DC 70

[someweirdguy]

I find it interesting that people are focusing on the 4 skill DCs that are specifically meant to be the pinnacle of ability and exceedingly difficult to pull off - Orders, Flyby, Patching a wrecked system, and Overpower.

Not counting the actions that are based on enemy Tier and such, at level 20 18 of the 22 potential Crew Actions are DC 55 or less.

If you're in a fight at level 20, your character is going to have chosen a ship role and be focused on that role, and a check at that level in a skill they're good at will be able to make those checks most of the time.

The 70 is a scary number, but it is incredibly rare and is supposed to be hard to pull off. You aren't expected to be able to fix wrecked systems every turn or give people a second action every turn.

[thejeff]

someweirdguy wrote:

I find it interesting that people are focusing on the 4 skill DCs that are specifically meant to be the pinnacle of ability and exceedingly difficult to pull off - Orders, Flyby, Patching a wrecked system, and Overpower.

Not counting the actions that are based on enemy Tier and such, at level 20 18 of the 22 potential Crew Actions are DC 55 or less.

If you're in a fight at level 20, your character is going to have chosen a ship role and be focused on that role, and a check at that level in a skill they're good at will be able to make those checks most of the time.

The 70 is a scary number, but it is incredibly rare and is supposed to be hard to pull off. You aren't expected to be able to fix wrecked systems every turn or give people a second action every turn.

Except, as I understand it, you will be able to do those things more reliably at lower levels.

And frankly, even the DC 55 isn't going to be that reliable, if you're not as optimized as those character examples are - wrong race, not maxed stat, without the 1/day or captain bonuses or a few other things - and you're down around 50% for even DC 55.

[thejeff]

Basically though, it's the usual scaling problem of d20. Anytime you apply a formula for increasing numbers over a 20 level range, they're going to diverge more than you really want them to.

[citricking]

thejeff wrote:

Basically though, it's the usual scaling problem of d20. Anytime you apply a formula for increasing numbers over a 20 level range, they're going to diverge more than you really want them to.

All the other skill checks out of space combat use number+1.5*level which is how all the skill bonuses for focused PCs would tend to scale (except for operatives trick attack using +level for some reason).

3*tier has to be a mistake

[thejeff]

citricking wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Basically though, it's the usual scaling problem of d20. Anytime you apply a formula for increasing numbers over a 20 level range, they're going to diverge more than you really want them to.

All the other skill checks out of space combat use number+1.5*level which is how all the skill bonuses for focused PCs would tend to scale (except for operatives trick attack using +level for some reason).

3*tier has to be a mistake

But my point was that if you want those specific tasks to be harder and apply a formula to do that, then they're going to diverge more and more as you go up level.

Like in PF, the difference between good and bad saves getting too large as you get higher in level.

[Kiln Norn]

Tacticslion wrote:

... please. I am being educated by the two of you pointing out solid arguments, and would like to continue to be.

Telling him, "No, shut up." is poor form, especially when he's explicitly acknowledged that not only does he agree with the premise of the thread (that...

You are right, I apologize.

That said saying it's possible is still wrong. It is only a possibility when the stars align and the sleeper in R'lyeh wakes. Yes, perhaps possible in those situations it is not possible for everyone, or even close to MOST of everyone. Using an outlier as proof of something is is a horrible idea. Sure you "can" do it. But it's never going to work.

It's like quoting Henry Ford, "You can have it in any color you want as long as that color is black."

Except in this case it's, "You can do this with any race that you want as long as that race is Lashunta."

[citricking]

thejeff wrote:

citricking wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Basically though, it's the usual scaling problem of d20. Anytime you apply a formula for increasing numbers over a 20 level range, they're going to diverge more than you really want them to.

All the other skill checks out of space combat use number+1.5*level which is how all the skill bonuses for focused PCs would tend to scale (except for operatives trick attack using +level for some reason).

3*tier has to be a mistake

But my point was that if you want those specific tasks to be harder and apply a formula to do that, then they're going to diverge more and more as you go up level.

Like in PF, the difference between good and bad saves getting too large as you get higher in level.

? 20+level will always be 25% less likely to succeed than 15+level, if you use formulas like that the difference between what's easy and hard will be consistent for all levels

[avr]

citricking wrote:

thejeff wrote:

citricking wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Basically though, it's the usual scaling problem of d20. Anytime you apply a formula for increasing numbers over a 20 level range, they're going to diverge more than you really want them to.

All the other skill checks out of space combat use number+1.5*level which is how all the skill bonuses for focused PCs would tend to scale (except for operatives trick attack using +level for some reason).

