Gunnery


Rules Questions


So gunnery check is dex and skill ranks
So is that just 1 rank at level 1
2 ranks level 2 and so on
Or does the "ranks" includ
Skill focus , +3 for class skill, race bonus, operative eage and so on?

Liberty's Edge

Skill focus, class skill, race bonus, operative edge are all bonus to the skill roll.

Skill rank is just that, how many ranks a character has in that skill.

And the Gunnery Check is Dex mod, + (pilot skill rank OR BAB). A full BAB class who also takes a rank in Pilot skill does not get to double that number.


I wish gunnery was it's own skill or just an attack roll. It would make so much more sense than using piloting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CactusUnicorn wrote:
I wish gunnery was it's own skill or just an attack roll. It would make so much more sense than using piloting.

Gunnery is an attack roll. It just also gives the option of replacing BAB with ranks in Piloting.

I think that's the best way to think about it.


CactusUnicorn wrote:
I wish gunnery was it's own skill or just an attack roll. It would make so much more sense than using piloting.

Let's look at it this way. Consider an X-Wing. The laser cannons are on a forward pointing fixed mount. This means that a pilot must point the fighter towards the target, and pull the trigger at the precise moment. This is the rationale of using the Piloting skill in lieu of the BAB.


Gary Bush wrote:

Skill focus, class skill, race bonus, operative edge are all bonus to the skill roll.

Skill rank is just that, how many ranks a character has in that skill.

And the Gunnery Check is Dex mod, + (pilot skill rank OR BAB). A full BAB class who also takes a rank in Pilot skill does not get to double that number.

Unfortunately there is this rule:

Page 322, under Actions: wrote:


Class features and items affect crew actions only if specifically noted in the class feature or item.

So Operative's Edge doesn't apply by the rules currently. People are arguing that the above rule needs to be reviewed and rewritten.

Skill focus, class skill bonus, and race bonuses would apply for piloting checks, but not for gunnery checks.

It's just BAB (or piloting ranks) + Dex.

Basically that made it such that class that didn't have full BAB (everyone but Soldier and Solarion) could fire the guns without being super terrible at it.

As far as why they didn't make it a separate skill...they didn't want player to have a waste a skill point on just being able to shoot the starship guns.

I'm sorry if this offends your sense of reality on the space ship with plasma weapon, but just remember this is a game and the point is to have fun. Even, or especially at, the cost of "realism".


But the Pilot isn't shooting. The Gunner is.

I know it is an attack roll. I am saying I wish it was either JUST an attack roll or it's own skill.

Piloting shouldn't make you better at shooting. Those are completely different skills. Right now, an optimized pilot and an optimized gunner can just flip flop places. Would you expect that to happen in a modern day tank?


CactusUnicorn wrote:

But the Pilot isn't shooting. The Gunner is.

I know it is an attack roll. I am saying I wish it was either JUST an attack roll or it's own skill.

Piloting shouldn't make you better at shooting. Those are completely different skills. Right now, an optimized pilot and an optimized gunner can just flip flop places. Would you expect that to happen in a modern day tank?

I also found it odd that science officer and engineer get their own skill but pilot/navigate/gunnery is all the same. I think I'd have preferred a "starship operation" skill with the associated stat varying based on what role you were filling (using Dex for astrogation is weird to me too).


The skills for science officer and engineering are the skills that Paizo could most closely associate with an existing skill without creating an entirely new skill just for Starship Combat. One of their goals was to minimize the number of skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had just assumed that making BAB and pilot both operate the guns was so single person ships could be possible.

Also, there's the idea that two different skill sets can both yield similar competencies when fields overlap: basic combat training (BAB) and starship piloting can both result in knowledge of how to fire a ship's weapons.

Just like how being an Ace Pilot let's you use your piloting skill for engineering and science checks related to repairing the ship.

Liberty's Edge

Claxon wrote:
<<snip>>

I think you are agreeing with me. Because what you said is what I thought I said...

In any case, we are in agreement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
CactusUnicorn wrote:

But the Pilot isn't shooting. The Gunner is.

I know it is an attack roll. I am saying I wish it was either JUST an attack roll or it's own skill.

Piloting shouldn't make you better at shooting. Those are completely different skills. Right now, an optimized pilot and an optimized gunner can just flip flop places. Would you expect that to happen in a modern day tank?

I also found it odd that science officer and engineer get their own skill but pilot/navigate/gunnery is all the same. I think I'd have preferred a "starship operation" skill with the associated stat varying based on what role you were filling (using Dex for astrogation is weird to me too).

Again, gunnery is NOT a skill check, it's an attack. It's based on BAB. There's just an option to use your ranks in the pilot skill as your BAB for that attack. It is NOT a skill check.

Liberty's Edge

The Mighty Khan wrote:
Again, gunnery is NOT a skill check, it's an attack. It's based on BAB. There's just an option to use your ranks in the pilot skill as your BAB for that attack. It is NOT a skill check.

