Search Posts
Actually, it does NOT say the same.
The way it's written is also vague. You're reading it as Move Action OR Standard Action OR Full Attack. However, it can also be read as (Move Action AND Standard Action) OR Full Attack. It's worth noting those are the same options that a normal character has.
This and other events prove that good society play can be had virtually, as well as in person. I hope this event convinces Paizo to offer, or encourage, a great deal more virtual play. Further, I hope they will have a virtual PaizoCon every year, even if they also have a physical one.
I hope it's bigger than that and that they put some substance in it. Jim
I agree the final boss is way overpowered -- even the lower tier boss would be too much for most higher tier parties. I ran this last night and it could have been a TPK. With high hit points, high armor class, and being incorporeal, the party was only slowly making headway against him while he was ripping them up. The only time he missed them was when he rolled a 1 and he averaged about 20 damage every time. Had I played him to the hilt, the party's only hope of success or survival would have been to avoid him by investigating things in a different direction. Once they were fighting him, their best hope of survival would have been to scatter and run, then 1 (maybe 2) might survive. If you're running this and want your party to have a chance, skip the wisps and hint at ways the could skip the warning/trap gem. Jim
Even a moderate gunner firing has more impact on the fight than the captain. Hand everyone a gun I would agree, especially when you typically have a fairly small ship crew (4-7). You're generally better off with more gunners. Obviously the importance varies with ship and situation. However, INMSHO, the position importance is often something like:
If you're in combat and have multiple weapons, I wouldn't recommend tying a person up as captain unless you have 5+/6+ people or you're really having a hard time with DCs. Even in the latter chance, a moderate chance of 2-3 people hitting is better than a good chance of one person hitting.
Most of those seem reasonable. However, it would vary a lot by ship. Some designers, races, or maintainers might intentionally, physically isolate some of these systems for safety and security. Additionally, some of these systems (especially power core and venting) might have hard-wired safety controls that prevent extremely dangerous actions via remote access (e.g. via the computer vs. physical access). Some industrial controls systems have such today and circumventing them is harder than gaining regular access.
Something useful and non repetitive for the captain science officer and engineer to do would be nice.Their actions seem just as repeatative as gunners and pilots, though the latter at least gets to chose from a list of maneuvers, but they’re still just making piloting checks Certainly agency and affect are important. However, in the interest of speeding space combat, I think they could do away with some points of decision. For instance, they could effectively eliminate the captain's role because otherwise, you have to react to the possibility that he could jump in any phase. I'd also suggest they change the situation where the ship gives a couple "pluses" that can be applied in different places. That creates another decision/discussion point that slows the game. It would be better if those pluses either applied to everything or just to specific positions.
For ramming, I'd suggest something like the following: - Have the ship trying to ram do a piloting check with a moderately high difficulty and much harder for a big ship than a small ship. If they succeed, it's a solid hit. If they fail, but are close it's a grazing hit. If they fail, they miss.- Calculate the "closing speed of the ships." If they're going pretty much head on, it's A + B. If A is chasing B, it's A-B. If it's some other angle, you might do (A+B)/2. - Calculate the "damage points" as 25-50% of the (starting) hull points of the ship actually (intentionally) ramming. - If it was a solid hit, the damage is (closing speed + damage points)/2 - If a glancing hit, damage is (closing speed + damage points)/4 Note, this could cause massive damage, but that's what one should expect from two ships colliding at high speed. For example, say you have a tier 2 Drake going speed 10 ram a ship head-on that's going 8. Closing speed is 18. Damage points is 50% of the Drake's 55 HP, so 27. If it's a solid hit, each ship takes 45 damage to the facing shield. That would almost cripple the Drake and possibly its target. NOT a tactic to be undertaken lightly, but if you're desperate ... Jim
You're right there are a lot of weapons in each category that seem almost identical. That's because in appears they basically said, "We need a few dozen weapons in each group spread across the tiers." So, they just inched up in the dice and/or special effects and then made up adjectives for them. It really just seems a bit 'over the top' with little real benefit. I also noted the very cheap "Pathfinder Backpack" (aka Handy Haversack). That could contribute to real silliness -- why choose which weapons to use -- carry all of them. I get that equipment was the focus of this book, but it was a bit disappointing. Compare it to your "Ultimate Equipment (UE)." UE is 400 pages and weapons make up only 31 pages (probably about 50 if you count magical weapons) of that, so about 15%. Armory is only 164 pages and weapons tables and explanations make up 60 pages of that (about 35%). While that means there are a HUGE number of weapons, it means we got a WHOLE lot less of other stuff. Perhaps part of my frustration is that the (seeming) overemphasis on weapons that are almost identical suggests that the primary focus of the game is poring over the books to find the exact optimal combination of skills and weapons to do the most damage in every situation, role-playing be hanged. I was also hoping that they'd introduce (physical) shields -- riot shields, etc. They keep adding swords and axes to a world where you could get shot before you get within 50', so they obviously want melee to be a big part of the game. So why not shields? Does that make it seem to "medieval?" But axes don't?