3*tier has to be a mistake

But my point was that if you want those specific tasks to be harder and apply a formula to do that, then they're going to diverge more and more as you go up level.

Like in PF, the difference between good and bad saves getting too large as you get higher in level.

? 20+level will always be 25% less likely to succeed than 15+level, if you use formulas like that the difference between what's easy and hard will be consistent for all levels

Until your bonus reaches 15+level at which point it's 20% less likely. With a bonus of 19+level there is no difference, your chance is 100%.

At the moment (before more books are released) there's not a lot which makes your skill check scale faster than your level, but there is enough that it is theoretically if not practically possible to hit DC 70 at level 20.

[citricking]

avr wrote:

citricking wrote:

thejeff wrote:

citricking wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Basically though, it's the usual scaling problem of d20. Anytime you apply a formula for increasing numbers over a 20 level range, they're going to diverge more than you really want them to.

All the other skill checks out of space combat use number+1.5*level which is how all the skill bonuses for focused PCs would tend to scale (except for operatives trick attack using +level for some reason).

3*tier has to be a mistake

But my point was that if you want those specific tasks to be harder and apply a formula to do that, then they're going to diverge more and more as you go up level.

Like in PF, the difference between good and bad saves getting too large as you get higher in level.

? 20+level will always be 25% less likely to succeed than 15+level, if you use formulas like that the difference between what's easy and hard will be consistent for all levels

Until your bonus reaches 15+level at which point it's 20% less likely. With a bonus of 19+level there is no difference, your chance is 100%.

At the moment (before more books are released) there's not a lot which makes your skill check scale faster than your level, but there is enough that it is theoretically if not practically possible to hit DC 70 at level 20.

So they would get closer together, which is the opposite of what I was replying to: " they're going to diverge more and more as you go up level. "

[Porridge]

i take the main thesis of this thread to be that at high levels, the DCs for crew actions are too high, given only the resources presented in the CRB. I completely agree with this.

But if you wants to make a compelling case for this thesis, and clearly assess the different options for dealing with it, you need to figure out what the facts on the ground are. Otherwise, you risk undermining your case by making claims that don't hold up to scrutiny. And you risk opting for corrective options based on false assumptions about what the current system is like.

This is why I think it's important to figure out what particular claims about the system are true, and which one's aren't.

Reef wrote:

Yes, but having to jump through so many specific hoops to make it possible isn't really helping the discussion.

I guess I just disagree?... In my view, working out which of these claims about what's possible are true, and which ones aren’t, is precisely what advances discussions.

Here's another way to get at why I think getting the details right is important. Suppose one of the developers is skimming through this thread to get a feel for whether they should issue an errata or not. If the case they see people making for why these DCs are too high is something like:

• "These 70 DC checks are too high because they're impossible to make."
• "These 70 DC checks are too high because it's impossible for any class besides the Operative or Envoy."

then they’re likely to simply dismiss these complaints, because they’re based on claims which (they'll quickly determine) are demonstrably false.

Whereas if the case they see people making for why these DCs are too high is something like:

• "These 70 DC checks are too high because there are class/race combinations for which they're impossible to make."
• "These 70 DC checks are too high because a starship-combat-optimized Solider in ideal circumstances can still only make them 10% of the time."

-- claims which (as far as I can tell) are true -- then they’re much more likely to take these concerns seriously.

[RyanH]

Has someone written a concise post convening the DC70 so we can all FAQ it and make sure it's not just a mistake?

[Kiln Norn]

RyanH wrote:

Has someone written a concise post convening the DC70 so we can all FAQ it and make sure it's not just a mistake?

We will get nothing until tomorrow or Friday at the earliest. Any official errata isn't going to hit until GenCon either starts or is in good swing.

Besides that, this thread has the math and other elements in it that is needed, as well as the DC 70 concept being posted on their possible errors thread that Owen said he was watching for things to address.

[Hijiggy]

I'm surprised you can't spend BP to give increased bonuses to certain checks. Like spending 80 BP for extra thrusters on the side to give +10 to barrel role maneuvers for example. I'm absolutely not a number cruncher so I won't try to math out any figures but that's an idea I've been thinking about.

It would make each ship more unique and specialized towards a specific strategy, making certain checks impossible if your ship isn't specialized, but other checks much easier because you planned ahead. Maybe spending more BP towards a role on a ship that doesn't have a strong PC to man it so all the checks aren't impossible.

Its similar to spending BP on a high tier computer to assist in function, but much more focused. This is more theorizing on solutions than helping with the math that's been going on but I've had some fun playing around with the idea.