How I wish I would have said this! Direct and to the point!


The Mighty Khan wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
CactusUnicorn wrote:

But the Pilot isn't shooting. The Gunner is.

I know it is an attack roll. I am saying I wish it was either JUST an attack roll or it's own skill.

Piloting shouldn't make you better at shooting. Those are completely different skills. Right now, an optimized pilot and an optimized gunner can just flip flop places. Would you expect that to happen in a modern day tank?

I also found it odd that science officer and engineer get their own skill but pilot/navigate/gunnery is all the same. I think I'd have preferred a "starship operation" skill with the associated stat varying based on what role you were filling (using Dex for astrogation is weird to me too).
Again, gunnery is NOT a skill check, it's an attack. It's based on BAB. There's just an option to use your ranks in the pilot skill as your BAB for that attack. It is NOT a skill check.

Sure. I'm not arguing about semantics.

I'm expressing an opinion that I find it odd that an envoy who trains as a pilot gets better at gunnery. And that dexterous characters are better at navigation.

That seems odd to me and I would have preferred they'd done it differently (so it was a skill check - complicating a system with exceptions is always a turnoff to me, however trivial the complication).


Claxon wrote:

The skills for science officer and engineering are the skills that Paizo could most closely associate with an existing skill without creating an entirely new skill just for Starship Combat. One of their goals was to minimize the number of skills.

Yeah, I understand.

What I was saying is that I think it would have been simpler to have a broader new skill (spaceship operation, in place of piloting) rather than the "count your skill ranks but don't make a skill check" mechanic - you just know people are going to mess that up and use bonus in place of ranks.


Again, if ( say ) Operative's Edge doesn't apply to a Crew Action, it means the definition of "no class ability" is so broad that your skill ranks won't apply either. You get them from your class just as much as you get Operative's Edge.


If stuff like Operative's Edge doesn't work with ship skills, how the hell are characters supposed to make their skill checks in ship combat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pilot skill? I used to drive my T-16 and bullseye womp rats with it back home.


Skill ranks are not class specific. Even a class skill bonus changes with the class.

On the flip side, if we counted straight up bonuses, a crew of operatives would be kings of the void. I believe every position but Captain is Int or Dex based.

Having played every ship combat written so far for SF, it is not that difficult to sit down and figure out your crew position bonus at the beginning of combat.

Metaphysician wrote:
Again, if ( say ) Operative's Edge doesn't apply to a Crew Action, it means the definition of "no class ability" is so broad that your skill ranks won't apply either. You get them from your class just as much as you get Operative's Edge.


It says nothing about "class specific abilities". It says "class abilities". And which skills you get, and how many points, are determined by. . . your class.

Also, yes, the point about "NPC skill ratings scaling up based on bonuses applying" applies. If only the skill rank is supposed to be useful, how come NPCs get the same total skill bonuses that assume extra bonuses apply?


Skill point aren't class features.

Class features are explicitly defined. Quit calling skills points calls features, that is pure misunderstanding or misinformation on your part.

If you open any of the class entries on the Starfinder SRD like this you'll see what things are class features. Skill points are listed above that. They aren't class features.

The class features that the technomancer has (for an example) are:
Spells, Spell Cache, Magic Hack, Spell Focus, Techlore, etc.

Golurkcanfly wrote:
If stuff like Operative's Edge doesn't work with ship skills, how the hell are characters supposed to make their skill checks in ship combat?

Paizo is reevaluating the current DCs for Starship combat and is aware current values are too high. They have not issued a solution yet, but they have admitted it's a problem and are working to correct it.

So the answer is, you're not supposed to currently succeed on the skill checks because they're just too high and are going to be changed in the near future.

Liberty's Edge

Metaphysician wrote:
Also, yes, the point about "NPC skill ratings scaling up based on bonuses applying" applies. If only the skill rank is supposed to be useful, how come NPCs get the same total skill bonuses that assume extra bonuses apply?

NPCs use different rules than PCs for almost everything they do. We can't draw any conclusions by comparing PCs to NPCs.


Yes, they use different rules. However, the *point* of those rules is to keep NPCs competitive with PCs, at various levels. If NPCs get CR x 1.5 in ships, but PCs only get CR x1.0, then they most definitely are not keeping up in levels.

Liberty's Edge

Claxon wrote:

Paizo is reevaluating the current DCs for Starship combat and is aware current values are too high. They have not issued a solution yet, but they have admitted it's a problem and are working to correct it.

So the answer is, you're not supposed to currently succeed on the skill checks because they're just too high and are going to be changed in the near future.

This isn't evidence one way or the other since the current DCs are too high even if you can add bonuses like Operative's Edge (which, for the record, I do think all the evidence supports being the intent, what with pregens not having a separate 'space combat piloting score' or anything similar).