And by difficult enemy you mean a level appropriate enemy right? Since as far as I've seen in the math a "full bab" class is sitting at about the 50% mark for all their primary attacks against an enemy equal level. \ I found it quite reasonable. I like having the option of multiple attacks even if they become less likely.
A few quick observations from playing the Doomsday playtest part #1: - The rule book is NOT well or intuitively organized. I noticed this a bit in character creation, but I had the time to find stuff. During the game, everyone was spending time flipping all through the book looking for rules. In part that was because we didn't know the rules but we all felt that things weren't where anyone would reasonably expect them to be. - Cantrips (e.g. telekinetic projectile) seem overpowered. That's pretty good damage and can be used many times. - The poison seemed awful tough -- that's what nearly killed our players several times. Perhaps this was just because SO many things in there had poison.
I was very excited to get the Armory (especially since Paizo screwed up my subscription and it took me over 3 weeks, 4 e-mails, and several phones calls to get it). Now that I've gotten it and perused it, it is interesting and I'll definitely dig more. However, the sheer number of weapons of every type and level just seems silly. I could imagine the creators sitting around in a circle saying, "OK, we need 15 weapons in this group -- what random adjectives should we use this time?" In particular, I'll bust a gut if, in some adventure the box text says, "You're in a small town XYZ. If you need to buy any weapons or equipment you can." Because it would take a store the size of Ikea to stock all those weapons. They should really be limited in some way. For example, some could be rare and only available in huge places (like the station). Some could be super duper rare except on the planet they come from. They also should NOT all be compatible (every one that uses batteries using the same one). Anyway, so the sheer number of weapons is silly. More than that, it took up a HUGE percentage of the book. I would have liked a lot more equipment or options of OTHER kinds. In particular, I would have loved to have multiple options for things that I could put on my mechanic drone, lots more computer options, perhaps more options that would aid on a starship, etc. Jim
I agree. In most situations, you need (at least) 2 gunners. I think having a captain is often a complication (since they can pretty much decide to act at any time) with little benefit. I'd agree that it's usually better to have that character be a gunner. The only required position in starship operations is pilot (unless you're just floating). If it's combat, you need gunner(s). Everything else is situational.
We can argue forever about how to interpret the instructions in the guide but the extent of discussion and confusion on this issue makes it blindingly obvious that something needs to be done. The form isn't clear unto itself and the words don't make it clear. If they did, this discussion thread wouldn't exist or would only have 1 question, 1 answer, and 10 "yep, that's right" comments. The best solution is probably to change the chronicle sheet so it makes this clear. The alternate (or additional) solution is to change/expand the text in the Society Guide so that it clearly shows (with highlighted field numbers) what goes in those fields, as it does for most other fields. Jim
In general the starship combat is OK, but not great. I found their decision to have 4 (uneven) shield/weapon arcs very strange (since you're using a hex map. Why not 6 arcs (one for each face) or 2 (front and back)? 4 arcs is just a bizarre choice. Combat can move slowly. I think this is, in large part, because it's designed so that everyone participates. This gives the crew a lot of choices and those all take time. If the captain actual gives general (strategic) guidance for the round that can help, though each position can ultimately do what they want. Additionally, the positions could briefly say what they need to (hopefully) cut down discussion throughout the phases. For example, a gunner on a FWD gun might say, "Get me in arc and I'll blow him out of the sky" or the captain might say, "Engineer, get us more shields if you can." As GM I try to move it along by a few things:
2) Trying to drive/facilitate the phases with questions:
3) If the ship gives 1 or more pluses, just let people use them when it comes to their roll or have someone allocate at start. Otherwise, that can turn into a whole discussion, "Wait, should I use that +1 here or should we save that for the pilot?" Those steps help, but you don't want to dictate so it can still get really slow sometimes, especially if the crew is debating.
A few things I'd like to see them change in any updates:
- Simplify the critical damage to just "damaged" or "destroyed." - Shift to either 6 arcs or 2. Note, you could have 2 shield arcs, but have 4 (or 6) weapon arcs. - Change to 5 distinct phases:
- Add a limit on how far away (from the launching ship) a seeking weapon works or how many rounds it runs. As it is now, you could launch a missile at a ship and have it literally follow them across the entire universe (as long as it doesn't hit, maintains target lock, etc.).
I agree: Remote hack isn't special if it only allows you to connect to devices that you could already connect to (as pretty much everything is going to be wireless).You're also right about shielding. Sensitive systems could easily add protections to protect against this (as some systems do today). Characters at my table where talking about building a Faraday cage just the other day ...
When is this supposed to be available? I'm not seeing a date anywhere.
It does provide for running Eoxian PCs. Most Borai come from Eox. :p You are quite correct. I didn't pay that much attention to those. I was still hoping for ghoul or zombie PCs ...
I enjoy the book, but it is primarily a resource for home campaigns. I was disappointed that it didn't include info on running some kind of Eoxian PC, yet included 6 other new races. I'm anxious to see an option to run a ghoul or a zombie (if done well).
I guess my thought is kind of a "happy medium." They're adults and have basic skills so that they can reasonably function as adults. If an android does that, it's probably a loss for the company. However, if the android is willing to work for free for a year or two in exchange for food, lodging, more training, and maybe transportation, then the company might make up the cost. In part the company may also hope for later profits if the android needs "repairs" or upgrades that the company offers -- guaranteed compatible with your DNA.
Is it stated somewhere that all androids are 'born' as babies? I envision some basically grown as bodies until adulthood, then a consciousness is put in them, along with some memories/training. So, the android is then 'born' (becomes conscious) as an adult. In that scenario, they could just leave, but they might choose an option where they work as an 'intern' with the manufacturer for a few years to get more training and skills.
That's a reasonable way of looking at it, though if the drone just took 15 damage, it probably has a whole bunch of parts that need repaired to amount to that 15 damage.
Oh, I certainly don't think it's game-breaking, but the spell description confuses the issue with its max bulk comment.
Does mending act as a healing spell on mechanics' drones? I've heard it discussed 3 ways:
2) No, they exceed the bulk limitations of mending 3) Sometimes -- it might work on small, spy drones, but not on larger drones I tend to like option #1, but I'd like to know if there's a clear answer, especially for organized play. Option #3 sounds terrible since it would likely drive everyone to smaller drones.
One thoughts on the ramming. I know the rules currently say you can't do it and generally it'd be a bad idea. However, years ago I played a lot of Star Fleet Battles. That, too, had a rule that the speeds and distances involved prevented anyone from ramming. I developed some rules for a race that, due to race-specific technology, COULD ram and created the ramming rules for that. Steve Cole, the SFB driving force, initially rejected the idea and the race, but later published my rules (almost verbatim) as an optional rule in the monthly newsletter. So, who knows, maybe someday we'll have an option to ram ....
I guess I lumped defenses and countermeasures together (in part since in computer security today we often call those defenses countermeasures). As far as hacking back, one listed countermeasure is a virus, which can affect the computer you're hacking from. Having the computer actively hack back might upset game mechanics, but it's certainly the way technology is going today -- there are many discussions that we'll all have to have computer defenses with strong AI because a lot of the attacks will have strong AI and human won't be able to keep up.
I don't recall a specific rule on this, but I'd probably say they need to do an initial computer check to orient themselves to the system. If they barely succeed, they might know it has something, but not exactly what. If they succeed by a lot, they'd know the details. In any case, they'd need multiple computer checks (or much harder computer checks) to get around the countermeasures. Depending on the countermeasure, if they fail, the system might fry itself, set off alarms, delete data, totally encrypt the data, or even try to 'hack back' at other computers (i.e. the PC's in the area).
Again, I'm trying to rehash scenarios or discuss specific tactics -- I was clarifying an inaccurate rules interpretation. Perhaps some other other term would be clearer, but it's essentially changing the current balance of the shields to something else. And, one of the two options is to balance everything equally. Remember specific scenarios as conveniently as you wish.
Sure, it says 'repeat,' but you're then working with a very different field (W&X vs. L) so the 'repeat' isn't really clear. If you stuck too hard to that 'repeat' you'd be trying to initial next to each field in X (because that's part of the process they're telling you to repeat). Getting it clarified is a good idea. Hence the question in the first place.
Flagging to move to rules forum. Good call. I wasn't, at first, aware of that forum.
Absolutely, PCs can split shields wherever they wish. The stats provided in the starship sheets represent a roughly even distribution, just because we need to have some numbers on the base sheet. I agree, and having those default shield allocation values in the guide (and a few adventures) makes it a tad bit easier for people doing starship combat for the first time -- one less thing for them to think about at first. However, once a crew is familiar with the mechanics, they may find that in many situations some other allocation makes more sense to the combat at hand.
Again, just clarifying the rules on this because they're not clear. FWIW, many current missile systems DO have limits on how many missiles they can keep guiding and many other starship combat systems DO have limits on how many missiles a given launcher/ship can control. Alternately, most missile systems intended for ship-to-ship (or air-to-air) combat DO have a finite range that the missile can get from the launching ship before it simply dies, whether due to missile range or some safety to prevent it just 'going rogue' and crashing into something other than the target. For example, if friendly fighter were to engage a target over the US and the target is able to outrun the missile, the missile will NOT keep following the target 1000 miles back to its base.
Again, more interested in clarifying that a ship crew DOES have this option than in the application of the tactic. As far as tactically, it would probably be more prudent to 18/12/12/8 or some such (note that the default load out is uneven -- with 15/10/10/15 -- it's not 13/12/12/13). The entire point is, AT THE MOMENT COMBAT BEGINS, the crew has the option of splitting the total shield points (50 in this case) out however they want among the 4 shields as long as they abide by the restriction (Shields Pg 302) that no quadrant can be assigned less than 10% of the total number of shield available. Heck, if they start out facing AWAY from the enemy and just plan to run, they may want to allocate them F5/P10/S10/A25. That might be the best plan tactically for any number of reasons -- if they either have no weapons, if they fear the arrival of reinforcements from the same place the enemy came from, or ir their weapons are longer range than the enemy's and they just want to keep the enemy from getting close enough to use their shorter range (but more numerous) weapons.
I'm not suggesting it's necessarily a great idea (especially if done to this degree). I'm just trying to clarify the rules on this.
That certainly sounds reasonable.
Yes, thanks for that.
Critical Damage (page 321) says to roll randomly to determine which system is hit (life, sensors, weapons, engines, power core). But what happens if your target simply does not HAVE the system you roll (say Life support on an Eoxian or weapons on something unarmed)? In that case, is the critical hit just 'lost' or do you reroll until you get something that exists? Similarly, if you hit weapons, you roll randomly to determine which arc is affected. But, what happens if you roll, say, aft arc and they have no weapons that can shoot in the aft arc? Is your critical hit then, essentially, lost to no effect or would you roll another arc?
One question on filling out the chronicle sheet, more for consistency than anything else. Regarding the Reputation section of the chronicle sheet (the bottom), the Guild Guide says:
So initial (pre-adventure) reputation for a faction goes on the left side of the slash.
Wanted to clarify/validate a couple things regarding starship shields in combat. In particular:
So, say your ship has 50 shield points with a default load out of 15, 10, 10, 15.
2) Divert (Engineering Phase) says, "... Evenly distribute the restored Shield Points to all 4 quadrants (putting any excess points in the forward quadrant."
Interesting. I thought when you had to do a gunnery check vs TL to fire the 2nd, you'd find the launcher's targeting already tied up with the previous missile. Thanks
Critical Damage (page 321) says to roll randomly to determine which system is hit (life, sensors, weapons, engines, power core). But what happens if your target simply does not HAVE the system you roll (say Life support on an Eoxian or weapons on something unarmed)? In that case, is the critical hit just 'lost' or do you reroll until you get something that exists? Similarly, if you hit weapons, you roll randomly to determine which arc is affected. But, what happens if you roll, say, aft arc and they have no weapons that can shoot in the aft arc? Is your critical hit then, essentially, lost to no effect or would you roll another arc?
One other related question, in SFS, are players required to start combat with the default shield default loads shown on the Drake/Pegasus (15/10/20/15 Drake, 10/10/10/10 Pegasus) or can they split them out however they want as long as they abide by the restriction (Shields Pg 302) that no quadrant can be assigned less than 10% of the total number of shield available? That is, if you have a Drake (2) and start combat facing the other guy could you say, "Our shields are at 35/5/5/5" to start? [NOTE: Yes, that would be playing dangerously, but if you're confident you can always wind up facing their front, you might want to do this]
Pg 303 and 320 briefly discuss tracking weapons, but it's pretty brief. A few questions: 1) If you fire a tracking weapon and it hasn't yet impacted the target, can you fire another missile/torpedo from that launcher or is that launcher (and/or its sensor) "tied up" with the first missile/torpedo? If you CAN fire another missile, does that mean you could theoretically have 5 missiles (for weapons with lim fire 5) from the same launcher all trying to chase the target until/unless they lose TL? 2) Additionally, is there a max 'range' on tracking weapons (like, say, 3 rounds) or will they keep following a target the entire length of the solar system as long as they never lose TL?
Wanted to clarify/validate a couple things regarding starship shields in combat. In particular:
So, say your ship has 50 shield points with a default load out of 15, 10, 10, 15.
2) Divert (Engineering Phase) says, "... Evenly distribute the restored Shield Points to all 4 quadrants (putting any excess points in the forward quadrant."
|