[David knott 242]

Hijiggy -- I like your idea of specialized equipment to boost skill checks. Of course, it is interesting to picture the really cool looking captain's chair that boosts his skills. ;)

[Hijiggy]

David knott 242 wrote:

Hijiggy -- I like your idea of specialized equipment to boost skill checks. Of course, it is interesting to picture the really cool looking captain's chair that boosts his skills. ;)

I was going to say improved comms in the ship or something but I like your idea MUCH better.

[Snorb]

Considering I volunteered to run Dead Suns for our group starting on Sunday, I wish I knew about this before I volunteered! D:

Yeah. I think I'm gonna just set the stunt DCs as (10/15/20 + tier); flyby will be 20 + target's tier. This way, I don't have to assume we have a lashunta at the helm, and it keeps the math simpler for this idiot DM.

(The group was already warned that if they wrap the ship around a planet, it's coming out of their wealth by level.)

[RyanH]

Snorb wrote:

Considering I volunteered to run Dead Suns for our group starting on Sunday, I wish I knew about this before I volunteered! D:

Yeah. I think I'm gonna just set the stunt DCs as (10/15/20 + tier); flyby will be 20 + target's tier. This way, I don't have to assume we have a lashunta at the helm, and it keeps the math simpler for this idiot DM.

(The group was already warned that if they wrap the ship around a planet, it's coming out of their wealth by level.)

This is not an issue until you hit like 15th level... don't even worry about it yet.

[Luke Spencer]

Snorb wrote:

Considering I volunteered to run Dead Suns for our group starting on Sunday, I wish I knew about this before I volunteered! D:

Yeah. I think I'm gonna just set the stunt DCs as (10/15/20 + tier); flyby will be 20 + target's tier. This way, I don't have to assume we have a lashunta at the helm, and it keeps the math simpler for this idiot DM.

(The group was already warned that if they wrap the ship around a planet, it's coming out of their wealth by level.)

If you even start seeing these kinds of numbers it'll happen at the very end of the last book at worst, probably not even at all. I wouldn't worry too much, it won't affect you for some time yet.

[rkotitan]

Not to mention the fact that Dead Suns only goes to level 12. I think you are probably going to be solid, especially when the errata starts rolling in. Full Path won't be out until next August either.

[CountArioch]

I crunched some more numbers, and heard from a friend that was at Gencon and have some insight:

* Tier of the ship matters, APL is just recommended. If you capture a tier 8 ship and you're level 12 it's a tier 8 ship with level 12 people flying it. You aren't required to upgrade to APL unless you want to. You probably won't be able to past a certain point if you wanted to (see below)

* Gunners, Science Officers, and Engineers work in teams on bigger ships, and on smaller ships you aren't going to be able to upgrade past a certain point regardless of BP (energy budget is a lady dog, BP is not)

* Only 2 roles won't have teams on a larger ship, which means only 2 roles need the +10 bonus for computers per round. And a reasonably optimized pilot (any race, 18 dex plus stat increases, +6 implant, and max skilled ranks and computer assistance) will literally be able to make the Death Star barrel roll on a 10 or higher.

* Captain? Yeah, you're boned for one of your actions. Not only do you have to hit DC 70, but you need the skill you're trying to double up (which means an effective captain needs to reliably hit DC 70 for computer use, engineering, and piloting). The DC 50 and 55 checks at level 20 aren't out of reach though even if you don't play the lashunta envoy master race.

[Zaccheus]

This whole situation breaks my brain. The problem I see, a level 20 ace pilot in a top of the line ship (tier 20) is less likely to pull off a maneuver than a goblin in a ship that is literally he'd together with string and duct tape. The difficulty needs to be on more of a curve and one that is largely inversed. Maybe the greatest difficulty should be somewhere in the 7 tier region, but it should be nearly a sure thing for a level 20 character who put a rank in every level. You'd never expect a top surgeon to be less successful at difficult surgeries than a resident. It makes zero sense

[kadance]

I would expect a top surgeon to attempt surgeries so difficult a resident wouldn't want to even step into the theatre.

[Tacticslion]

Eh, Dr. Strange was pretty much the top surgeon, and he mostly just took jobs that he knew he could succeed at for the purpose of keeping his super reputation, even though such things were often considered impossible for many other expert surgeons.

Yeah. I'm using the DCMU as my canon. I don't even care! It's awesome!

[Steve Geddes]

kadance wrote:

I would expect a top surgeon to attempt surgeries so difficult a resident wouldn't want to even step into the theatre.

One quirk of statistics that can seem paradoxical is that the best surgeons often have the highest mortality rates.

Has anyone looked into the minimum sizes a ship can be in order to be tier 20? I wonder if part of the reason some maneuvers become essentially impossible is because the ships at that tier level have to be huge. (This is based on a vague memory from someone saying that the power budget precludes high tier, small ships).

I wonder if it's practically (even if not mathematically) possible to have high tier, small ships and low tier, big ships and if these DCs are representative of that.

[kadance]

The Colossal sized Dreadnought frame costs 200 bp, and so can be bought at tier 8 (though there won't be enough bp left over to equip it with even the bare, essential systems). So the largest ship is at least viable around level 10, but won't be good at anything until very high levels.

The Light Freighter frame costs a mere 10 bp, and has 3 expansion bays. You could blow the entire tier 20 budget on this frame and make a fine ship.

[th3razzer]

Steve Geddes wrote:

kadance wrote:

I would expect a top surgeon to attempt surgeries so difficult a resident wouldn't want to even step into the theatre.

One quirk of statistics that can seem paradoxical is that the best surgeons often have the highest mortality rates.

Has anyone looked into the minimum sizes a ship can be in order to be tier 20? I wonder if part of the reason some maneuvers become essentially impossible is because the ships at that tier level have to be huge. (This is based on a vague memory from someone saying that the power budget precludes high tier, small ships).

I wonder if it's practically (even if not mathematically) possible to have high tier, small ships and low tier, big ships and if these DCs are representative of that.

I posted something on this a little bit back, with the math just not adding up, but asking a similar question.

The problem (and the main reason) that the math doesn't add up, is that the CRB directly states that ship Tier is equal to APL, meaning if the APL, even unintentionally, rises so does the Tier.

Meaning that, even if I spend all my BP on non-essential stuff (prettier rooms, a little more oompf to my energy core, maybe a decorative plate of pop ere, etc etc) why does my DC need to increase if the ship has remained almost exactly the same?

If my PCs could, say, stay in a lower-tier ship to maintain their grip on the difficulty checks, then I wouldn't gripe whatsoever, as they can choose their fate at that point.

[kadance]

Anecdotal evidence from the official games at Gencon says that a ship's tier doesn't change when PC take it. Until they spend the BP to upgrade/retrofit it, the tier doesn't increase, despite the line in the CRB:

Refitting and Upgrading Starships, pg. 305:

When the characters’ Average Party Level increases, so does the tier of their starship

[Steve Geddes]

th3razzer wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

kadance wrote:

I would expect a top surgeon to attempt surgeries so difficult a resident wouldn't want to even step into the theatre.

One quirk of statistics that can seem paradoxical is that the best surgeons often have the highest mortality rates.

Has anyone looked into the minimum sizes a ship can be in order to be tier 20? I wonder if part of the reason some maneuvers become essentially impossible is because the ships at that tier level have to be huge. (This is based on a vague memory from someone saying that the power budget precludes high tier, small ships).

I wonder if it's practically (even if not mathematically) possible to have high tier, small ships and low tier, big ships and if these DCs are representative of that.

I posted something on this a little bit back, with the math just not adding up, but asking a similar question.

The problem (and the main reason) that the math doesn't add up, is that the CRB directly states that ship Tier is equal to APL, meaning if the APL, even unintentionally, rises so does the Tier.

Meaning that, even if I spend all my BP on non-essential stuff (prettier rooms, a little more oompf to my energy core, maybe a decorative plate of pop ere, etc etc) why does my DC need to increase if the ship has remained almost exactly the same?

If my PCs could, say, stay in a lower-tier ship to maintain their grip on the difficulty checks, then I wouldn't gripe whatsoever, as they can choose their fate at that point.

Gotcha. I didn't realise there was any dispute there. To me it's "obvious" that ship tier is a function of investing BPs.

Thanks for clarifying for me.

[Steve Geddes]

kadance wrote:

Anecdotal evidence from the official games at Gencon says that a ship's tier doesn't change when PC take it. Until they spend the BP to upgrade/retrofit it, the tier doesn't increase, despite the line in the CRB:

** spoiler omitted **

That's good to know too.

Cheers.

[CountArioch]

kadance wrote:

Anecdotal evidence from the official games at Gencon says that a ship's tier doesn't change when PC take it. Until they spend the BP to upgrade/retrofit it, the tier doesn't increase, despite the line in the CRB:

** spoiler omitted **

Be careful where you say that, I was called a liar for posting that on a different board.

[Triune]

I'm sorry, but this just seems like flat out bad design.

Reminds me of the Truenamer in 3.5, aka the most broken and poorly written class D&D ever saw. Your DCs scaled up as you leveled faster than your ability to meet them. A level one Truenamer could use his main class ability on typical foes much more easily than a level twenty Truenamer could.