I agree that we should probably get to apply a lot of class features, but that's not what the rules say. Which is why we have a thread (somewhere) asking for a FAQ.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Page 322, under Actions: wrote:


Class features and items affect crew actions only if specifically noted in the class feature or item.

Operative's edge does not affect crew actions. Crew actions remain exactly the same with or without it. Operative's edge effects skills, not actions. Ergo, you can use your total skill modifiers (with operative's edge) during starship encounters.

Seems fairly clear cut to me.


I would call that the opposite of clear cut, as I reach the completely opposite conclusion RD, with how it's written.

I agree that's how it should be run, but that's not how it reads to me.

Liberty's Edge

I too read it the same way as Ravingdork but can also see how Claxon is reading it.

The way I read it is that Operative's Edge is effecting the skills of the character not the actions that the character is taking during ship combat.

A drone is different because it is a separate entity that requires a character to take an action to use the "class feature".

But a clear FAQ would help greatly.


I'm going to muddy the waters a bit, but I have a personal way of deciding if a feature is a class feature. If I had a code like a paladin and violating that code meant I lost access to my class's features, would I lose this feature? Things that I don't lose are Bab, skill points go/stamina and proficiencies. Pretty much everything else I would expect to lose. Ergo they are class features.

Liberty's Edge

A good way to look at it.

However, there is a difference from losing access to a class feature to a class feature not being able to be used in a specific situation.


That's true, but if they say you can't use class features this is a litmus test for what IS a class feature and what is NOT. It's not in the rules anywhere, but it's my personal way of telling, and I think it does a pretty good job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I quite like the space combat system. Keeps number low and doesn't give in to maximising. Means everyone can be busy and allows everyone a chance to be gunner, captain etc
It's very good there is no pilot class, gunner class, captain class, no glitter boy class etc


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Whether or not it is a class feature is not the litmus test, by my reading. The test is whether or not it is a class feature that affects actions.


Ravingdork, my test is not for determining if you can use a cpecific class feature in conjuntion with a crew action or not. My test is used for determining if something is a class feature or not. I know this is somewhat muddled so I'll go through a couple examples.

Operative's Edge:
First step, I ask myself if I had a code of conduct to be an operative (know this is not the case, but roll with me) and I violated this code, would I expect to keep my operative's edge? I would not, so this is a class feature.

Step two: So since this is a class feature, and it doesn't say specifically note that this feature can be used to affect crew actions I cannot use this with a crew action.

Skill ranks:
I ask myself, the same question, if I had a code of conduct and I violated it would I lose these. No I wouldn't, so this isn't a class feature, even though I in a round about way get these from my class.

Since this isn't a class feature I can uses skill ranks to affect my crew actions.

Mechanic's Mirical Worker:
I ask myself, the same question, if I had a code of conduct and I violated it would I lose miricle worker? Probably, therefore this is a class feature

The description of this feature however specifically mentions being used during the engineering phase of space combat. Therefore I can use this because it is an exception to the blanket rule of no class features functioning.


It's not a perfect test, but it's fairly intuitive. There is a section that specifically outlines what is an isn't a class feature (pg 59). In the end my "test" is only a tool (an imperfect one) but it works for me.


After a few more space fights dexterity is starting to vex me. It's already the best ability and in Gunnery I really don't like it. The low skill and low dex solarion and soldier, with little else to do in space combat, are relegated to being rubbish gunners. The mechanic and technomage are the best at every role except captain
I may swap strength for dex for gunnery as there are lots of examples in fact and fiction of needing muscles for big guns. Even as full bab classes they will takes ages to get on par


I'm not opposed to the idea of making Strength more useful in ship combat, but swapping gunnery checks to strength will screw over ranged soldiers almost as bad as the current system screws over melee soldiers. I'd suggest taking a softer approach, maybe leaving it up to the player if they want to use strength or dexterity for gunnery checks?


Yeah. Mistyped. I meant best of str or dex, maybe even Int as well. Visualise what the gun looks like and how it's fired ( is it a button, like a 50 cal, like a joystick etc).


Unless I'm misremembering, aren't some crew actions like piloting and engineering actual skill checks vs a DC to accomplish something?

Gunnery actually seems to be the odd man out in that it has its own formula.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are correct. In fact, Gunnery is not a skill check at all and does not have a DC. It goes against AC and TL.


What bothers me about Gunnery, and most space combat, is the skil bonuses that NPC crew get.

Standard bonus for a n NPC or enemy ship crew is 4.5 + (1.5 x tier) and one crew can have a single skill at Master level of 9 + (1.5 x tier)

A PC get's at best (tier + dex)

At 10th level an NPC would have +19 or +24
A PC with personal upgrade and staring at Dex 18 could have +17


Yeah, the NPC skill bonus are what I am seeing as one of the big issues for player besides DCs for checks being crazy at higher tiers.

NPCs gunnery checks at times feel like why don't they just auto hit players' ship? Even when factoring in pilot rank.

Liberty's Edge

Yea, I can see your point.

Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / Gunnery All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions