton mode can be great,
- zero G environments. Pulling the enemy off the wall leaving them floating in space and possible accelerating to a bad place.
- any situation where there’s dangerous environmental factors that you pull them into (quicksand, head vents, electric fences, laser traps, mine fields to name some)
- when the Solarian is above the targets. If he’s on the ceiling through suction boots or the Solarian ability and he just lifts the enemy up and then drops them again. Even more effective if his companions have readied actions to shoot the enemy mid lift. This even works if the Solarian is on a balcony above them.
- if the enemy is on a cliff or ledge.
- if an enemy is flying
Those are just ones I can think of and that’s only dealing with the one power everyone’s seems to whinge about.
|
|
But then you also come on here and argue against folks who have issues with the game because they run it unmodified.On account of I'm not convinced "running it unmodified" should be the thing the system is judged by, given that it's basically designed to be adapted to your player group.
But it should work both ways.
There are people who run games where the world is balanced according to the he players. (That’s you)
Then there are people who run games where the world exists outside of the players.
There’s are lots and lots of people in the second category. The Adventure paths and society games are in fact written to cater for that group.
There’s are general guidelines and tactics for the enemies because they think completely independently of the players.
Changing those tactics or the scenario so your players will do well puts you in category one.
It’s a fun way to play, for sure. But you’re arguing from a perspective of blindness in regards to the other camp.
There are people who run games where the world is balanced according to the he players. (That’s you)
Not really. I run games balanced according to the table, which is an aggregate of the GM and the players. Why wouldn't you? Simple matter of running a Session Zero, figuring out what everyone wants from the table and planning that way.
there are people who run games where the world exists outside of the players.
... aaand we've gone off into irrelevancies. Tailoring a game to your table doesn't mean a world doesn't exist outside your players. That's an extremely silly thing to claim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. I run games balanced according to the table, which is an aggregate of the GM and the players. Why wouldn't you?
Society play, learning the system, testing the system for one reason or another, using it as a foundation to test your own writings for the system.
Well, I have to give it to you, HWalsh. That's... actually a pretty neat idea.
I wonder how taking the Reflection revelation at 6th level will affect focus firing decisions in Society play.
It seems like Total Defense + Reflection is a good way to discourage ranged attacks. Combine it with Blazing Orbit at 8th level and you also have a way to discourage melee attacks after taking a beating.
It also leads to an interesting option where you deliberately move out into the open but within 20-30 feet of enemies in a flanking position. Take the total defense action. If they willingly move out to melee you, you've just gotten the effect of Black Hole with KAC equivalent to staying in cover. If they shoot you, you've got reasonable odds to hit back.
They might also just ignore you. At which point an ally can move to behind you and use you for cover while flanking the enemy. Helps to coordinate your initiative to just before your next ally.
Next turn use the superior positioning to Stellar Rush with a reach weapon and move back to cover. Or alternatively use a Graviton control power (Time Dilation or Black Hole) and move back to cover.
There types of choices probably won't be winning any damage per round competitions, but they're at least interesting I think. Certainly more fun that sitting in cover and throwing a Starknife if its not safe to go all out and just melee because of focus fire.
Society play, learning the system, testing the system for one reason or another, using it as a foundation to test your own writings for the system.
Not really. I run games balanced according to the table, which is an aggregate of the GM and the players. Why wouldn't you?
Don't much care about Society play and neither does most of the paying audience. Learning the system is not separable from having a table where everyone is up front about what they want from the game. "Using it as a foundation to test your own writings for the system" I could maybe get behind for that extremely small subset of people who will wind up producing content for Paizo or a third party publisher, not really relevant to the rest of us.
Aaaaaaand point missed.
Your claim that I run a game where there isn't a world outside the players is flatly false. It's not "point missed." You made a fallacious claim. It's not the end of the world to own up to it and move on.
How the hell do,you know how much of the playing audience is outside society play?
Let me put it this way: do you seriously believe fifty percent or more of the paying audience is in Society play?
Come on. Let's be real. I don't believe you believe that. I'm running on the assumption we all have the common sense to know that Organized Play is a niche.