The stuff you do should be more awesome as you level, not less.

[LeeSw]

Could they have meant Size Class of the ship not Tier?

I mean Rolling a Dreadnought is going to be HARD.

Doing it with Fighter easy.

So if we make it the Size does that make more sense?

[Hithesius]

I can all but guarantee they wrote tier into the formulas because they meant tier. Size is given in numerical values in only a very few, specific places in the Starship construction chapter, while the formulas that use tier are everywhere in the combat chapter. Though your idea does have some appeal, since it allows a high level fighter to near effortlessly take a dreadnought through the same complex maneuvers that they were doing in a fighter earlier in their career. There's some comedic value there, seeing a ship nearly 3 miles long or longer dancing through space with all the agility and grace of that 20 foot racer.

[LeeSw]

Hithesius wrote:

I can all but guarantee they wrote tier into the formulas because they meant tier. Size is given in numerical values in only a very few, specific places in the Starship construction chapter, while the formulas that use tier are everywhere in the combat chapter. Though your idea does have some appeal, since it allows a high level fighter to near effortlessly take a dreadnought through the same complex maneuvers that they were doing in a fighter earlier in their career. There's some comedic value there, seeing a ship nearly 3 miles long or longer dancing through space with all the agility and grace of that 20 foot racer.

I think your correct though getting worse at a task because you have a better ship seems really lame.

Even if those things that make it better, have no effect on how it would handle as a ship.

So we will see, what the "idea" was behind it.

My hope is that yes Tier is used often and it just was slipped up.

[sgtarbuckle]

We are talking about special maneuvers here which would logically scale in difficulty with the frame size of the ship. I haven't run the numbers on this yet and I'd be curious if anyone has but I'm wondering how many levels or tiers would it take to max out the upgrades on say a medium frame ship? My thought being that you can only pack so much gear into a certain frame size.

So just pulling numbers out of the air...am I going to max out a medium frame ship at tier 11 or 12 or so and because my party doesn't want to have to hire extra crew to run a larger ship then the PCs continue to level up and not invest to raise the tier of their ship further. If that's the case the PCs skills of course continue to increase thus making special maneuvers easier. Following this line if they then decide to increase the tier of their ship they're going to have to go to a larger frame size and with the increase in tier the DCs increase but the size of the frame increases as well...which you could argue is a logical progression for the DC increase.

I don't believe the intent was that PCs are REQUIRED to increase the tier of their ship unless they choose to. If we look at the ship examples presented in the CRB it seems more the case that a ship can exist at whatever tier sort of in a vacuum. In other words a ships teir is more along the lines of a tech level or how "good" it is.

[Deadmanwalking]

I can make a Medium ship with well over 1000 points of stuff if I feel like it. And 1000 is what you get at level 20, so that explanation really doesn't quite work.

3xLevel is just a bit too much scaling, and needs to be fixed.

2x scaling actually works out okay, IMO. It caps at a point where hard checks can be made, and made easily with a good computer...but 3x is way too high as level goes up.

[gustavo iglesias]

RyanH wrote:

Kiln Norn wrote:

Ryan while you aren't wrong there are other ideas there.

Does a Nissan 350Z with aftermarket parts and racing flats or a stock Saturn SL2 drift easier?

Because souped-up cars take more skill to drive just youtube idiots in their sports cars

I would agree that the Saturn shouldn't be ABLE to drift. But also would say a low level driver could quickly turn a Saturn around easier than they could quickly turn a souped-up Nissan around. (There's a video I saw posted recently that showed a police officer (high level driver) not knowing how to put a lambo (high tier car) in park.)

EDIT: You said races better. Yes it would, but put a tier 1 driver in a race car... again, in a high-tier race car... they'll crash.

Now, if you took your Saturn and just kept making it "better"... yes, it seems like it should be easier to do things with it. But really, a Saturn is going to go from about tier 1 to tier 2 and max out.

I think given the need to keep the rules manageable, balanced, and interesting, it is ONE method that works ok (and might start to fall apart at level 20... but only if the DC 70 ISN'T a mistake.)

I think it will work for me fine in my level 1-12 SFS play, and my campaign play that will probably max at 15-16. I also think we'll see new materials that will boost the character abilities.

I'm a bit late to the convo (and maybe this was addressed later on, so my apologies if so), but this is the fundamental problem.

A F1 car IS easier to drive than your regular car. Period. It accelerates and slows down faster, has better grip, has better aerodynamics, has better everything. The thing is, with a F1 car you can try stunts that you can't with your regular car. Which is the hard part.

So if you drive your F1 car at 50 miles per hour in a straight lane, and then turn to left in a smooth curve, you still drive it easier than if you attempt the same thing in a Honda Civic. Of course, if you attempt to drive at 200 miles per hour in a ciruit full of chicanes, then things become much harder for the F1 (and the regular, casual pilot will fail, only proffesional F1 pilots will succeed). However, for the Honda Civic it's just impossible, period.

That's the problem with the system. If I attempt a very simple maneuver, let's say, "Park your starship in the dock", the high level TIE Interceptor hand-made for Darth Vader with every possible advance in technology is *harder* to park than the lowliest and weakest transport vessel. Which doesn't make sense.

Yes, attempting to do a double loop backwards while shooting your lassers in a high gravity zone near a black hole should be VERY difficult to pull off with your incredibly advanced hand-made TIE-Interceptor which is one-in-his-kind level of technology. But it should be *totally impossible* with a shuttle or transport vessel. Currently, it's the opposite, you have *better chances* to do a backward double loop dodging asteroids in a unstable gravity zone with a *bad ship* than you have with a *top tier ship*.

That's stupid. Period.

[gustavo iglesias]

kadance wrote:

I would expect a top surgeon to attempt surgeries so difficult a resident wouldn't want to even step into the theatre.

Yes. And nobody would complain if the starship combat worked like that.

But it doesn't. What the starship combat says is that a top tier surgeon attempting a simple surgical suture in a top-notch hospital have it tougher for the fact that he is a top tier surgeon in top-notch hospital, compared to a worse surgeon doing the exactly same simple surgical suture in a second grade hospital somewhere in the third world.

Which is the problem. The DC isn't tied to the task (ie: removing a brain tumor), but the tools (ie: removing a brain tumor with top notch gear is HARDER than removing the exact same brain tumor with worse gear)

[rkotitan]

I suspect that folks are not going to get the realism they want in starship combat as far as difficulty.

Ultimately if you make it easier for high level characters to make the common starship maneuvers you have the problem of either trying to invent new maneuvers which are even more difficult or you just turn combat into a rolling shooting fest where both ship crews find 0 difficulty with maneuvers.

What starship combat and to a lesser degree Starfinder on the whole seems to be is an auto-balancing system a lot like some video games (like Oblivion for instance).

Having run Skull and Shackles and having had a character on the crew being so optimized toward profession:sailor that he made the entire process of ship combat (a large part of the campaign) hand-waved I'm glad that high level ship combat remains challenging even with a heavily optimized character.

I agree with above statements that the scaling is off and that a 2x rating might be more appropriate but as we get more and more higher level starship content there may be equipment that makes even the 3x tier maneuvers easier to complete.

As far as lower level ships being able to make maneuvers easier I am probably on some level glad of that loophole for the moment. If my tier 20 ship is getting torn apart and I escape on my shuttle I want to be able to outrun and outmaneuver the tier 20 enemy ship. I won't be able to win the fight (weaponry factors into tier) but I will probably be able to get away.

[Zaccheus]

This isn't necessarily that hard to fix. It's ok for some maneuvers to be exceptionally easy for high level crew. There are two solutions to having the difficulty scale as well as keep it so high level characters seem to actually get better at flying their higher quality ship than low level characters with a junket ship. One solution is to have opposed and unopposed maneuvers. At high levels the unopposed maneuvers would be extremely easy for the crew but opposed maneuvers would scale with level b/c the ship(s) you're opposed by should be better at "resisting" you. The other solution is to have more and more difficult maneuvers. So at level one the number of maneuvers you can pull off reasonably well is say 20% of the total possible maneuvers and then at level 20 it's say 50% are nearly guaranteed, 25% youre likely to pull off, 20% unlikely, and 5% are nearly impossible though doable if you're lucky and desperate. Both these solutions can be applied simultaneously. It actually looks lazy the way they did it. It's under developed and counter intuitive. Like the surgeon or race car analogy, yes it's really hard for an untrained person to do surgery X or drive car Z, however a highly trained person makes it look easy, this should be reflected in this aspect of the game as it is in others like fighting, bluffing, sneaking, etc. another example would be a proathlete. You wouldn't expect Lebrun James to have the same difficulty shooting a three point shoot unguarded as a highschool kid who has only played basketball for a year. Now if he's playing agains Durant, ya it gets a lot harder for Lebrun to score, not impossible, like it is for the highschool kid. I'm not saying I can design the game better, but I am very surprised they made this mistake. It seems very obviously flawed and like a huge oversight on their end

[VampByDay]

Guys, guys, I think we are getting off topic here. The problem is hitting a DC 70 check in a smaller vessel that the PCs are likely to have. People are right, you can have a high-tier ship that is small. It is unlikely that your team of space-adventurers will have a military-trained crew at their beck and call so that they can command the Enterprise. It's more like they will have upgraded the everliving crap out of the Mileniun Falcon.

From a game standpoint, the hardest checks increase in difficulty by 3 when you level up, while your skill check will increase by only 1 (if you put a rank into it) or rarely 2 (you get a personal upgrade And get a point). Rarely, if the stars align just right, you will break even (maybe you put a skill, get a personal upgrade, and get a new computer for your ship). But that seems like a rare confluence of events and you certainly won't get that every level.

[Deadmanwalking]

VampByDay wrote:

Guys, guys, I think we are getting off topic here. The problem is hitting a DC 70 check in a smaller vessel that the PCs are likely to have. People are right, you can have a high-tier ship that is small. It is unlikely that your team of space-adventurers will have a military-trained crew at their beck and call so that they can command the Enterprise. It's more like they will have upgraded the everliving crap out of the Mileniun Falcon.

From a game standpoint, the hardest checks increase in difficulty by 3 when you level up, while your skill check will increase by only 1 (if you put a rank into it) or rarely 2 (you get a personal upgrade And get a point). Rarely, if the stars align just right, you will break even (maybe you put a skill, get a personal upgrade, and get a new computer for your ship). But that seems like a rare confluence of events and you certainly won't get that every level.

It's not quite this bad. between 1st and 20th you go from a +9 to a +49 counting computer, skill ups, Ability ups, and Class Features in relevant skills.

But that's only an average of slightly over two a level. Not three. And it counts the computer, which can only help out two checks at most.

[Ravingdork]

What is the likelihood that PCs will ever have a tier 20 ship anyways? Can you even take a Medium or smaller ship that far?

[Matthew Downie]

I thought they were compulsory? You level up to 20, and your ship (no matter what size) becomes tier 20.

[bookrat]

Matthew Downie wrote:

I thought they were compulsory? You level up to 20, and your ship (no matter what size) becomes tier 20.

According to the rules, this is correct. The tier of your ship equals your average party level.

According to rumors from people at gen con, this was not the intent. The intent was that your APL determines your maximum build points, and your spent build points determine your tier.

[VampByDay]

Matthew Downie wrote:

I thought they were compulsory? You level up to 20, and your ship (no matter what size) becomes tier 20.

There is a line somewhere (I don't have my book in front of me) that basically says at GM discretion, your ship may not be upgradable until you hit a spaceport and make the nessisary arrangements.

[Tryn]

I would take the Ships Tier System as a "should have".

So a group of Level 3 characters should have a Tier III ship.
But of course they have to get it by normal means (e.g. steal it, earn it, or upgrade your T2 ship as a reward).
I would not go with auto-update like with Animal companions or characters (feels strange to me).

[whew]

Here's my attempt to justify it: the ship is harder to operate at higher levels because the ship is bouncing around madly from the pilot adding his level to the ship's armor class. Possible house rule: at the start of the combat turn, the pilot can declare that he is flying in flat-footed mode and the ship loses a bunch of armor class but everyone gets a big bonus to their rolls.

Also, even with the current rules, the captain DOES get cooler at higher levels: At 12 level he gets to stop using "Orders" and can now do "Moving Speech" instead.

NB: I totally agree that the "Orders" action needs a rewrite. As as, the captain should never try to give orders to anyone except the pilot, as he can accomplish whatever he wants done better by switching crew role.

[Deadmanwalking]

Ravingdork wrote:

What is the likelihood that PCs will ever have a tier 20 ship anyways? Can you even take a Medium or smaller ship that far?

As I mentioned above, yes, easily. 1000 points is the max at Tier 20. You can spend over 700 points on weapons alone if you want (you can have three heavy weapon mounts on each arc plus the turret, and fill them all with 40 point weapons). And I hit over 1000 buying the best of everything before even getting to weapon systems last time I checked. So...I suspect you can break the 2000 point limit on a Medium ship if you try.

And, as other mention, a level 20 group will always have a Tier 20 ship, going by RAW.

[Hithesius]

Ravingdork wrote:

What is the likelihood that PCs will ever have a tier 20 ship anyways? Can you even take a Medium or smaller ship that far?

You probably can't spend tier 20's budget for Small or Tiny*, for want of weapon mounts and power. But a Medium ship?

Yes:

Since the point is simply to demonstrate you can get a medium ship into the 901-1000 BP range of tier 20, I'm not terribly concerned with optimizing the functionality here. It should be workable, but the weapon selection in particular could probably be better.

We'll start with a Transport for 15 BP, giving us 5 weapon mounts, one of which is heavy. Thankfully, this frame also includes a turret for a maximum possible 15 mounts, but we'll get to those later. Since we want to maximize our possibilities, we need to go ahead and use one of our expansion bays to get a power core housing. Grabbing Nova Ultras, the cores and housing together cost 70 BP (85 total) but give us 600 PCUs to work with. And while we're touching up the ship, we'll go ahead and give it luxury quarters for 5 BP (90 total). We're talking about a tier 20 ship, so the crew can treat themselves for being good enough to make it that far.

Here's a quick rundown of what comes next.

M12 Thrusters: 6 BP, 80 PCU (96, 80)
Mk 15 Armor: 135 BP (231)
Mk 10 Duonode: 200 BP, 55 PCU (431, 135)
Mk 15 Defenses: 90 BP, 45 PCU (521, 180)
Signal Ultra: 60 BP (581), and a minimum 200 PCU that we can easily provide.
Anti-Hacking System 4: 12 BP (593)
Biometric Locks: 5 BP (598)
Self-Destruct System: 15 BP (613)
Advanced Long-Range Sensors: 14 BP (627)
Superior Shields 600: 40 BP, 160 PCU (667, 340)

That's everything but weapons accounted for, outside of computer countermeasures and the antipersonnel weapons. We can put those on later if you'd like, but for now we'll look at weapons.

The Transport has 5 out of 15 slots, 1 of which is heavy (forward), and 2 of which are on a turret. For this, I'll make the turret have 3 heavy weapon mounts, and every other arc will have 2 heavy mounts and a light mount - this is mostly for power reasons.

In any event, it breaks down like this.

Forward: 1 Light -> Heavy (4), 1 New Light (3)
Port: 3 New Light (9), 2 Light -> Heavy (8)
Starboard: 3 New Light (9), 2 Light -> Heavy (8)
Aft: 2 New Light (6), 2 Light -> Heavy (8)
Turret: 1 New Light (5), 3 Light -> Heavy (18)

Combined, adding and upgrading the weapon mounts costs 78 BP, for a total of 745 thus far. That puts us in the 701-800 tier 18 range before we even arm the ship!

To keep this next part short, a summary: the turret will can have a pair of linked particle beams (37 BP, 50 PCU) and a heavy laser net (22 BP, 15 PCU). The forward arc will get a pair of linked plasma cannons (50 BP, 60 PCU) and a laser net (9 BP, 10 PCU). The other three arcs will each have another laser net as well as a pair of linked heavy laser cannons (20 PP, 20 PCU, 3 times).

That gives us a final cost of 950 BP and 565 PCU, leaving 50 BP and 35 PCU leftover for whatever you want the remaining expansion bays to be.

I won't swear these numbers are perfectly accurate, and there may well be an error or two in there somewhere. But I think this demonstrates how you can quite readily make a medium hull into a tier 20 ship. And for reference, it will look something like this, I think.

Tinkerer's Project: Tier 20
Medium transport
Speed: 12; Maneuverability: Turn 5, Drift: 5
AC: 25+Pilot skill; TL: 21+Pilot skill
HP: 145; DT: -; CT: 29
Shields: Superior 600 (150 forward, 150 port, 150 starboard, 150 aft)
Attack
- Forward: 2 linked plasma cannons (10d12), 1 laser net (2d6)
- Port: 2 linked heavy laser cannons (8d8), 1 laser net (2d6)
- Starboard: 2 linked heavy laser cannons (8d8), 1 laser net (2d6)
- Aft: 2 linked heavy laser cannons (8d8), 1 laser net (2d6)
- Turret: 2 linked particle beams (16d6), 1 heavy laser net (5d6)
Power Core: Nova Ultra x2; Drift Engine: Singal Ultra
Systems: Advanced Long-Range sensors, Mk 15 Armor, Mk 15 Defenses, Anti-Hacking Systems (4), Biometric Lock, Self-Destruct System, Mk 10 Duonode Computer, Crew Quarters (Luxurious)
Expansion Bays: 1 Power Core Housing, 4 Cargo Bays
Modifiers: +3 any four checks per round, +4 computers, -1 piloting
Complement: 1-6

...and I notice now that you cannot underline text here? What a dreadful omission in the BBCode.

*I notice now that there were a couple of errors and omissions in the statblock in that linked post. Alas, it is too late to edit that now. Such is the risk of doing so much by hand.